berettaprofessor
New member
This is second hand, but I was just told by a gunsmith friend that he had purchased a Remington 700 action in-state (Kansas) recently and gone to pick it up but the seller (FFL) denied a personal transfer because my friend had a Texas DL (college student). According to that FFL, the ATF had visited him recently and told him that non-adjacent state rifle transfers were no longer valid. They arranged to have it shipped FFL to FFL in Texas.
My gunsmith friend then called Cabelas to ask if it was true and was told that Cabelas in Kansas had also been visited recently by an ATF agent who had gone through their records and started to pick out the non-adjacent state rifle sales as "illegal". When challenged with the regulations, that ATF agent supposedly admitted that they knew the regulations currently permitted it, but "they're working on changing the regs."
So, I know this is a bit hearsay, but anybody else out there, particularly FFL's with first hand knowledge, heard the same? Is this a response to Montana's actions or just the usual bureaucratic power-grabbing?
My gunsmith friend then called Cabelas to ask if it was true and was told that Cabelas in Kansas had also been visited recently by an ATF agent who had gone through their records and started to pick out the non-adjacent state rifle sales as "illegal". When challenged with the regulations, that ATF agent supposedly admitted that they knew the regulations currently permitted it, but "they're working on changing the regs."
So, I know this is a bit hearsay, but anybody else out there, particularly FFL's with first hand knowledge, heard the same? Is this a response to Montana's actions or just the usual bureaucratic power-grabbing?