Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2]  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) new ruling from ATF (Read 1340 times)
Cat_Whisperer
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


No 1, 9.3x74R

Posts: 3997
Location: Mountains of Virginia
Joined: Apr 17th, 2004
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #15 - Oct 10th, 2026 at 2:17pm
Print Post  
DoubleD wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Ah yes 14"  7TCU XP 100 with a Donnelly barrel.  Often thought of trying to fit a Remington 600 stock to it. I wonder.... 


Oooooo.  I have an xp100 rifle in 6mm.  Will the rem 600 fit it (with  opening the barrel groove, of course) or do I need to use a short 700 stock?
  

Cat Whisperer (trk)
Chief of Smoke
Pulaski Coehorn Works and Skunk Works
Drafted May 1970, Retired Maj. U.S.Army
assra #9885
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dellet
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1376
Joined: May 19th, 2017
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #16 - Oct 10th, 2026 at 2:34pm
Print Post  
bpjack wrote on Oct 9th, 2026 at 6:35pm:
I can see it now.  A suppressed Pope barreled 32-40 high wall.

Teddy Rosevelt’s model 94 w Maxim silencer.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GunBum
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 335
Location: SW Missouri
Joined: Oct 30th, 2021
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #17 - Oct 10th, 2026 at 7:28pm
Print Post  
Be cautious before you jump in and start throwing stocks on Contenders and cutting off barrel length.  State laws still apply.  For example:

In these states, you can do as you wish with Suppressors:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

In these states, you still need a Form 1 or Form 4 from the ATF for suppressors (notice many of these are very pro gun, but have state laws that require the federal forms):
Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

In these states, you need to move to another state because they suck:
California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, plus Washington, D.C. 


The minefield is just as complex for short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and AOW’s.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff_Schultz
ASSRA Board Member
*****
Online



Posts: 1679
Location: Ransomville, NY
Joined: Apr 25th, 2004
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #18 - Oct 10th, 2026 at 7:53pm
Print Post  
  That does not look like any model 94 I've ever seen.
  

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

“There is no situation so bad that it cannot be made worse."

  "We are holding our own." Ernest McSorley Nov. 10, 1975
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dellet
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1376
Joined: May 19th, 2017
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #19 - Oct 10th, 2026 at 10:48pm
Print Post  
Jeff_Schultz wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 7:53pm:
  That does not look like any model 94 I've ever seen.

Maybe it’s not. Roosevelt was well known for special orders tho.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
« Last Edit: Oct 10th, 2026 at 11:06pm by Dellet »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
oughtsix
Global Moderator
ASSRA Board Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1374
Location: Columbus
Joined: May 31st, 2009
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #20 - Oct 11th, 2026 at 8:40pm
Print Post  
Funny how this non-enforcement of a law (by people sworn to uphold the law) pops up just before mid term elections.      I'd rather have the $5k
  

Life Member ASSRA, OGCA &  TSGC
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters........ Frank Lloyd Wright
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ssdave
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2199
Location: Eastern Oregon
Joined: Apr 16th, 2004
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #21 - Oct 11th, 2026 at 11:30pm
Print Post  
Jeff_Schultz wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 7:53pm:
  That does not look like any model 94 I've ever seen.


Looks like my takedown 92.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
craigd
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2067
Location: midwest
Joined: Feb 22nd, 2009
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #22 - Oct 12th, 2026 at 7:45am
Print Post  
oughtsix wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 8:40pm:
Funny how this non-enforcement of a law (by people sworn to uphold the law) pops up just before mid term elections.      I'd rather have the $5k


The timing can be questioned for agenda, but an August court ruling based on how these items were taxed, prompted the ATF to respond. There are plaintiffs, who won an injuction against the ATF, and this is a follow on compliance with the court order.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Joe_S
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1144
Joined: Jun 29th, 2004
Re: new ruling from ATF
Reply #23 - Oct 12th, 2026 at 1:40pm
Print Post  
I have not read the court opinion, and the devil is in the details. However, a determination by the Administration, (ATF) as to how to enforce the law is not binding on a subsequent administration and it is possible that a court at that time could rule differently, either on the basis of the law or if it can find a  relevant fact that is different from the facts in the previous decision. Until the entire law is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the US, or Congress amends or repeals it, be careful!

Joe S
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Send TopicPrint