ATF eForm 1 mega thread. Process and approvals!

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,559
Likes
5,219
Location
Philadelphia, PA
So, basically, if you were already in possession of components that already meet the definition of a silencer in the ATF’s eyes, they’re disapproving. That’s not surprising. Can’t you manufacture via a form1 approval a can with components that are not already classified as a can, as the form1 process was intended?
Everybody is getting the same message. People with solvent trap kits and people who claimed they submitted plans to turn parts on a lathe. It seems their indiscriminately disapproving form 1 silencers.

If you Reddit you can see a lot of them in r/Form1 and r/NFA. I think there’s a thread on ARFcom too.
 

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,559
Likes
5,219
Location
Philadelphia, PA
It widely held that if you have a Diversified Machine form 1 silencer you will be forced to turn it in to the ATF. Even if they previously approved your form 1 application. This is a significant new level of tyranny from the ATF.

 

Tartakovsky

NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
994
Likes
2,953
Location
NH
It widely held that if you have a Diversified Machine form 1 silencer you will be forced to turn it in to the ATF. Even if they previously approved your form 1 application. This is a significant new level of tyranny from the ATF.

Am I incorrect in my understanding that people submitted form 1s to make suppressors, and they purchased all the components to make the suppressors from a company (Diversified Machine) that basically manufactures all the components for said suppressor, basically just disassembled? How is that not constructive possession? They 1. Submitted form 1s. 2. Purchased a bunch of suppressor parts, like all of them, (mount, baffles, tube, etc) just disassembled. 3. Got caught buying basically suppressors just disassembled and 4. Got disapproved for being caught in possession of basically disassembled suppressors? What am I missing here? How can people fault the ATF here?
 

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,559
Likes
5,219
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Am I incorrect in my understanding that people submitted form 1s to make suppressors, and they purchased all the components to make the suppressors from a company (Diversified Machine) that basically manufactures all the components for said suppressor, basically just disassembled? How is that not constructive possession? They 1. Submitted form 1s. 2. Purchased a bunch of suppressor parts, like all of them, (mount, baffles, tube, etc) just disassembled. 3. Got caught buying basically suppressors just disassembled and 4. Got disapproved for being caught in possession of basically disassembled suppressors? What am I missing here? How can people fault the ATF here?
I’m not a big Form 1 silencer person but I think they were allowed because the were basically the equivalent of an 80% upper. The baffles and end cap have to be drilled by the builder at a minimum. Do get decent suppression they need to be clipped too.

I think the biggest issue is that the ATF had approved these kits for years. If you believe the internet they are going to take action on those approved silencers. I see your point on the kits going forward but why the sudden change?
 

Tartakovsky

NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
994
Likes
2,953
Location
NH
I’m not a big Form 1 silencer person but I think they were allowed because the were basically the equivalent of an 80% upper. The baffles and end cap have to be drilled by the builder at a minimum. Do get decent suppression they need to be clipped too.

I think the biggest issue is that the ATF had approved these kits for years. If you believe the internet they are going to take action on those approved silencers. I see your point on the kits going forward but why the sudden change?
Me neither. My form 1 experience is limited to SBRs. My guess (and that’s all it is), is that folks pushed the envelope while they could as long as they could until the ATF either caught on and/or decided enough is enough. They always maintained that components possession is constructive possession, and prohibited. I get your example with 80% lowers, but we’re talking about class 3 stuff here, held at a stricter level. I’m new to all this too since I’ve been a MA resident most my life with no hopes of suppressor ownership until last year when I established residency in NH.
 

Moosehunter2

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   1   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
8
Likes
7
I just had two eForm 1s clear this week in 8 and 10 days. It’s actually odd since I sent the cover letters and a set of prints in the same envelope. Anyway if you been sitting on an eForm 1 it seems like a very good time to send it off. I did an Arsenal SAM7K and my replacement Tommybuilt G36c, since the ATF randomly determined the original G36c was a machine gun.
I submitted my first sbr eform 1 on the 2/19/22 hoping to get it approved this week
 
Last edited:

Tartakovsky

NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
994
Likes
2,953
Location
NH
Interesting read

 

APFSDS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
203
Likes
355
Location
North Central MA
The ATF is mass disapproving all pending Form 1 silencers today. Some version of this message has been sent to everybody.
How do they know someone already has the parts? Did the confiscate DMs sales records and only send it to the people that are on them? Maybe they got those parts and tossed them. This seems like a convenient way to cut down on "cheap" suppressors since they can't stop them with legislation.
 

APFSDS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
203
Likes
355
Location
North Central MA
Also, at least a while ago (circa 2013), all you had to put was length, diameter and caliber. No drawings, no description of what or how you would make it, just those three dimensions, and the ATF would approve it.
 

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,559
Likes
5,219
Location
Philadelphia, PA
How do they know someone already has the parts? Did the confiscate DMs sales records and only send it to the people that are on them? Maybe they got those parts and tossed them. This seems like a convenient way to cut down on "cheap" suppressors since they can't stop them with legislation.
There are a lot of people who believe the ATF did grab records. They have raided every silencer kit maker in the last six months. Who knows if that’s really true that they took sales records.
 

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,559
Likes
5,219
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Are all form1 supps being denied now or just the DM branded stuff?
There was an email from the ATF a few days ago giving some clarity. They created an email address where you have to send pics of the materials you will build your form 1 silencer from when you apply. No idea yet if they will disapprove all form 1 from kits.
 

Tartakovsky

NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
994
Likes
2,953
Location
NH
There was an email from the ATF a few days ago giving some clarity. They created an email address where you have to send pics of the materials you will build your form 1 silencer from when you apply. No idea yet if they will disapprove all form 1 from kits.
Aren’t they also requiring the blue print/design/schematic as well as raw materials? I wonder if the examiners are doing their own internal form1 suppressor Shark Tank.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
84,821
Likes
76,327
There was an email from the ATF a few days ago giving some clarity. They created an email address where you have to send pics of the materials you will build your form 1 silencer from when you apply. No idea yet if they will disapprove all form 1 from kits.

Food for fun, whats to stop people from crapflooding them with fancy looking shit and getting the stamp and just engraving (whatever) in reality? in the end nobody could argue they didn’t follow the law.
 

JRT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
3,559
Likes
5,219
Location
Philadelphia, PA
When I did my last (first) Form 1 SBS - The steps had be upload a photo of the receiver. According to other reddit NFA members - some had to and some didn't. I had to but whatever. It's always changing!
I just did two SBRs and for the f***s I uploaded a picture of the receiver for one and didn't for the other. They both were approved.
 

lazypengu1n

NES Member
Rating - 100%
90   0   0
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
522
Likes
364
Location
Big walkway across from small walkway
I just did two SBRs and for the f***s I uploaded a picture of the receiver for one and didn't for the other. They both were approved.
Yeah, it's weird. Just be glad whatever you are Form 1 - It's already in the drop down list cause if it ain't - It's PITA.

Funny story - My friend got his Form 1 denied because he entered "Short Barrel Rifle" and the examiner replied to him and stated it should have been "SBR" and didn't give him a chance to fix or anything, straight deny.

I reviewed ALL my Form 1s and they ALL have it spelled out "Short Barrel Rifle" "Short Barrel Shotgun" "Destructive Device" - No idea why they flip and flop so much.

From the reddit forums - The OG Ted Cuttler (the man... so many approved forms from this dude mentioned online) I think is his name is no longer and it's a new crew now.
 
Top Bottom