Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 11/9/2016 10:38:12 AM EST
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 10:51:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 10:57:36 AM EST
lol
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:03:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?
View Quote


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:11:10 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.




Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.




Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.



Well said....
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:14:52 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Toetagger:



Well said....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Toetagger:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.




Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.



Well said....


Great points and very well stated.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:21:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 9:09:30 PM EST by BigWaylon]
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:34:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 9:10:07 PM EST by BigWaylon]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigWaylon:

And playing devil's advocate, it didn't close anything. The ATF has clearly stated that changes in RPs after approval require no notification, so the "loophole" hasn't really gone anywhere looking at the big picture.

People will wait to add RPs to avoid prints and photos, whether they think the person is prohibited or not.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigWaylon:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.

And playing devil's advocate, it didn't close anything. The ATF has clearly stated that changes in RPs after approval require no notification, so the "loophole" hasn't really gone anywhere looking at the big picture.

People will wait to add RPs to avoid prints and photos, whether they think the person is prohibited or not.


So a trust can be amended to remove all trustees before buying more NFA items get added after approval with only prints and photo of just the trust administrator. Then amend again to re-add trustees back so no loophole was actually closed?
I only have my immediate law abiding family on mine but getting, wife, dad and brother as well my 2 little kids to take photos and fingerprints has effectively kept me out of adding anything else I have had my eye on.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:53:11 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalR:


So a trust can be amended to remove all trustees before buying more NFA items get added after approval with only prints and photo of just the trust administrator. Then amend again to re-add trustees back so no loophole was actually closed?
I only have my immediate law abiding family on mine but getting, wife, dad and brother as well my 2 little kids to take photos and fingerprints has effectively kept me out of adding anything else I have had my eye on.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Originally Posted By BigWaylon:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.

And playing devil's advocate, it didn't close anything. The ATF has clearly stated that changed in RPs after approval require no notification, so the "loophole" hasn't really gone anywhere looking at the big picture.

People will wait to add RPs to avoid prints and photos, whether they think the person is prohibited or not.


So a trust can be amended to remove all trustees before buying more NFA items get added after approval with only prints and photo of just the trust administrator. Then amend again to re-add trustees back so no loophole was actually closed?
I only have my immediate law abiding family on mine but getting, wife, dad and brother as well my 2 little kids to take photos and fingerprints has effectively kept me out of adding anything else I have had my eye on.

If you add new parties, they will be seen if you transfer new items to the trust.
If you don't plan on adding new items, the ATF would never see new RPs added to it. <-- Loophole no fixed!

Your "2 little kids" shouldn't be taking prints or photos because they wouldn't be old enough to be a RP. They can be a beneficiary, however.

No way Trump would give 2 sh*ts about 41F and I don't blame him.
I feel there's way to small of a population impact to interest him.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:53:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 12:23:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2016 12:27:10 PM EST by kaos]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
Realistically:
Sound suppressors aren't dangerous weapons, they are just lumped in with things like rifles that are scary because they are 'black'.
41F, and the NFA, should be repealed as illegal, and in their stead - people who commit or threaten violent crimes or commit mayhem with firearms should go to jail for long/long periods of time bordering on forever.



People who murder with firearms should be executed.
Swiftly, after a just and legal conviction.

I'm not a lawbreaker.
My rights should not be restricted because SOMEONE might break the law....

Clearly just my opinion, but I can sleep with it.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 12:31:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.

The problem is that the BATFE decided to unilaterally rewrite the law with 41F. The law is clear - individual applicants for tax stamps have to provide a picture and fingerprints, all other applicants do not. By redefining "individual", they changed the law. I wish I had the money to pay for a lawyer to challenge that.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 12:33:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalR:


Great points and very well stated.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Originally Posted By Toetagger:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.



Well said....


Great points and very well stated.

Yes, yes. Great point.

Praise the NFATCA!

Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs.


Link Posted: 11/9/2016 12:40:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:

Yes, yes. Great point.


Praise the NFATCA!


Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs.




View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Originally Posted By Toetagger:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.




Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.



Well said....


Great points and very well stated.

Yes, yes. Great point.


Praise the NFATCA!


Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs.






Really?
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 12:45:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AWDeity:


Really?
View Quote
Yeah really.

I am for liberty, the 2A and all the rest.

There should not be any such thing as a prohibited person or the NFA.

So yeah, I mock all who fear such a scenario as ikickhippies described.


Link Posted: 11/9/2016 12:53:25 PM EST
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 12:58:22 PM EST
Don't forget, Trump was once for an assault weapon ban to
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:00:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dace:
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.
View Quote

LOL.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:29:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Maxbob:
Don't forget, Trump was once for an assault weapon ban to
View Quote


And the NRA was a big help in getting him elected!
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:33:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:

LOL.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Originally Posted By Dace:
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.

LOL.


You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:35:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GeneralPurpose:


You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GeneralPurpose:
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Originally Posted By Dace:
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.

LOL.


You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct.

Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off.
No problem now.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:48:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2016 1:48:25 PM EST by Kristofer_G]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GeneralPurpose:


You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GeneralPurpose:
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Originally Posted By Dace:
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.

LOL.


You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct.

Yes. I can't possible disagree based on any rational arguments.

The fact is, as ikickhippies pointed out in the post I previously quoted, before 41f any one could have legal no back ground check NFA firearms.

Now, post 41F no one gets NFA without back ground checks.

So, do please continue to explain how more regulations, red tape, and restrictions equal moar freedom.


Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:48:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2016 2:11:05 PM EST by Kristofer_G]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By User55645:

Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off.
No problem now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By User55645:
Originally Posted By GeneralPurpose:
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Originally Posted By Dace:
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.

LOL.


You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct.

Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off.
No problem now.

CLEO sign off is a read herring; it was a never requirement to get NFA.

I have many legal NFA firearms and I have not once gotten a CLEO sign off.

And I am not a wizard.

Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:56:05 PM EST
Does anything think we can get the Hearing Proctection Act passed now?
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 1:57:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2016 2:09:38 PM EST by BigWaylon]
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 2:19:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2016 2:22:34 PM EST by dbb1776]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.


Cause the NICs check does a great job of keeping guns away from felons. Nfa items such as suppressors and sbr's are no more a threat than non-nfa firearms.
A prohibited person is prohibited, regardless of fp or pics. Also, if a felon wanted an Sbr or sbs it'd be too easy hacksaw a shotgun or get a pistol upper and , continue to be a felon.
Machine guns and DD are potentially more dangerous items. But again, easy to improvise with no paperwork and continue to be a felon.
Tldr
Possibly the worst argument you could have made.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 3:09:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dbb1776:


Cause the NICs check does a great job of keeping guns away from felons. Nfa items such as suppressors and sbr's are no more a threat than non-nfa firearms.
A prohibited person is prohibited, regardless of fp or pics. Also, if a felon wanted an Sbr or sbs it'd be too easy hacksaw a shotgun or get a pistol upper and , continue to be a felon.
Machine guns and DD are potentially more dangerous items. But again, easy to improvise with no paperwork and continue to be a felon.
Tldr
Possibly the worst argument you could have made.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dbb1776:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.


Cause the NICs check does a great job of keeping guns away from felons. Nfa items such as suppressors and sbr's are no more a threat than non-nfa firearms.
A prohibited person is prohibited, regardless of fp or pics. Also, if a felon wanted an Sbr or sbs it'd be too easy hacksaw a shotgun or get a pistol upper and , continue to be a felon.
Machine guns and DD are potentially more dangerous items. But again, easy to improvise with no paperwork and continue to be a felon.
Tldr
Possibly the worst argument you could have made.


You bring up a good point. NFA was created pre NICS. It was the NICS of the day on items they deemed dangerous.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 3:41:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.


When we start thinking in terms of us being sneaky, just by following the actual law, the anti's have won.
No. We didn't exploit anything. We followed the law and they got pissed at us for it.

Sad.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 5:40:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:

Yes, yes. Great point.


Praise the NFATCA!


Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Originally Posted By Toetagger:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.



Well said....


Great points and very well stated.

Yes, yes. Great point.


Praise the NFATCA!


Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs.


A single DUI doesn't make you a prohibited person.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 6:01:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bronsonburner:

A single DUI doesn't make you a prohibited person.
View Quote

In AZ a DUI with an "accident resulting in serious injury or fatality" is felony.

However, DUI, DV (felony or misdemeanor), what-the-fuck ever; its not the charge that is the point.

The idea of felons being "prohibited persons" is the frame work for which all gun control is based on.

You and I have to do 4473s because otherwise "OMG! a felon could just buy a gun!"

You and I have to do Form 1/4s because otherwise "OMG! a felon could just buy a suppressed full auto grenade launcher!"

Bad guys, felon or not, who want guns have guns.

Typically guns stolen from us non-felons.

Guns laws do not stop the bad guys from getting/using guns.

Protecting people, stopping crime, has never been the point of gun control.


Link Posted: 11/9/2016 6:51:14 PM EST
There shouldn't be any gun laws period.

No free man shall be barred the use of arms.


Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:39:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/9/2016 11:52:36 PM EST by ikickhippies]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kaos:
Realistically:
Sound suppressors aren't dangerous weapons, they are just lumped in with things like rifles that are scary because they are 'black'.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kaos:
Realistically:
Sound suppressors aren't dangerous weapons, they are just lumped in with things like rifles that are scary because they are 'black'.


There were no so called "black guns" in 1934. Silencers were originally included in NFA due to concerns about depression era families like my Grandparents hunting out of season to feed their families.

Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs.


Single DUI's are not felonies or DV misdemeanors.

Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
There should not be any such thing as a prohibited person or the NFA.


Disagree on prohibited people. Agree on NFA.

Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
So, do please continue to explain how more regulations, red tape, and restrictions equal moar freedom.


I never claimed more freedom. I just said that I can see how they thought they needed to do something to enforce the current regulations.

Originally Posted By ar15eric:
Does anything think we can get the Hearing Proctection Act passed now?


Probably not as written, but some version of it, better than 50%.

Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:51:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By dbb1776:
Cause the NICs check does a great job of keeping guns away from felons.
View Quote


From licensees (Dealers) it is the best system available. Unless you know of a better one.
I am only referring to legal transfers/ purchases. You can go down the rabbit hole all you want on the "felons will continue to be felons" scenario. It doesn't make prior statements about legal transfers. I don't spend much time thinking about illegal transfers because they don't matter to any productive member of this forum looking to better themselves.

Originally Posted By Jpl85295:
There shouldn't be any gun laws period.
No free man shall be barred the use of arms.
View Quote




Good luck with that. I'm sure you will be super popular when the adults are talking.
Link Posted: 11/9/2016 11:59:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:

I never claimed more freedom. I just said that I can see how they thought they needed to do something to enforce the current regulations.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
So, do please continue to explain how more regulations, red tape, and restrictions equal moar freedom.


I never claimed more freedom. I just said that I can see how they thought they needed to do something to enforce the current regulations.



I did not ask that of you, now did I?

Your post was clear on your position.




Link Posted: 11/10/2016 12:33:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 9:11:46 PM EST by BigWaylon]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigWaylon:

And playing devil's advocate, it didn't close anything. The ATF has clearly stated that changes in RPs after approval require no notification, so the "loophole" hasn't really gone anywhere looking at the big picture.

People will wait to add RPs to avoid prints and photos, whether they think the person is prohibited or not.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigWaylon:
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.

And playing devil's advocate, it didn't close anything. The ATF has clearly stated that changes in RPs after approval require no notification, so the "loophole" hasn't really gone anywhere looking at the big picture.

People will wait to add RPs to avoid prints and photos, whether they think the person is prohibited or not.


Correct a trust can still be changed after the fact so any "loophole" is still not fixed. I want removal of suppressors as a long term answer but repeal of 41F should be a good short term answer.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 8:42:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 8:47:45 AM EST
Why repeal it?

It eliminated the CLEO sign off, that's a massive step forward!

I don't agree with the fingerprint requirement but whonestly I don't really care, they already have my finger prints for my CCW so its not like its anything new. Hell they have my finger prints for other stuff as well, you, me and 99% of this nation is already in the data base.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 9:21:08 AM EST
Nothing will be repealed. All laws and EOs will stay the same. You're hopes of change were misplaced.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 9:50:21 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.


I don't consider it a loophole at all, but I do consider it as the BATFE overstepping their role. If they could effectively print the stamps in as timely a manner as they cash our checks, they may have some legitimacy. They have no credibility because of this inefficiency and they should not be legislating, making up rules, or changing their interpretations just to turn the screws on legitimate collectors.

What matter is it to them if a felon has access to a silencer? They should not have access to a firearm at all in the first place and the 41F ruling isn't about that or has no affect on it. It just makes it more of a hassle for a law abiding citizen.

Fuck the BATFE. Trump will have his hands full. All aspects of the .gov has too much over reach, fraud, waste, abuse, and are over staffed and are not required to meet any type of productive standard. I can only hope that Trump finds time to reform the BATFE, or dissolve it entirely. This is the things dreams are made of.

I am not concerned at all if a DV arrestee or a felon can get a can or SBR. They can just as easily steal a pistol in a home burglary. 41F is no magical fucking bullet to prevent crime. It is only to fuck with us.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 11:26:48 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ikickhippies:
Originally Posted By TacticalR:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together?


None.

Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........

Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.

Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole.


This is completely ridiculous.

1. Legitimately? A rogue freedom hating agency unilaterally changed federal law. Not legit at all.

2. "Loophole" or not, it's the plain language of the law.

3. Criminals can / will get ahold of any contraband they want. Crack is illegal everywhere. Meth is illegal everywhere... And yet somehow it's on every street corner in America. The idea that nfa or 41F prevents anything is completely nonsensical. I'm willing to bet that 99% of violent criminals have never heard of either one and don't care if they had.

4. BiL example: so what? Any person with a registered nfa item can hand said item to anyone they want...no law prevents. Violent criminals, the ones we are supposed to be sacrificing all our freedom to address, DO NOT CARE about any of these laws. They do NOTHING on a practical level. How many violent criminals per year are convicted of violating any aspect of NFA? Explain how that miniscule # justifies tyranny over 330,000,000 other people.

5. Trump should repeal most of 41F, and he can, without BS from Congress or the WH. Leave the removal of Cleo sign offs and get rid of every single other aspect of the rule. Zero net negative affect on crime and more freedom.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 12:00:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/10/2016 12:00:43 PM EST by bradpierson26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jpl85295:
No free man shall be barred the use of arms.


View Quote

Agreed
If you're not in jail you should be able to vote and own guns. Can't trust someone with those then leave them locked up or execute
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 12:04:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bradpierson26:

Agreed
If you're not in jail you should be able to vote and own guns. Can't trust someone with those then leave them locked up or execute
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bradpierson26:
Originally Posted By Jpl85295:
No free man shall be barred the use of arms.



Agreed
If you're not in jail you should be able to vote and own guns. Can't trust someone with those then leave them locked up or execute
+1
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 1:19:41 PM EST
I'd rather get 922r & the Hughes Amendment repealed than 41f.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 8:21:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LoneWolf545:
The problem is that the BATFE decided to unilaterally rewrite the law with 41F. The law is clear - individual applicants for tax stamps have to provide a picture and fingerprints, all other applicants do not.
View Quote


Sorry, but no law states that. Application requirements are CFR, not law.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 8:23:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By User55645:

Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By User55645:
Originally Posted By GeneralPurpose:
Originally Posted By Kristofer_G:
Originally Posted By Dace:
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.

LOL.


You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct.

Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off.


No plenty of people did not try to get signoff.

There is not a SINGLE instance of a person who could not get signoff after trying all BATFE approved CLEOs.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 8:26:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cone256:
Nothing will be repealed. All laws and EOs will stay the same. You're hopes of change were misplaced.
View Quote


You are in for a surprise. Pro-gun changes are coming legislative and with pen and phone.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 9:14:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:
I'd rather get 922r & the Hughes Amendment repealed than 41f.
View Quote


Me too.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 9:15:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


You are in for a surprise. Pro-gun changes are coming legislative and with pen and phone.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By cone256:
Nothing will be repealed. All laws and EOs will stay the same. You're hopes of change were misplaced.


You are in for a surprise. Pro-gun changes are coming legislative and with pen and phone.


Indeed they are coming. Any Rinos that stand in the way of the landslide mandate will be primaried. It amazes me how many people STILL continue to underestimate the resolve of Trump and what that means for the 2nd Amendment. You'll even see Dems like Joe Manchin happily support pro 2A legislation because he saw how his State voted.
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 9:28:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By m1garand30064:


Me too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By m1garand30064:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
I'd rather get 922r & the Hughes Amendment repealed than 41f.


Me too.

Third
Link Posted: 11/10/2016 10:05:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bradpierson26:

Third
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bradpierson26:
Originally Posted By m1garand30064:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
I'd rather get 922r & the Hughes Amendment repealed than 41f.


Me too.

Third


We're not alone in these desires:

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/10/three-gun-laws-reform-president-trump/
Link Posted: 11/11/2016 12:33:54 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


Sorry, but no law states that. Application requirements are CFR, not law.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By LoneWolf545:
The problem is that the BATFE decided to unilaterally rewrite the law with 41F. The law is clear - individual applicants for tax stamps have to provide a picture and fingerprints, all other applicants do not.


Sorry, but no law states that. Application requirements are CFR, not law.

Section 4A of the passed law states "It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this act: Provided, that, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof."
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top