NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: mott555 on January 09, 2015, 09:42:12 AM
-
Saw this on another forum and thought it might be worth some discussion.
Now that we supposedly have pro-gun GOP members in control of both houses of Congress, some people think we have a chance at getting a bill which repeals the National Firearms Act. Personally I think such bill wouldn't have a chance at passing (Oh no they're going to legalize machine guns!!!!!), but we could start small and repeal a couple smaller parts of the NFA. For example, removing restrictions on suppressors and SBRs seems like a logical starting point to me. It might be worth writing a letter to our representatives about this.
Thoughts?
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Please stop, my sides ache .... one of those things I'd like to "eat crow" over, but ain't gonna happen with these quislings ....
-
Yeah..... last time someone tried that we got 41P.... I think anything done with the NFA will be a KABOOM in the face!
-
people think the government is willing to give up free money?
-
Until someone, probably many someones, is willing to go to prison, we are stuck with this lawlessness called NFA. A great deal of "pro-guns" folks aren't in full support of the second so nothing is going to change until they do. They are worse than the antis in my book because they see not what they do.
-
i am all for it, but it will never happen. too many stereotypes and stigmas attached to NFA firearms.
-
I think the best we can hope for in any reasonable amount of time is to have suppressors removed. I don't see it happening though.
-
In its first bout at the Supreme Court it should have been ruled unconstitutional then. But for bad luck the defendant's attorney could not attend the final hearing. But then everyone thought it would be a slam dunk anyway.
Seeing as how the SCOTUS found in that case, arms of a nature common to military service should not be restricted, I don't see how it still stands. (Even though I think it doesn't matter what arms you are dealing with, the 2nd says nothing about military arms or hunting arms or knives or any class or design of "arm", taking it to mean ALL ARMS, but I digress)
The NFA was only a way to find work for the treasury guys laid off after the repeal of prohibition.
It has long since proved itself ineffective, unnecessary and burdensome. It is simply an example of one of the taxes we fought a war over at one time.
ATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
But the chance of any congress having the testicular fortitude to rid the nation of either ATF or NFA is remote. But it is worth a try.
Sissy boy has set a precedent, and if we ever get a real man for President again... there I go fantasizing again.
-
As I understand it, the concept of controling certain firearms came about from the crime of the time. The $200 fine was significant at the time to deter enthusiasts. These days $200 is not considered a huge obstacle...although the entire process is likely very costly. My concern is that someone might try to make an inflation adjustment...making the "fine" very high and potentially add in other limitations (like "able to accept").
With the current social media availability, it could be possible to pull together a large enough force to push a positive result. But first that force would have to first be pulled together. The large three letter groups don't always seem to be in the best interest of gun owners at times.
The head shaking above demonstrates that it is not ready.
How do we create a solution?...has to start somewhere (better than already created).
-
I think the best we can hope for in any reasonable amount of time is to have suppressors removed.
Agreed, if we were to start anywhere this would be it.
I was researching suppressors as I've never used one before and couldn't believe what I found. I was aware of the NFA tax stamps, but the wait times are ridiculous. Not to mention if you travel interstate. For most NFA items you have to ask the ATF permission to leave state with the item, and you have to give them the address of where you're going. Apparently this is not required for suppressors, but it's recommended to do it anyway in case you're stopped because most LEO's don't realize suppressors are exempt.
The only word I can think of to describe all that is infringement.
-
you dont ask permission to travel with NFA items, you inform BATFE you are doing it.
-
I recently contacted the game and parks about the power factor requirements for hunting. When discussing the subject with the law enforcement division the man I was speaking with did not know anything bout the NFA. He asked me when the subject of sbr and cans if it was easy to get them. He seemed surprised that people could and would get them and had no clue how to get them. I know they are not your normal LEO but I would think there job would have more encounters with weapons then many others divisions of law enforcement.
I can see suppressor being dropped maybe SBR but not shotguns. It's to easy for a gang banger to steal and cut down with a hack saw.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We dont have a super-majority in either houses, and after a veto from his highness all that effort would die in the cold and dark of someone's desk. Nice idea though it might be, in the current political climate it just wont happen. There are better places to put the $$$ and effort, like national reciprocity.
Ron
-
I recently contacted the game and parks about the power factor requirements for hunting. When discussing the subject with the law enforcement division the man I was speaking with did not know anything bout the NFA. He asked me when the subject of sbr and cans if it was easy to get them. He seemed surprised that people could and would get them and had no clue how to get them. I know they are not your normal LEO but I would think there job would have more encounters with weapons then many others divisions of law enforcement.
I can see suppressor being dropped maybe SBR but not shotguns. It's to easy for a gang banger to steal and cut down with a hack saw.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it not easy for gang bangers to hack down shotguns with the regulations enforced as they are now?
-
you can also cut down a rifle with relative ease.
-
you can also cut down a rifle with relative ease.
Your right. Just my opinion on the subject.
Unless a huge group goes after the NFA as one I think it's going to get worse. There will more regulations put in place. I'm not for the NFA right now but I could be made a lot worse if not done properly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Is it not easy for gang bangers to hack down shotguns with the regulations enforced as they are now?
They can and will. That's why I don't think you will see them removed. It's a easy charge to throw on people and its a "problem" they don't give a rats ass about legally owned items they look at the statics that show how many inter city killings are done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
How do we create a solution?...has to start somewhere (better than already created).
Starting locally would be the best thing I think. Getting more states to no recognize the NFA Kansas and several other states have passed laws disregard the NFA with some items. To me this is the place to start...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We dont have a super-majority in either houses, and after a veto from his highness all that effort would die in the cold and dark of someone's desk. Nice idea though it might be, in the current political climate it just wont happen. There are better places to put the $$$ and effort, like national reciprocity.
Ron
That's right. Folks can talk about this all they want but it won't be an initiative in the next two years. There are other planks in the platform and if the Republicans are playing to win in the next two years, rather than a couple short-term gains, the focus is on winning the White House and keeping or building the majority on the Hill. We're a heartbeat away from losing a conservative majority in the SCOTUS with the wrong party in the White House. With a 2016 win we're on the cusp of solidifying the majority nicely.
Energy independence and immigration reform are honestly bigger issues right now, both for your Joe Average voter, and in terms of national / personal security. We are pumping money into parts of the world that in turn pump immigrants into our country who don't give a flip about the liberties and freedoms we were founded on. In fact find those liberties antithetical to their "religion" to the point that they will murder the hand that feeds them. We need to change course now before we become France.
Health care is the other big issue in the next two years. Some of my less politically savvy friend who weren't paying attention a coupe years ago are now tearing their hair out wondering how their premiums tripled in price. The Republicans need to bury the White House with legislation and make him veto every solution to day-to-day problems all voters are facing. The "do nothing congress" needs to show everyone that he's really a "do nothing president".
The most important thing we can do to affect RKBA long-term prospects in the meantime? Take a newbie shooting every month. Keep building on the huge surge of popularity in the shooting sports and responsible gun ownership. Mention casually at work how you and the missus are going to the shooting range for date night. And if you're in the training business already, maybe give or raffle off a few training classes to demographic groups that aren't mainstream gun collectors / shooters. By just talking about the subject rationally at work I've turned a couple people on to the hobby in the last couple years who were probably already curious but didn't know how to get started. One of my former bosses, a single older lady, surprised me in how interested she was; then another colleague took her shooting and before you know it she bought an SR-22 and was itching to buy something else.
All the research studies from Pew, etc, show that there was a real change in attitude and gun ownership in the last couple years, in a pro-gun direction. It's actually very easy right at this time to make the tie-died anti-gun crowd continually marginalized and irrelevant. Facts are not in their side, only emotion. Just keep kicking them while they are down and bring more and more shooters into the fold, and the long term prospects will look good.
-
Is it not easy for gang bangers to hack down shotguns with the regulations enforced as they are now?
This is where I have a problem with legislation. It is assumed that removing certain types of firearms will reduce crime. The fact that commiting crime is unlawful gets clouded by the use of a firearm to commit that crime. Possibly removing the commonality of certain firearms moves them more out of reach of the criminals but doesn't eliminate some firearms (like sawing off a barrel). The criminals continue to get certain types of firearms and saw off barrels. Law-abiding citizens are denied freedom because of a few criminals. The laws do not work. The expensive government entities (BATFE) do not have a reasonable ROI (return on investment). Any effective business realizing an ineffective ROI would eliminate that loss...but not our Government.
-
The best defense is a good offense, and this is a good place for one, since the edicts in question can easily be shown to be illegal infringements and not the reasonable restrictions they are claimed to be. Always better to take the initiative instead of just trying to keep your enemy from taking more ground.
I'd think the minimum o/a and barrel length would be the easiest to do away with, especially considering the excuse given by the Court for its decision. Compact shoulder-fired weapons definitely do have a place in the arsenal of the militia, whether the Court wants to see it or not.
Legalizing machineguns does not seem likely no matter who controls Congress and the Executive. But I think the definition could be made more realistic. An automatic rifle, for example, is not a machinegun, and neither is a sub machinegun, at least insofar as being designed to mow people down, which seems to be the reason for the law against them being called reasonable. So I would suggest that the definition of machinegun for the purpose of law be changed from more than one shot being fired with a single trigger pull to more than three, which would allow tri-burst. That plus no minimum length would put small arms of the militia more in line with the 21st Century. Devices that allow bursts to be fired legally have been available for a long time, and I'm not aware of crowds of people being mowed down by guns fitted with them. If anyone knows of such a thing, or if they've been a significant problem for law enforcement, I'd be interested in seeing information on it. Otherwise, if they haven't been a problem, a case can be made that tri-burst would not be a problem either. If it was up to me full auto would be legal, though if it was my rifles would be capable of single shot or tri-burst; I'm not interested in full auto. Those who are should be able to have it, but tri-burst would be a good compromise with anti-gun bigots.
Also, violations of NFA edicts should be treated like speeding tickets. For example, if a person has a rifle that fires full auto instead of semi or tri-burst, give him a small fine and tell him to change it; this makes more sense than throwing him in jail. What leads to more death: the difference between full and semi auto, or people driving too fast? And there isn't even a Constitutional right to drive.
Silencers being legalized seems unlikely because many people believe that the sound of a gunshot will bring police, so without that sound there would be more murders. I don't buy that reasoning, but a lot of people do. I'd still like to see them legalized, because they could be invaluable to the militia.
Another adjustment that could improve the NFA would be to say that a concealed carry permit automatically makes the bearer able to legally possess class III weapons. We've been fingerprinted and investigated and tested, and we have earned a reputation of being very law-abiding and competent, so you'd think this could pass.
None of this will happen though as long as the liars of the liberal press continue to have the amount of control they now have over our political system. So fighting back against their big lie campaigns and exposing them for the propagandists they are is the critical path to getting things like this done. Toward that end I mention on a regular basis to my representatives that I'd like to see them stand up to the liars of the liberal press. And when someone does stand up to them and is subjected to one of their hate campaigns, I do my best to support them in their battle with those traitors. If all patriots would do this, we might end up getting some more realistic laws.
-
I wonder if something might happen on the SBR/SBS front after the ATF's recent ruling about the Sig brace. Basically they determined an AR-15 pistol equipped with the Sig brace is legal if you don't shoulder it, but if you shoulder it then it becomes an NFA device which must be registered and stamped. While it makes sense given the way the NFA is written, it really exposes how arbitrary and silly the NFA actually is.
-
Just musing on the SIG Brace ruling- what if I were to fire a revolver by holding the grip up against my shoulder...would I then have "created" a short barrel rifle? :) I think someone could argue that.
Again, showing how silly the NFA is. Another example, I can use an Ar15 receiver to build a pistol, THEN add a buttstock and upper that makes it meet the minimum length, but if it starts as a receiver built as a rifle, I can't legally build it into a pistol...IIRC...
-
Henry Repeating Arms
Mare’s Leg Lever Action Pistol
You'll notice these Pistols have a butt-stock. :o
http://www.henryrifles.com/rifles/mares-leg/ (http://www.henryrifles.com/rifles/mares-leg/)
(http://www.henryrifles.com/wp-content/uploads/rifles/Mars-Leg-Rifle.png)
But, it's a pistol.
With a butt-stock.
But, it's just a lever-action... so it's not scary like an AR15 or AK47 rifle pistol SBR with a butt-stock.
The NFA is a freaking joke, and will continue to be so unless some true Constitutionalists are elected to the highest ranks of the Federal government. I'm certainly not holding my breath. :(
-
Just musing on the SIG Brace ruling- what if I were to fire a revolver by holding the grip up against my shoulder...would I then have "created" a short barrel rifle? :) I think someone could argue that.
Isn't this why the Taurus Judge has a rifled barrel and will chamber .45 Colt? I remember reading if it was a smoothbore instead of rifled, it gets classified as a short-barreled shotgun and thus subject to NFA regulation, instead of a handgun.
-
Just musing on the SIG Brace ruling- what if I were to fire a revolver by holding the grip up against my shoulder...would I then have "created" a short barrel rifle? :) I think someone could argue that.
Again, showing how silly the NFA is. Another example, I can use an Ar15 receiver to build a pistol, THEN add a buttstock and upper that makes it meet the minimum length, but if it starts as a receiver built as a rifle, I can't legally build it into a pistol...IIRC...
ATF had a bunch of idiot jackasses writing them to find out if they could get around the SBR requirements by using the SIG brace.
ATF had to clarify by saying it is the INTENTION that counts.
So if you start out to build a pistol and add the brace, you are good to go still.
Just don't start out with the INTENTION of building a SBR.
So you need your pistol and then you can add your brace or buy the pistol with the brace with the intention of using it as a pistol.
See how that works? What was your intention sir?
Aye, aye, aye!
-
Isn't this why the Taurus Judge has a rifled barrel and will chamber .45 Colt? I remember reading if it was a smoothbore instead of rifled, it gets classified as a short-barreled shotgun and thus subject to NFA regulation, instead of a handgun.
I believe smoothbores without a stock are AOWs.
-
You have to use the anti's playbook to get rid of stuff like this. One inch at a time. I think the best start would be to get rid of the Hughes amendment. Its something that could be slipped into an unrelated bill and maybe get passed fairly easily. Then go after suppressors, tougher since "hurr durr silencers are for assassinations". But you go after it bit by bit. Going after the whole enchilada is a non-starter.
-
ATF had a bunch of idiot jackasses writing them to find out if they could get around the SBR requirements by using the SIG brace.
ATF had to clarify by saying it is the INTENTION that counts.
So if you start out to build a pistol and add the brace, you are good to go still.
Just don't start out with the INTENTION of building a SBR.
So you need your pistol and then you can add your brace or buy the pistol with the brace with the intention of using it as a pistol.
See how that works? What was your intention sir?
Aye, aye, aye!
I disagree- the ATF are the jack-asses. Confusing, contradictory and purely subjective 'opinion letters' and 'interpretations' lead to average schmucks asking questions to avoid Federal charges. Repeal NFA, disband the ATF and call it a day.
Also, there is this: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1 (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1)
-
I disagree- the ATF are the jack-asses. Confusing, contradictory and purely subjective 'opinion letters' and 'interpretations' lead to average schmucks asking questions to avoid Federal charges. Repeal NFA, disband the ATF and call it a day.
Also, there is this: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1 (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1)
I agree ATF are schmucks and needs disbanded. But you are confusing 2 different things. After the ATF clarified the sig brace could be used on a pistol (AR pistol) and the act of shouldering did not change the definition, several schmoes wrote to ask if they could then build sbr's and get around the sbr tax. The atf had already ruled and it was all fine and dandy then they found themselves between a rock and a hard place and had to reclarify and practicallyt reverse themselves.
It is hard to tell if that was an act of sabotage or actual curiosity.
But not worth arguing the point over.
The general idea is that, yes they are arbitrary and capricious and their rules are just plain stupid and they need to go.
If enough law suits get going then maybe, maybe, some success will be made. But I would rather have it repealed than leave it to the courts as they are unreliable.
The executive branch has been handed too much leeway in creating regulations which were never approved as law. It has ALMOST gotten out of control. If it isn't reigned in soon we are all looking at a very bleak future in this country.