NFA @ 18 is legal Here is the letter.

[cositc]

Hey after some searching i found the ATF letter that says somebody below 21 can make and own a NFA item. Just thought you all should know.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

The NFA is silent on age restrictions...

Hm.

I wonder if that agent really knows what he just said to the world-at-large.

Thanks for the post, but I doubt many agents would put much stock in it.

There are many conflicting law letters from BATFE, especially if the agent reading it isn't the one who wrote it.

Still, a VERY interesting law letter.

 

[NateIU10]

Yeah, you can build them with the stamp, but cannot get a dealer to transfer to you under 21.

 

[CountryBoy19]

The NFA is silent on age restrictions...

Hm.

I wonder if that agent really knows what he just said to the world-at-large.

Thanks for the post, but I doubt many agents would put much stock in it.

There are many conflicting law letters from BATFE, especially if the agent reading it isn't the one who wrote it.

Still, a VERY interesting law letter.

It was my understanding that it's been known for a few years now that you can build at age 18, but not buy, just like you can buy a handgun at private party in IN at 18 but not from a dealer.

I've never seen anything to the contrary. Is there more of a basis for your claim or are you just going by hearsay as well?

You will never be hassled by an ATF agent based on your age if you indeed did build the Title II firearm.

 

[rex soldier]

cool , thanks guys .

 

[mconley]

Yeah, you can build them with the stamp, but cannot get a dealer to transfer to you under 21.

This

 

[mconley]

just like you can buy a handgun at private party in IN at 18 but not from a dealer.

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, when did this happen?

 

[cositc]

cool , thanks guys .

hey your welcome i was wanting to know about this as well thats why i did some reacher and found a letter so i will be building a SBR ASAP i'm going to start filling out the paper work "Form 1" to night.

 

[cositc]

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, when did this happen?

Thats how it has all ways been in indiana.

 

[jesse485]

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, when did this happen?

Since buying from a dealer is a federal law (21+), and possession of a handgun is IN law (18+), you can buy from a non-dealer at 18.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

It was my understanding that it's been known for a few years now that you can build at age 18, but not buy, just like you can buy a handgun at private party in IN at 18 but not from a dealer.

I've never seen anything to the contrary. Is there more of a basis for your claim or are you just going by hearsay as well?

You will never be hassled by an ATF agent based on your age if you indeed did build the Title II firearm.

What claim?

That the ATF disregards some of its own law letters?
That is a well-documented issue with BATFE.

 

[CarmelHP]

What claim?

That the ATF disregards some of its own law letters?
That is a well-documented issue with BATFE.

Only rulings are agency determinations of law, letters have no authority. Also, they never did answer the question whether it would be approved. We need a test case.

 

[VUPDblue]

The NFA is silent on age restrictions...

Hm.

I wonder if that agent really knows what he just said to the world-at-large.

Thanks for the post, but I doubt many agents would put much stock in it.

There are many conflicting law letters from BATFE, especially if the agent reading it isn't the one who wrote it.

Still, a VERY interesting law letter.

And you'd be incorrect. This letter wasn't written by some random agent. K. Houchens was the head of the technology branch of BATFE when this letter was penned. Tech branch rulings, while sometimes contradictory, are guidelines on how agents enforce the law.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

And you'd be incorrect. This letter wasn't written by some random agent. K. Houchens was the head of the technology branch of BATFE when this letter was penned. Tech branch rulings, while sometimes contradictory, are guidelines on how agents enforce the law.

So no one in BATFE is allowed to ignore his non-weight-of-law letter cause he's the top guy in that particular department?

I'm more confused now than I was before.

 

[CarmelHP]

And you'd be incorrect. This letter wasn't written by some random agent. K. Houchens was the head of the technology branch of BATFE when this letter was penned. Tech branch rulings, while sometimes contradictory, are guidelines on how agents enforce the law.

It's not a ruling. Rulings are published in the Federal Register as rulings. It's a private letter, which may be persuasive, but is not definitive.

 

[VUPDblue]

That's not what I implied. My point was that the letter wasn't some random agent's opinion. It was a letter from the top dog that makes such rulings. Also, the letter wasn't really an opinion, rather a verification that the law is silent on age of ownership and age to manufacture.

 

[VUPDblue]

It's not a ruling. Rulings are published in the Federal Register as rulings. It's a private letter, which may be persuasive, but is not definitive.

^^this^^

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

It's not a ruling. Rulings are published in the Federal Register as rulings. It's a private letter, which may be persuasive, but is not definitive.

That's not what I implied. My point was that the letter wasn't some random agent's opinion. It was a letter from the top dog that makes such rulings. Also, the letter wasn't really an opinion, rather a verification that the law is silent on age of ownership and age to manufacture.

You two sort this out and get back to me.

Carmel - I'm aware of the Federal Register and CFR both. I was simply of the mistaken understanding that such letters indicate legal opinions of the BATFE.

VUPDBlue - I get your point, but if in fact, as Carmel is saying, the letter isn't legal memorandum, then my question is, in essence, are all agents REQUIRED to abide his top-dog opinion? If it's not binding law, then is there some internal regulation that says 'You WILL not contradict this guy's opinion' or is it mere respect given that the top dog is the top dog, so to speak? Not trying to be difficult, I really just don't understand what gives the letter its weight if it's not binding legal opinion.

 

[VUPDblue]

Therein lies the conundrum. It was a letter like this that allowed the Akins Accelerator and then disallowed it.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Therein lies the conundrum. It was a letter like this that allowed the Akins Accelerator and then disallowed it.

I just read up on the Akins thing.
That's terrible. Millions of dollars and eleven years of Akins' life - hell, he'd've gotten out of jail in that time if he had KNOWINGLY been in violation of the NFA - and probably for much cheaper. That's just... depressing.

So there's basically NOTHING that ensures that these letters won't be over-ridden at a later date even if the original is done by a top-dog?

Can we do this all over, the whole thing?