Page:  / 5
Author
Message
joedirt1977
Member
Offline
Posts: 3880
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 8:47:53 PM

THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT
3 is mine.

And it'll never happen.
Because ID for cigarettes, liquor and of course guns is perfectly fine, but an ID to vote? Ridiculous!-Tango7
xmission
Doomsday Machine Boy
Offline
Posts: 4812
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 8:48:57 PM
Thanks for the post HardRock
For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future- Adolf Hitler 1935
Frank_Castle
Offline
Posts: 1159
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 8:49:33 PM
Originally Posted By Magurgle:
I know there is a group that is fighting for this, and it would remove a lot of burden on the ATF as they cannot hire more of whatever the job is that approves the forms. There was a youtube video of the group meeting with the ATF about it. It seemed like the ATF was open to the idea, but had their hands tied due to NFA regs


eta: the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTZO3pVsAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTZO3pVsAA


Good.
Couch-Commando
Morbidly obese consumer of tweenkies.
Offline
Posts: 25685
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 8:52:12 PM
Yeah, that would be in violation of federal law.

ATF has considerable (more than reasonable) leeway in "interpreting" firearms laws. They do not have the authority to change them.

The rumor is bullshit (unless there were actually a bill about to be passed in both houses which Obama intended to sign). Yep, bullshit.
"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess." Ronald Coase, Nobel Laureate, 1991.
"Sometimes we run out of f**king alphabets!" Edward Prescott, Nobel Laureate, 2003.
KarlRichter
Offline
Posts: 129
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 8:52:38 PM
I'll tell you exactly why this wouldn't happen.

It makes sense. It's logical.

I have been thinking about sending in a Form 1 and making my own.

Maybe even getting my Class III SOT.
joedirt1977
Member
Offline
Posts: 3881
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 8:57:15 PM
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


You know what they say? If something sounds too good to be true...
Because ID for cigarettes, liquor and of course guns is perfectly fine, but an ID to vote? Ridiculous!-Tango7
Winston_Wolf
Member
Offline
Posts: 26661
Feedback: 100% (12)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 9:00:00 PM
F the FSA
LRRPF52
Member
Offline
Posts: 2924
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 9:04:04 PM
Originally Posted By ContrarianIndicator:


If that happened people would assassinate each other like in the 007 movies right?

I bet we could get suppressors legal if we somehow convinced libs that the suppressors are like catalytic converter and reduce greenhouse gasses.


Yes, assassinations would run rampant like a wildfire throughout the US. You are correct.
sleepdr
Snake oil salesman
Offline
Posts: 7103
Feedback: 100% (19)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 9:10:03 PM
[Last Edit: 12/1/2012 9:11:07 PM by sleepdr]
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Funny that you say that.....


You're such a tease.



That's hawt.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Like fine herbs, dreams only develop their full fragrance when crushed and ground into a fine powder.
-LowBeta
tweeter
DDAS MG
Military
Offline
Posts: 15168
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 9:12:19 PM
Originally Posted By grendelbane:
...
After all,we do live in a representative republic.



Our last election demonstrated that quite well.
trust me. everything is going to be fine.
1811guy
Offline
Posts: 2711
Feedback: 100% (20)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 9:22:46 PM
Originally Posted By Magurgle:
I know there is a group that is fighting for this, and it would remove a lot of burden on the ATF as they cannot hire more of whatever the job is that approves the forms. There was a youtube video of the group meeting with the ATF about it. It seemed like the ATF was open to the idea, but had their hands tied due to NFA regs


eta: the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTZO3pVsAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTZO3pVsAA


The problem isn't with the NFA regulations. Regulations are written and promulgated by the regulatory agency (in this case ATF) in order to establish clear procedures and practices to implement congressional actions. The problem is with the NFA. It requires that suppressors (aka silencers) be registered and a tax assessed. Until that goes away, the ATF is compelled to do just that. I imagine that the regulatory process could be streamlined and additional resources allocated to prevent the 7 month wait times on suppressors (for example, an instantaneous registration and transfer process), but that would cost additional money to staff the NFA branch, as well as technology investments. The other issue is with the tax stamp itself; it is set by code at $200. That tax is basically a fee whose purpose is to cover the entire cost of the NFA registration process so that the tax paying public at large does not have to shoulder the burden - those who directly benefit from the service performed are supposed to pay that via a fee or special tax. Of course, to make the process simpler and quicker, it would invariably cost more. Congress would have to enact such a cost increase, the regulations would be modified in accordance with the new US Code, and a new process implemented.

Let's suppose Congress did increase the tax stamp cost. From the time the new law was enacted, to the time new regulations are promulgated and implemented, anywhere from 12-36 months would elapse. The less critical a regulation is deemed, the longer the process would take. I would guess that if Congress did approve a tax stamp hike, it would be closer to 3 years before we saw a more streamlined process. I doubt that ATF would bust its butt to get the form 4's approved any quicker though, and the folks buying the suppressors would invariably bitch to no end about a higher tax stamp rate.

I am grateful that we can still buy and own any NFA stuff at all at this point in time, and that the $200 tax stamp has not seen an increase.
74AKZ
Offline
Posts: 3392
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 9:44:51 PM
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


I'm sure what you say is probably true.

But I don't think ATF has any power to remove those items from NFA.

It would require a law from congress. How would that work ?
mwarnick1
Member
Offline
Posts: 1023
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 9:55:24 PM
That tax is basically a fee whose purpose is to cover the entire cost of the NFA registration process so that the tax paying public at large does not have to shoulder the burden - those who directly benefit from the service performed are supposed to pay that via a fee or special tax.


The tax didn't have anything to do with covering the administration costs. The purpose of the tax was to stop the sales of these evil devices.

FWIW.
Boom_Stick
F*** you FSA
Military
Offline
Posts: 11343
Feedback: 100% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:01:15 PM
Originally Posted By mwarnick1:
That tax is basically a fee whose purpose is to cover the entire cost of the NFA registration process so that the tax paying public at large does not have to shoulder the burden - those who directly benefit from the service performed are supposed to pay that via a fee or special tax.


The tax didn't have anything to do with covering the administration costs. The purpose of the tax was to stop the sales of these evil devices.

FWIW.

Back then $200 was a lot of money, the firearm itself cost less than $100. If the tax stamp followed what the dollar is worth since then, it would be in the thousands.



About the most realistic rumor I've heard is they'll do away with the Passport/LEO sign off.
AKs are for third world villagers who have to be reminded not to $hit in the well water.

كافر
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
NRA
Offline
Posts: 43143
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:04:32 PM
Originally Posted By 74AKZ:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle.
There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


I'm sure what you say is probably true.

But I don't think ATF has any power to remove those items from NFA.

It would require a law from congress.
How would that work ?


He is talking about Congress. It would work like any other legislation.

ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Wirebrush
Offline
Posts: 5016
Feedback: 100% (53)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:10:38 PM
Originally Posted By Silesius:
Originally Posted By miker84:
I've heard that same rumor from 2 different sources. The $200 tax stays, but a 4473 is required.


This.

Registration and tax is still done, just a streamlined process.


If they were smart they would be all over this. Imagine the revenue it would generate. I would buy another one tomorrow if I didn't have to deal with the the BS and the wait again. There is no reason it should be just as much to buy a second or third can as it is the first anyway. How many portraits and LEO signatures do they need anyway?
maggiethecat
I'm Chasing Amy
Military
Online
Posts: 2482
Feedback: 100% (34)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:19:11 PM
[Last Edit: 12/1/2012 10:20:04 PM by maggiethecat]
double tap
....They will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines
maggiethecat
I'm Chasing Amy
Military
Online
Posts: 2483
Feedback: 100% (34)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:19:25 PM
No, I completely buy it. I totally thinkthe .gov is going to give up the revnue stream that comes from $200 per can.
....They will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines
LRRPF52
Member
Offline
Posts: 2926
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:21:36 PM
[Last Edit: 12/1/2012 10:29:07 PM by LRRPF52]
It will be interesting to see how the Firearms Freedom Act States like mine move forward, as legal precedents for States asserting their rights are being steam-rolled ahead with marijuana laws in many States. Right now, businesses in the marijuana-friendly States say the biggest obstacle is getting any legitimate dealings with banks.

Since suppressors are already a legitimate industry, as soon as the legal domino falls, it would be a smoother road.

The problem with any new legislation is that it allows the Commucrats to tag on an amendment that would restrict firearms ownership in some other way with a "reasonable measure", like they did with the Hughes Amendment to the Tiahrt Amendment. At the end of the day, it will come down to the Communists using floor tactics to delay things until everyone wants to just be done with it and get out of the Capitol Building for the day. If you watch the Tiahrt proceedings, that is exactly what they did, and machineguns for new civilian manufacture were banned in an instant.

States need to continue to assert their rights like they have with Shall Issue CCW, and apply that to suppressors & SBR's.

Another legal option for Bill of Rights respecters is to tack on suppressor amendments to and and all healthcare legislation. Bury a few hundred pages into the bill, and don't mention it. Put it under auditory preventative measures for veterans and pregnant women. Anyone who opposes it if they read the bill (they don't read them FYI), and they would be labeled anti-women's rights, anti-preventative medicine, etc.

Also use the women's rights angle. Do you support killing babies that a mother actually wants to keep? Do you think an unborn infant should lose its hearing when its mother is protecting both their lives? People are driven by emotion and perception, especially in politics.
andrasik
Sunday morning metal head
Offline
Posts: 27797
Feedback: 100% (16)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:21:54 PM
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


Let me know when it makes it into a bill.

I'd love it, but I can't see it happening.
"Without a sense of danger, everything is lost."
Award: 24/365 Offical Stamp Collecting Expert
Award: 24/365 Most Clueless Award
macman37
The One Man Wrecking Machine
Offline
Posts: 61709
Feedback: 100% (27)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:23:57 PM
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
While it would be nice, I'm not holding my breath.


Yeah, this...

Let's Go Red Wings!

Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.

Ronin graphic design expert.

Soli Deo Gloria
Tony-Ri
John Galt is The Stig
Online
Posts: 15233
Feedback: 100% (28)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:25:13 PM
[Last Edit: 12/1/2012 10:33:10 PM by Tony-Ri]
Originally Posted By AKengineer:

Originally Posted By SF1058:
So it's up to the dealer to verify if the articles of incorporation, trust or CLEO sign off on the Form 4? Right......

Is a CLEO signoff required by law or is it an ATF regulation that doesn't require the law to be changed to remove?


Holdover from before instant background checks. Makes sense when the person to know the most about your involvement with the law would have been the local cops, but that is long since depreciated. Good on em for getting with the times.

I'm more curious about the e-form process...
Home schooling doesn't make you socially inept, it just makes you awesome enough to do shit people remember centuries later. ~ Frost7

Go Hokies!
cchurchi
Burning gas and gunpowder since 1977
Offline
Posts: 3312
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:26:10 PM
Anyone counting on an organisation as evil and corrupt as the ATF to do ANYTHING positive for law abiding gun owners is a fool.

This will end up being nothing more than a Trojan Horse.
JVD
Member
Offline
Posts: 2320
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:26:19 PM
I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.


I can't see the federal government doing anything that smart.
evilyoda
Member
Offline
Posts: 2037
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:26:41 PM
increase the tax, tax and register it upon purchase. charge 250 a piece.
andrasik
Sunday morning metal head
Offline
Posts: 27799
Feedback: 100% (16)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:28:36 PM
Originally Posted By evilyoda:
increase the tax, tax and register it upon purchase. charge 250 a piece.


No.

Do you know what the inflation adjusted cost of a stamp would be if they did so?

$3315.30
"Without a sense of danger, everything is lost."
Award: 24/365 Offical Stamp Collecting Expert
Award: 24/365 Most Clueless Award
phideaux
Offline
Posts: 2854
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:30:22 PM
Originally Posted By Silesius:
Rumor circulating at the SAR show is that ATF was saying that suppressors could be a "cash and carry" transaction and taken home same day just like a firearm

Anyone heard of this?





I'll have my income tax money waiting.
thatguywiththeak
Offline
Posts: 4361
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:32:15 PM
[Last Edit: 12/1/2012 10:32:42 PM by thatguywiththeak]
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


Let me know when it makes it into a bill.

I'd love it, but I can't see it happening.


If Obama signs such a bill, I'll eat my hat.

Not gonna happen.
beve
Member
Offline
Posts: 713
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:32:19 PM
It could make it into an ATF reform bill. The Republicans have been introducing bills to restructure the ATF for decades now, so with the whole F&F thing there has been more talk of it.
I will never leave an Airman behind, I will never falter, AND I WILL NOT FAIL.
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
NRA
Offline
Posts: 43145
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:38:31 PM
Look how many states allow hunting with suppressors nowadays.

Things are changing. Many of you don't understand because you didn't own guns when things sucked.

I would have NEVER thought you could hunt in Texas with a can even 10 years ago. Now you can. Don't be surprised if this does happen.
ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
Rem700PSS
XM8 Instigator and Hockey God. 4/9'er
Offline
Posts: 13113
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:44:51 PM
If I could make a "compromise" suggestion to congress and the ATF regarding suppressors, I would request this:

Divide suppressors into two classes:

Class I: Suppressors with NRR of <25 db

Class II: Suppressors with NEE of >25 db

Class I's can be purchased that day, same as firearms. Regulated very similar to firearms. Class II's require the stamp tax and the wait.

The point of the Class I's is to lower the noise of the firearm to just below the pain threshold. Reduction of damage to the ears. Doesn't suppress the noise to the point of concealment. Shooter would still most likely want ear plugs but...sound source is certainly reduced. Class II's are the more high quality suppressors.

I'm more interested in getting hunters who don't wear the hearing protection hunting to have the ability to reduce the sound sig to below the pain threshold. Same for recreational shooters both at shooting clubs and in the boonies, indoor and outdoor.
Negative Goatrider, the pattern is full.

I will not go quietly into the night for my life is the light that dares the darkness!
AKengineer
Member
Offline
Posts: 11097
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:50:03 PM
[Last Edit: 12/1/2012 10:50:49 PM by AKengineer]

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
If I could make a "compromise" suggestion to congress and the ATF regarding suppressors, I would request this:

Divide suppressors into two classes:

Class I: Suppressors with NRR of <25 db

Class II: Suppressors with NEE of >25 db

Class I's can be purchased that day, same as firearms. Regulated very similar to firearms. Class II's require the stamp tax and the wait.

The point of the Class I's is to lower the noise of the firearm to just below the pain threshold. Reduction of damage to the ears. Doesn't suppress the noise to the point of concealment. Shooter would still most likely want ear plugs but...sound source is certainly reduced. Class II's are the more high quality suppressors.

I'm more interested in getting hunters who don't wear the hearing protection hunting to have the ability to reduce the sound sig to below the pain threshold. Same for recreational shooters both at shooting clubs and in the boonies, indoor and outdoor.
That's not quite how suppressors work. Even the "quiet" ones don't make anything but subsonic rounds quiet. The "loud" ones still conceal the shot's direction by changing the character of the sound.

"Imposing a totalitarian regime on a whole people depends on the leader first collecting round him a group which is prepared to submit to that which they are to impose by force " ~F.A. Hayek.
MIDGAPATRIOT
END THE FED!!!!!!!
Online
Posts: 7796
Feedback: 100% (35)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:50:06 PM
Originally Posted By cchurchi:
Anyone counting on an organisation as evil and corrupt as the ATF to do ANYTHING positive for law abiding gun owners is a fool.

This will end up being nothing more than a Trojan Horse.


This. These people barbeque children for fucks sake, don't count on them to help us at all.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
-H. L. Mencken
scottedward58
Inkie
Offline
Posts: 9726
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:51:49 PM
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
I am certainly no expert on the laws concerning, but I do seem to remember in previous discussions some folks who are experts indicating that the current procedure for obtaining a tax stamp was based strictly on ATF policy, that it would be within that law for them to allow the dealers to issue the stamps, and as long as a stamp is paid for and issued, and recorded with the ATF, it is good to go.

Of course I don't believe this rumor, we have heard it before, just like we have heard rumors about proposed amnesties in the past.


Amnesty...

Though what has been discussed in this thread is possible, it is just as likely that Eric Holder starts granting an NFA amnesty in the next four years.

Not going to happen.


I could actually see an amnesty in the next 4 years but not in a good way. The atf has a history of reclassifying semi autos as full autos due to them meeting their arbitrary definition of readily convertible to full auto. If Obama can't get an assault weapons ban through Congress he could do what he has done before and do it through regulation changes. If they did suddenly reclassify semi autos as mgs the only way to do it would be to open up an amnesty period for all those guns.

People would gladly register their AWs if it then meant that it was legal to add the third hole. People in states that ban mgs might be less willing to register them but most of the gun community would chastise them.and support the atf going after them so their non compliance wouldn't matter.
"I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." letter to Uriah Forrest, 1787, T. Jefferson "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." Thomas Paine
74AKZ
Offline
Posts: 3393
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 10:53:22 PM
Originally Posted By krpind:
Look how many states allow hunting with suppressors nowadays.

Things are changing. Many of you don't understand because you didn't own guns when things sucked.

I would have NEVER thought you could hunt in Texas with a can even 10 years ago. Now you can. Don't be surprised if this does happen.


State level and fed level are different things.

The feds rarely ever give anything back and while the public is more pro gun than the past, I don't think ATF is.
hawaiinate
Member
Offline
Posts: 2655
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:01:31 PM
Originally Posted By 50cal:
Seriously doubt it. Think the .gov is going to give up a tax? Someone started a rumor as a gag to see if it would grow legs.


bingo
thatguywiththeak
Offline
Posts: 4362
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:04:39 PM
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By evilyoda:
increase the tax, tax and register it upon purchase. charge 250 a piece.


No.

Do you know what the inflation adjusted cost of a stamp would be if they did so?

$3315.30


Exactly. The original tax, like most gun control, was to prevent such weapons from being legally obtainable by the poor, minorities, and other "dangerous" "undesirables". And for those that dont comply, the law gives the government a way to effectively lock them up and throw away the key long before they have the sense to violently challenge it's authority or otherwise threaten the status quo.
Hard_Rock
The Touch of Death, Bitches!
Offline
Posts: 6493
Feedback: 100% (21)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:08:12 PM
Originally Posted By 74AKZ:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


I'm sure what you say is probably true.

But I don't think ATF has any power to remove those items from NFA.

It would require a law from congress. How would that work ?


You aren't reading what I'm writing. BATFE isn't the power behind this at all. They are being asked about it from elected officials who have received a LOT of pressure from interested parties. ATF is not trying to change anything, this isn't their idea. This is coming from elsewhere and it's gaining traction.
When the hammer drops, the BS stops!

Support the Heller Foundation! www.hellerfoundation.com
74AKZ
Offline
Posts: 3394
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:28:31 PM
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By 74AKZ:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


I'm sure what you say is probably true.

But I don't think ATF has any power to remove those items from NFA.

It would require a law from congress. How would that work ?


You aren't reading what I'm writing. BATFE isn't the power behind this at all. They are being asked about it from elected officials who have received a LOT of pressure from interested parties. ATF is not trying to change anything, this isn't their idea. This is coming from elsewhere and it's gaining traction.


OK I guess I misunderstood you. I would be surprised if it passed though. The republicans have the house, they don't have the senate and presidency and I don't see it getting past those two hurdles.
scottedward58
Inkie
Offline
Posts: 9727
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:32:34 PM
Originally Posted By GlockLuvinRedleg:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Pay 200 dollar stamp to FFL. File 4473. FFL performs NICS check. You go on your way. There is nothing in the law about making the NFA does a year long paperwork bs.


pretty much the case,
its not like they are doing a more in depth backdround check than the one done point of sale for a fire arm

the the question here is how would it be implemented. you would still need proof of the tax being paid (stamp)
unless the atf is going to sell stamps to the dealer and have the stamp transfer upon reciept of the item

if that were the case i could see alot more auditing of ffls than is currently done.


Walmart sells federal stamps so the process is there.
"I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." letter to Uriah Forrest, 1787, T. Jefferson "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." Thomas Paine
Combat_Jack
Green Suited Salaryman
Military
Online
Posts: 66572
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:38:44 PM
Could be like buying a duck stamp. They sell it to you and cancel it on the spot.
Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.-Bertold Brecht
AJK07734
Member
Offline
Posts: 11392
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:40:03 PM
Originally Posted By 74AKZ:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


I'm sure what you say is probably true.

But I don't think ATF has any power to remove those items from NFA.

It would require a law from congress. How would that work ?


The line in Blue answers your question in red.
EXPCustom: Now that's a hot beef injection I would not mind putting inside of me; You would be shocked to find out what my mouth can handle
EXPCustom: Zhukov's meat is hard to beat
C-4
No Fate But What We Make
Offline
Posts: 33051
Feedback: 100% (63)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:42:42 PM
Originally Posted By thatguywiththeak:
Originally Posted By C-4:
Originally Posted By andrasik:
ATF doesn't have the authority to make that decision.


This ^ ^ ^

While they may have some flexibility via the Tech Branch to decide what constitutes a suppressor, congress would have to pass a law de-listing suppressors from the NFA.


There is nothing that says the examination process couldnt be updated to something analogous to NICS as far as I know. Waits are what they are due to the process being antiquated and over taxed with regard to it's available resources.

ETA: not going to happen though. NFA is kept antiquated to keep wait times high thus creating defacto waiting period and artificially lowering demand.


Oh, I agree. This could be all done on the spot via computer. The FFL I use the most actually fills out NFA forms on the computer template. There is no reason it couldn't be sent directly to ATF and a hard copy with your signature could follow. They already have your signature on 4473. Registration could take place in the store + NICS + $200 postal money order + whatever FFL fees.
Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "I will try again tomorrow."
krpind
ARFCOM Czar
NRA
Offline
Posts: 43154
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:42:54 PM
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Could be like buying a duck stamp. They sell it to you and cancel it on the spot.


The other thing is they could just figure out how to keep all of your info and once you are approved the first time, the rest of them should certainly be almost instantaneous.

ARFCOM.....Time well wasted.

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Just remember to pay it forward. If someone is in need, do something positive.
oldschool63
No Beans in Chili
Offline
Posts: 20547
Feedback: 100% (20)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:45:40 PM
To the Lost

Never pick a fight with seven men if all you are packing is a six gun.
HKHamartia
Member
NRA
Online
Posts: 5643
Feedback: 100% (33)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:48:20 PM
i thought arfcom was against the legalization of weed.

I want some of the brownies you guys are eating.
Arfcom runs on hate and cheap steel cased ammo buddy
Vault_Boy
Member
Offline
Posts: 2129
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:52:32 PM
Originally Posted By joedirt1977:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
It is being discussed. From someone that works in FTB at ATF...

The idea is to remove suppressors from the NFRTR and NFA requirements. They will transfer on a 4473 as "other firearm". There will not be a $200 tax.

Will it happen? We don't know. BUT, it is being seriously discussed by both sides of the isle. There is a whole litany that goes along with this but it boils down to a few direct points. First is that a suppressor cannot work by itself. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm. Second is that some folks have gotten a little upset at the stretch of "constructive purpose" that BATFE has used to jail people with zero criminal intent. Those folks are quietly making themselves a major pain in the ass to certain elected officials. Last is that the campaign done by Oleg Volk and others over the past few years is having a very positive effect on perception of sound suppressors. Viewing them as Europeans do as safety devices and not assassins tools is properly and correctly catching on.

The intent is to have suppressors removed from the NFRTR by the end of next year 2013. There are some in BATFE that are very opposed to this and many who are championing the idea. Several of those that are supporting the removal are members here.

Now, thanks to some work by a few other individuals and a major determination fuck up by BATFE, expect to see the classifications for SBR and SBS come into play next year as well. That one is going to be one hell of a fight but BATFE fucked up in two ways to get us to the point where these classifications may be removed from the NFRTR... first is Ruby Ridge. That was a major power play fuck up that cost the BATFE a lot of positive PR. Second is their determination of the pistol grip shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 but overall length over 26 opened some doors that they can't close now.

Take it as you will. But that's what's being discussed.


You know what they say? If something sounds too good to be true...


I'll eat my hat if it happens.
But I think I'll have a bacon hat waiting in the freezer just in case.
AR45fan
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 7084
Feedback: 100% (42)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2012 11:59:53 PM
Originally Posted By Silesius:
Originally Posted By miker84:
I've heard that same rumor from 2 different sources. The $200 tax stays, but a 4473 is required.


This.

Registration and tax is still done, just a streamlined process.


And they save money on labor and speed up the approval process for other NFA items without hiring more staff or investing in new equipment. Win-win-win. Nah. Makes too much sense.
Gamma762
Member
Offline
Posts: 22547
Feedback: 90% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/2/2012 12:00:25 AM
[Last Edit: 12/2/2012 12:44:22 AM by Gamma762]
The entire NFA "process" - forms, preapprovals for creation and transfers etc, is a creation of the executive branch regulatory agency and not of an act of Congress. Congress declared what items are under control of the law, the amount of the tax, the necessity of registration, etc. The rest is the invention of the bureaucrats.

ATF could make a regulatory change and have all NFA items be cash and carry, dealers just collect the tax and forward it (as they do sales taxes for example) along with the registration info. Could just change to an electronic online system and it'd be all automatic. Remarking Form 1'd items is another regulatory interpretation, there's really no need for it.

The current NFA process is paid for out of ATF's budget, the stamp taxes just go into the general US treasury so the expense of the current program is a budgetary drag on the agency.

ETA:
In theory I guess they could just redefine what a "silencer" is, so that currently available sound suppressors no longer meet their interpretation. Then invent a regulation which classifies sound suppressors as a non-NFA "firearm".

Considering they can't even seem to get rid of the CLEO sign off (that's been rumored for a couple years) I wouldn't be holding my breath on any such sweeping changes.
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, FL, MI, SC, NH - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
KarlRichter
Offline
Posts: 131
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/2/2012 12:22:18 AM
I could swear the ATF was looking at the Saiga (and probably other box fed shotguns like the Akdal and the VEPR) with respect to a "sporting purpose". That was either earlier this year or in 2011. IIRC, the "sporting purpose" was in their interpretation for hunting, not 3 gun competitions. Did they ever decide on anything?
Page:  / 5