R.W. Parker
Well-known member
Esteemed Gentlemen,
The other night I watched Matt Gaetz flailing over this pistol brace thing, in part because the ATFs new rule wasn't approved by Congress. That got me to thinking about electronic ("e-Forms") 1 and 4 I've seen, that were approved with a facsimile of a $200 NFA tax stamp.
It's long been my understanding that the owner of a Title II firearm is authorized to possess same by the appropriate approved Form, with tax stamp affixed.
Obviously these "e-Forms" lack the singular device that makes possession of the named device "legal"; to wit: an actual, canceled NFA tax stamp.
While I'm sure that ATF has issued a "ruling" that gives these e-forms the same legal weight, I don't believe NFA '34 or GCA '68 has been similarly amended by Congress.
Does anyone other than me think we might see a day (perhaps after an alleged attack by "Russian hackers" on the NFTR) where ATF might no longer recognize the legitimacy of approved e-forms, because they lack the mechanism that grants lawful possession?
The other night I watched Matt Gaetz flailing over this pistol brace thing, in part because the ATFs new rule wasn't approved by Congress. That got me to thinking about electronic ("e-Forms") 1 and 4 I've seen, that were approved with a facsimile of a $200 NFA tax stamp.
It's long been my understanding that the owner of a Title II firearm is authorized to possess same by the appropriate approved Form, with tax stamp affixed.
Obviously these "e-Forms" lack the singular device that makes possession of the named device "legal"; to wit: an actual, canceled NFA tax stamp.
While I'm sure that ATF has issued a "ruling" that gives these e-forms the same legal weight, I don't believe NFA '34 or GCA '68 has been similarly amended by Congress.
Does anyone other than me think we might see a day (perhaps after an alleged attack by "Russian hackers" on the NFTR) where ATF might no longer recognize the legitimacy of approved e-forms, because they lack the mechanism that grants lawful possession?