By now you've seen the position paper from ATF's Turk.    

In both cases he infers they are now "socially acceptable" and in the case of MSRs, common.   Nowhere does he cite any reference that they are dangerous or unusual.

So how does that wash with Unsafe?   How would Judge Scratchy and the 2nd Circus Court rule now with this new evidence?  Is an ATF letter better than Mother Jones?

Yeah, I know, NY politicians will never repeal SAFE.  But if "Sporting Purposes" now includes MSRs it's going to be tough to justify upholding such a BS set of laws.

I'm concerned about what one post on fb called 14, it would open NICS up to uses other than gun sales. The example given was so dealers could run a check on potential employees to make sure they are not prohibited persons. Now those of us who have been following UNsafe know NY wanted dealers to use NICS for ammo sales. If NICS is opened to non gun sales, that would open the door for it to be used for ammo purchases.

This is definitely not unexpected.  California recently passed its own ammunition background check and they too are going to need access to NICS if they want to implement it.  However, the idea may be moot because if you look at the recent Nevada initiative that requires background checks on all sales to go through NICS.  The FBI stated they will not do it because there is not enough money to expand NICS to be a point of contact for Nevada (Nevada handles checks itself but Bloomberg's stupidly written bill bypasses Nevada and requires direct contact with the FBI).  So, one can easily extrapolate that without additional funding from Congress, there is no way NICS will have the money necessary to support background checks beyond what it is doing currently.

Had a chance to read the 11 page white paper and the section on expanding NICS. The proposal is to open NICS on a voluntary basis for employers in the firearms industry to check potential employees. The idea being that someone who would be denied by NICS to purchase a gun should not be working in a firearms business such as a gun store. Yes it is a slippery slope but not the free for all originally implied. 

Congress specifically prohibited the NICS/Brady system for being used for any manor not specified in the original language: it's not just the FBU telling the State to piss-off, it's a Congressional mandate.
The more other States embrace Freedom as a common Right, the more foolish NYS will appear....course with us making headway into becoming a "Sanctuary" the less viable that freedom will be.

NICS shouldn't have anything that a comprehensive background check wouldn't have, its just quicker.  A dealer should conduct a background check when hiring employees and can make potential employees pay for it.  I've had to pay for my own and was reimbursed when passed.  The offer was conditional upon passing a background check and drug test.  I paid for both upfront and was reimbursed first pay period.

And yet we can't do the same for people on welfare?

No.  It's a violation of their rights.   Ya got that?    Don't ask me how or why, it makes no sense to me.