Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/5/2015 12:27:05 PM EDT
I've seen only one or two references to this news in some other threads but figured this was big enough interest to us to warrant its own shout out... cross your fingers this survives all the way cause it would be a huge win for us.

http://americansuppressorassociation.com/amendment-to-block-executive-action-atf-41p-passes-u-s-house/

Amendment to Block Executive Action ATF 41P Passes U.S. House

Written by ASA on June 5, 2015 - Comments

On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to prevent an expansion of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) certification requirement for certain transfers of suppressors and other National Firearms Act (NFA) items.

Link Posted: 6/5/2015 2:41:17 PM EDT
Tag
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 3:20:51 PM EDT
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 3:48:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it
View Quote


Unfortunately this.......
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 6:23:29 PM EDT
Hopefully like the green tip ammo crap having support from law makers will pressure them to back off.
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 6:39:20 PM EDT
There are probably 1000's of these little amendments or provisions in these type of budget bills. I highly doubt the entire budget would be veto'd at the executive level just because of this one provision amongst so many if it passes the house and senate.

Bigger challenge in my mind is this clearing the senate without the amendment being stripped back out. That is where the greatest risk likely is.  

But I'm optimistic given the whole 41P thing isn't really a headline news item that this could just sail by like a ship in the night.
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 6:43:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There are probably 1000's of these little amendments or provisions in these type of budget bills. I highly doubt the entire budget would be veto'd at the executive level just because of this one provision amongst so many if it passes the house and senate.

Bigger challenge in my mind is this clearing the senate without the amendment being stripped back out. That is where the greatest risk likely is.  

But I'm optimistic given the whole 41P thing isn't really a headline news item that this could just sail by like a ship in the night.
View Quote


Agreed.
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 6:50:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it
View Quote


It is part of on-going appropriations bill, he will sign just like he signed other pro-gun legislation.
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 7:15:45 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Unfortunately this.......
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it


Unfortunately this.......



He signed the carry in parks bill, after it was attached to a funding bill
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 9:14:26 PM EDT
Did I read correctly that the CLEO signature would be eliminated but you still have to send photo, finger prints and a copy of the form to the CLEO? That still is more shit I rather not deal with given i go the trust route. I still have to do a background check when I take my cans into possession which is enough.  Either way seems to be a lot of happenings going on, its a start for the ASA on the compromising end. On the open minded compromising end since we did not get "shall sign" here in Texas with this go round it would be cool but I stick by my 41P ATF reply that it should be dropped.

eta: see above strike


ETA2: never mind it was context of the old admin. supporting eliminating the CLEO sign at a point prior to 41P but would include the other individual requirements (photo, fingerprints & copy of form to CLEO ) Rock it out ASA, I am going to go sit down now
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 9:23:14 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


He signed the carry in parks bill, after it was attached to a funding bill
View Quote



^this.  Thank goodness there are no line-item vetos.
Link Posted: 6/5/2015 9:29:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Did I read correctly that the CLEO signature would be eliminated but you still have to send photo, finger prints and a copy of the form to the CLEO? That still is more shit I rather not deal with given i go the trust route. I still have to do a background check when I take my cans into possession which is enough.  Either way seems to be a lot of happenings going on, its a start for the ASA on the compromising end. On the open minded compromising end since we did not get "shall sign" here in Texas with this go round it would be cool but I stick by my 41P ATF reply that it should be dropped.

eta: see above strike
View Quote


I think it's just a bit of word play. They are saying that photos, prints and backgrounds are currently done by the ATF, eliminating the need for CLEO sign off. Obviously for individuals only but they don't get specific...


Link Posted: 6/8/2015 8:03:20 AM EDT
Oh how I wish it read like this:

On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o).
Link Posted: 6/8/2015 3:27:04 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this:

On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o).
View Quote



Make you wonder how hard it would be to slip it in to one of those bills that "must be passed"  
Link Posted: 6/8/2015 10:31:01 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this:

On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o).
View Quote



I was just thinking this as I read the OP
Link Posted: 6/17/2015 11:25:22 PM EDT
http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/

I opened the bill but I couldn't find the language anymore......did someone get rid of that provision?
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 4:40:32 PM EDT
I found this thread in a search... I'm surprised there isn't more talk about this on ARFCOM.



This is HUGE if it passes through the senate, as is... we won't have to worry about 41P or any sort of ammo ban because Obama will sign.  Those issues, while huge to us, are rather low-priority for the anti-gun dickheads.
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 5:57:04 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I found this thread in a search... I'm surprised there isn't more talk about this on ARFCOM.

This is HUGE if it passes through the senate, as is... we won't have to worry about 41P or any sort of ammo ban because Obama will sign.  Those issues, while huge to us, are rather low-priority for the anti-gun dickheads.
View Quote



Indeed.  Not much to do but hope and wait.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 12:21:25 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this:

On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o).
View Quote


922(o) is about machine guns...not 41p. I fully support repealing (o), but me thinks someone made a typo...
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 12:47:11 AM EDT
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 2:09:29 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it
View Quote

Like the OP said, Obungo will sign it if he wants FY 2016 funding for DoC, DoJ, and NSF among others.

This is not the major purpose of the bill, and it's how stuff gets done in DC.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 2:13:07 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Make you wonder how hard it would be to slip it in to one of those bills that "must be passed"  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this:

On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o).



Make you wonder how hard it would be to slip it in to one of those bills that "must be passed"  

Could be done, and could have been done every year since 1987.  Nobody was much interested in 922(o) until fairly recently.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 1:22:44 PM EDT



Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:




Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore.
View Quote






 
The amendments haven't been stripped out.  Whatever's on the website is irrelevant.



 





ETA:  You must have missed it somehow.  The Amendment is still listed.







It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter.









 
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 2:17:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  The amendments haven't been stripped out.  Whatever's on the website is irrelevant.
 

ETA:  You must have missed it somehow.  The Amendment is still listed.


It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D

 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore.

  The amendments haven't been stripped out.  Whatever's on the website is irrelevant.
 

ETA:  You must have missed it somehow.  The Amendment is still listed.


It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D

 


You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here:

http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/

On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 5:07:01 PM EDT
thoughts and prayers..... please include the language and please pass.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 5:29:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here:

http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/

On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore.

  The amendments haven't been stripped out.  Whatever's on the website is irrelevant.
 

ETA:  You must have missed it somehow.  The Amendment is still listed.


It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D

 


You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here:

http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/

On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version.


Click on house amendment agreed to on the left and you'll see its still there.

"H.Amdt.320   — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Description:Amendment prohibits the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act.
Sponsor:Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] (Offered 06/02/2015)
Latest Action:06/03/15 On agreeing to the Carter (TX) amendment (A052) Agreed to by voice vote."
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:46:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Click on house amendment agreed to on the left and you'll see its still there.

"H.Amdt.320   — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Description:Amendment prohibits the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act.
Sponsor:Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] (Offered 06/02/2015)
Latest Action:06/03/15 On agreeing to the Carter (TX) amendment (A052) Agreed to by voice vote."
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore.

  The amendments haven't been stripped out.  Whatever's on the website is irrelevant.
 

ETA:  You must have missed it somehow.  The Amendment is still listed.


It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D

 


You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here:

http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/

On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version.


Click on house amendment agreed to on the left and you'll see its still there.

"H.Amdt.320   — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Description:Amendment prohibits the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act.
Sponsor:Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] (Offered 06/02/2015)
Latest Action:06/03/15 On agreeing to the Carter (TX) amendment (A052) Agreed to by voice vote."


Ahhh, gotcha. I originally viewed the pdf through a direct link. Thanks.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 12:07:38 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Like the OP said, Obungo will sign it if he wants FY 2016 funding for DoC, DoJ, and NSF among others.

This is not the major purpose of the bill, and it's how stuff gets done in DC.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it

Like the OP said, Obungo will sign it if he wants FY 2016 funding for DoC, DoJ, and NSF among others.

This is not the major purpose of the bill, and it's how stuff gets done in DC.


this.  how old are some here that they don't stand how this works?
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.