ATF Announces New Category of NFA Weapon for Franklin Reformation.

Gotta love legal definitions...sometimes...

Let's create a gun that splits hairs on legal definitions in various laws and see how many we can sell (at ~$1400) before the govt finally decides where in their framework it belongs.

Oh, and the ATF says you can't sell any to a non-FFL, and if you already privately own one you cant take it across state lines UNTIL we come up with a process to fit it into our system.

And what is it? I admit I'm not into the AR market, but it appears to be a short barrel, short stocked AR in 5.56mm with a grooved, not rifled barrel.

Since the straight grooves do not impart spin, and imparting spin is the whole point of rifling, it isn't "rifled". And, if it isn't rifled, then by definition, it can't be a rifle. SO it skirts that legal definition.

But , its also not chambered for shotgun ammunition, so its avoids the definition of shotgun in that direction.

Is it a handgun? handguns have to be rifled, or they fall into the "sawed off shotgun" class. Is it an AOW? Is it an NFA item, or just a "regular" gun that falls under the other gun control laws (GCA 68 in particular)??

Seems to be the ATF is trying to make up its mind. I'm sure they will, eventually. They always do. Just their mind changes sometimes....

A .223 that doesn't spin the bullets....I don't have a use for one of those...nor do I have the $ to donate to the worthy cause of poking gun control law in the eye while following the letter of the law. Additionally, my state is one of the 11 states they listed as NOT selling to, so for me, its a moot point.


perhaps some enterprising fellow or group will come up with .224 caliber fin stabilized projectile, but be sure it doesn't meet anyone's definition of armor piercing, or we won't be able to buy those, either...:rolleyes:
 
In 5.56, yes and yes.

In a pistol caliber with a nose-heavy Foster slug style bullet? Not match grade, but perhaps workable.

The GCA defines shotguns as firing shotgun shells and smoothbore.

I'm thinking the ATF is just throwing spaghetti at the wall here.
 
To be honest, that looks a lot like the ATF is saying, "It's new. We don't like it. Let's try to ban it."
Click to expand...

I didn't quite get that from what was provided. What I got was "its new, we don't know where to put it, so until we do, you can't sell them, or cross state lines with them..."

So not exactly a ban, as there is an implied "when we do, you can"
but in practical terms at this moment, if you can't buy one, its a distinction without a difference.
 
Spats McGee said:
To be honest, that looks a lot like the ATF is saying, "It's new. We don't like it. Let's try to ban it."
Click to expand...
I can only imagine the back and forth over this at the ATF the past few weeks/months:

"Well, it's not a rifled barrel and it has a buttstock, thus it can only be a shotgun."

"Yeah, but to be a shotgun the barrel has to be smooth."

"It's not rifled and it's not smooth, but it's obviously going to be the next trend by gunmakers to make what would be a short barrel shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches and put these grooves in it so it doesn't have to be regulated like Short Barrel Shotguns are, so we have to come up with something otherwise there's going to be blood running in the streets."

"Oh hell, let's just work some magic like we did with bump stocks and say it simulates a sawed off shotgun and that which simulates that which is regulated we'll just declare that the simulated gun IS what it simulates and thus must also be regulated."

"EXCELLENT! That simulated gun being no different than the gun that's regulated would work wonders for those pesky pistol braces and the SBR regulations! We'll get to working on that when we get back in 2020. Excellent work people, we saved the day again! Merry Christmas to all!"
 
This kind of thing is to be expected when you play the kind of game Franklin is playing. Eventually there's going to be pushback. In this case, it really only affects the Reformation, but in the past, companies have pushed the boundaries and affected the whole community when they finally drew attention from the BATF.
 
44 AMP said:
I didn't quite get that from what was provided. What I got was "its new, we don't know where to put it, so until we do, you can't sell them, or cross state lines with them..."

So not exactly a ban, as there is an implied "when we do, you can"
but in practical terms at this moment, if you can't buy one, its a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
"....when we do...." IMHO, BATFE has no reason to go any further, unless there's a legal challenge to this. It has 'classified' it, and banned its transfer and transportation. It doesn't care what happens to Franklin, so why make it easier to sell or transfer these if it doesn't have to?
 
JohnKSa said:
This kind of thing is to be expected when you play the kind of game Franklin is playing. Eventually there's going to be pushback. In this case, it really only affects the Reformation, but in the past, companies have pushed the boundaries and affected the whole community when they finally drew attention from the BATF.
Click to expand...
I don't know that I'd call it a game. Congress and BATFE wrote the rules. If they don't like something that a company is doing, they should have addressed it when they did so. It's called 'not outlawing' something.
 
The thing is, the Reformation was impractical as a firearm anyway - particularly with pistol braces being a thing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in the wild.

There isn’t really any logical point to reclassifying the Fostech ABV and Reformation and then doing nothing about pistol braces. If I had to guess, I’d say that ride may be coming to an end after 2020.
 
What's impractical about a short barrel, short stock AR pattern 5.56mm that isn't rifled, so will likely be minute of man accurate clear out to across the room distance, maybe?? :rolleyes: and that can fire when you pull the trigger and when you let it trigger go??

{sarcasm}

I seriously doubt any good will come of this, beyond a temporary profit for the manufacturer. Likely it will result in harm, in the form of enhanced regulation, and new "interpretation" of regulations applied to other things,.

At least the maker isn't publicly sticking out their tongue and going "neener,neener" the way some kids have done over 3D printing and "ghost guns"...

so far, anyway...
 
I was ecstatic about the idea of a non-NFA shotgun like the Mossberg Raptor, even though I have not purchased one. It has a particular use for a limited number of circumstances. I was never crazy about bump stocks, though I could see the fun in shooting one. But the Reformation? I don't see a need, a use, or any particular fun in owning or shooting one --- unless it's by those who just like to poke the bear. But, sometimes, the bear pokes back.
 
I don't know that I'd call it a game. Congress and BATFE wrote the rules. If they don't like something that a company is doing, they should have addressed it when they did so. It's called 'not outlawing' something.
Click to expand...
There was already a ruling about straight rifling. A guy named Walter H. Craig started importing .45Colt/.410 pistols with rifling that was pretty faint and essentially straight and the BATF shut him down. I think that ruling also affected TC at the time as well.
 
JohnKSa said:
This kind of thing is to be expected when you play the kind of game Franklin is playing. Eventually there's going to be pushback. In this case, it really only affects the Reformation, but in the past, companies have pushed the boundaries and affected the whole community when they finally drew attention from the BATF.
Click to expand...

I’m not a gambling man, but I’ll bet EVERYTHING I own…this all started from someone sending a letter to the ATF asking for clarification, then another, then another, then another…ATF thinks…”we need to look into this” and here we are
 
With pistol braces avail, i dont see the need for this type of firearm.

I can have a rifled barrel of whatever length i want and keep the accuracy that a rifled barrel gives me.
 
I’m not a gambling man, but I’ll bet EVERYTHING I own…this all started from someone sending a letter to the ATF asking for clarification, then another, then another, then another…ATF thinks…”we need to look into this” and here we are.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that Franklin Armory would have asked for a ruling before they went into production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top