Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 192 of 193)
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: A lot of this thread can be summed up as: Everybody wants to be a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit. Or, Everybody wants somebody else to take the risks. The ones talking trash about FFLs not doing 4473 transfers aren’t the ones who will lose their businesses or freedom. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: @CZRider I was on their website and it states all silencers require a tax stamp. I was going to make the drive until I saw this. Are you saying they'll do a 4473 only? Check his Facebook page. The owner is all over it making videos about doing 4473 transfers. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: @CZRider I was on their website and it states all silencers require a tax stamp. I was going to make the drive until I saw this. Are you saying they'll do a 4473 only? There is one in Ocala that is definitely doing 4473 only transfers of suppressors. GPS guns and ammo. I just forwarded my GOA membership email, filled out a 4473 and walked out with a pair of suppressors. |
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Or the gov't enters into a Consent Decree, or settlement agreement saying they agree with the ruling then it can apply universally. It doesn't have to be the court that does that. Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Originally Posted By ODA_564: Originally Posted By FRT:So next month SBR/SBS will be open to everyone outside of the plaintiff groups? There's only two ways that happens. 1. is Congress repeals the NFA '34 and GCA '68 as it applies too suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. That will not happen by next month or ever. 2. SCOTUS decision that the enjoined parts of the NFA '34 and the associated but not enjoined bits of the GCA '68 are unconstitutional. To have (2) the case has to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Then if the government (or the plaintiffs) loses the appeal the government (or the plaintiffs) has to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari and SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case.* So we want the government to appeal or this stays in this gray limbo of sort-of-and-sort-of-not where it applies to the plaintiffs and no one else - until another judge does something else. Hypothetically, if the Brown v ATF judge issues an exact opposite mirror decision and that doesn't get appealed? *A circuit split could do the same thing. SCOTUS is far mor likely to hear the case if it's the government appealing. Or instead of the appeal, the govt gets taken back to court for failing to provide guidance to FFLs and the judge just makes it nationwide and bans the ATF from having toys. |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: There are a couple at least who are doing it. FL HTF has some useful info for you on that front. I made the trip to Shark Coast in Sarasota for both of my 4473 cans. Originally Posted By CZRider: Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls: For all the gunshine state talk...FFL's are being little pricks about this here. Saying they will not change unless the gov clarifies. Even with the GOA membership.  There are a couple at least who are doing it. FL HTF has some useful info for you on that front. I made the trip to Shark Coast in Sarasota for both of my 4473 cans. Pirate Firearms in Stuart is doing 4473 cans. Picked up my first freedom can there earlier in the week. |
|
Originally Posted By ParityError: The Trump DOJ wouldn’t. What happens in 2028 if a Democrat wins? “Hey, we changed our minds. That provision was never enjoined or repealed, and we’re going after every FFL that transferred a handgun to someone under 21.” Until those provisions are enjoined by a judge or repealed, the DOJ memo means precisely… dick. Originally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? The Trump DOJ wouldn’t. What happens in 2028 if a Democrat wins? “Hey, we changed our minds. That provision was never enjoined or repealed, and we’re going after every FFL that transferred a handgun to someone under 21.” Until those provisions are enjoined by a judge or repealed, the DOJ memo means precisely… dick. While correct in a legal sense, this isn’t in any way practical in reality. How many pistols will be transfered between now and January 2029 when a Democrat might take office? The doomerism about what hypothetical future Democrats might do in this thread is epic. At worst, they’ll tell dealers to stop doing it. That’s it. They aren’t going to spend the resources to hunt down anyone, much less everyone, who sold a pistol to an 18 year old on a 4473. Same thing about reinstating the NFA tax. Just need to sit back and enjoy what we have. |
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: While correct in a legal sense, this isn't in any way practical in reality. How many pistols will be transfered between now and January 2029 when a Democrat might take office? The doomerism about what hypothetical future Democrats might do in this thread is epic. At worst, they'll tell dealers to stop doing it. That's it. They aren't going to spend the resources to hunt down anyone, much less everyone, who sold a pistol to an 18 year old on a 4473. Same thing about reinstating the NFA tax. Just need to sit back and enjoy what we have. Originally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? The Trump DOJ wouldn't. What happens in 2028 if a Democrat wins? "Hey, we changed our minds. That provision was never enjoined or repealed, and we're going after every FFL that transferred a handgun to someone under 21." Until those provisions are enjoined by a judge or repealed, the DOJ memo means precisely dick. While correct in a legal sense, this isn't in any way practical in reality. How many pistols will be transfered between now and January 2029 when a Democrat might take office? The doomerism about what hypothetical future Democrats might do in this thread is epic. At worst, they'll tell dealers to stop doing it. That's it. They aren't going to spend the resources to hunt down anyone, much less everyone, who sold a pistol to an 18 year old on a 4473. Same thing about reinstating the NFA tax. Just need to sit back and enjoy what we have. Vigilance is necessary but fear is pathetic. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: While correct in a legal sense, this isn’t in any way practical in reality. How many pistols will be transfered between now and January 2029 when a Democrat might take office? The doomerism about what hypothetical future Democrats might do in this thread is epic. At worst, they’ll tell dealers to stop doing it. That’s it. They aren’t going to spend the resources to hunt down anyone, much less everyone, who sold a pistol to an 18 year old on a 4473. Same thing about reinstating the NFA tax. Just need to sit back and enjoy what we have. You have way more faith in them than I do. There is no extra effort needed here. Every FFL gets inspected regularly, and the ATF can inspect them as frequently as annually without a warrant. How hard is it for the IOI to check purchasers’ ages? Remember, under the Senile Joe administration, the ATF was using any violations it could fine to harass FFLs. This is pretty low hanging fruit. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
Purge the Commie, Abhor the Vegan
Joined:
Oct 2013
Posts:
18855
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By trails-end: IIRC, about 3% were patriots when the USA was born. Originally Posted By trails-end: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Originally Posted By NachoDip: Originally Posted By ERNURSE: Does this mean I can finally put a HK foregrip on my PTR9CT without going to jail.???? Always have. The last part only mattered by who saw it. Indeed, took the words right out of my mind, brother. Some of you guys act like you have a Federal Marshall living inside your fucking gun safe. Go forth, and live. Everybody wants to be a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit. IIRC, about 3% were patriots when the USA was born. The 3% is from Continental Army veterans that collect benefits. The Colonial militias were roughly twice the size of the Continental Army, in number that served. The 3%'er narrative is false. At least 20% of the male population took up arms against the British. |
Shit like this is why you don't give typewriters to monkeys. - L_JE
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: @CZRider I was on their website and it states all silencers require a tax stamp. I was going to make the drive until I saw this. Are you saying they'll do a 4473 only? I think they either have that for the sake of not getting every random non-plaintiff in the state in their store or they just haven't updated it, but yes, they'll do cans on a 4473 for GOA members. I brought the actual member card so you might want to call and verify what else they'll accept if you don't have one. The only two suppressors I've ever bought were 4473 cans in the last few weeks from Shark Coast though, so yeah, verified  You can always call ahead and check, but the two I have and the many I saw flying out of the store on 4473s say it all for me. I'm actually fighting the temptation to go get a third since they have the 9mm Sonicore cans now too...Here's a clip from their podcast that came up a while ago in this thread where some other shop apparently called ATF on them for doing 4473 cans now that we can do 4473 cans:  False Rumors & the ATF |
|
There are around 54,000 FFLs. Assuming a 3 year inspection cycle, approximately 1,500 would have been inspected since this kicked off. Probably 3-ish millon NICS checks in that time. Interesting we haven't heard more, one way or the other. Maybe all the 4473 guys are in the Gulag.  
|
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: @bmarshall1 in case the reply didn't ping your inbox see above for multitudes of good news about 4473 cans @CZRider, thanks, today is HoneyDo day but maybe next week I'll make a trip up, what part of FL are you in? I'm about 2 hours S. of Tampa right off 75 |
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: Ever since 2004, the gun community has had a "get them before they ban them again" mindset. In those 22 years, gun rights have improved massively aside from a handful of shitty states but we still have a fuckload of people convinced that the next big gun ban is always just around the corner. Vigilance is necessary but fear is pathetic. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? The Trump DOJ wouldn't. What happens in 2028 if a Democrat wins? "Hey, we changed our minds. That provision was never enjoined or repealed, and we're going after every FFL that transferred a handgun to someone under 21." Until those provisions are enjoined by a judge or repealed, the DOJ memo means precisely dick. While correct in a legal sense, this isn't in any way practical in reality. How many pistols will be transfered between now and January 2029 when a Democrat might take office? The doomerism about what hypothetical future Democrats might do in this thread is epic. At worst, they'll tell dealers to stop doing it. That's it. They aren't going to spend the resources to hunt down anyone, much less everyone, who sold a pistol to an 18 year old on a 4473. Same thing about reinstating the NFA tax. Just need to sit back and enjoy what we have. Vigilance is necessary but fear is pathetic. I'll admit to buying a few cans and finding some parts in my collection to assemble some more toys because of this ruling, because I expect Maryland to ban what were previously defined as NFA items this upcoming legislative session. |
|
Originally Posted By IIA: Originally Posted By StevenH: Yes. Because they did not say they are not going to enforce the law. They said they will not criminally prosecute. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/giphy__3_-1051.gif Did you read the 49 page opinion? |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: @CZRider I was on their website and it states all silencers require a tax stamp. I was going to make the drive until I saw this. Are you saying they'll do a 4473 only? Originally Posted By bmarshall1: Originally Posted By CZRider: Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls: For all the gunshine state talk...FFL's are being little pricks about this here. Saying they will not change unless the gov clarifies. Even with the GOA membership. There are a couple at least who are doing it. FL HTF has some useful info for you on that front. I made the trip to Shark Coast in Sarasota for both of my 4473 cans. @CZRider I was on their website and it states all silencers require a tax stamp. I was going to make the drive until I saw this. Are you saying they'll do a 4473 only? Or...Just hear me out...you could call the shop and ask. |
"I do believe that some gun laws are needed and yes, I am a Republican" ~ tc556guy - NRA Member
|
Originally Posted By Kharn: I'll admit to buying a few cans and finding some parts in my collection to assemble some more toys because of this ruling, because I expect Maryland to ban what were previously defined as NFA items this upcoming legislative session. Originally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? The Trump DOJ wouldn't. What happens in 2028 if a Democrat wins? "Hey, we changed our minds. That provision was never enjoined or repealed, and we're going after every FFL that transferred a handgun to someone under 21." Until those provisions are enjoined by a judge or repealed, the DOJ memo means precisely dick. While correct in a legal sense, this isn't in any way practical in reality. How many pistols will be transfered between now and January 2029 when a Democrat might take office? The doomerism about what hypothetical future Democrats might do in this thread is epic. At worst, they'll tell dealers to stop doing it. That's it. They aren't going to spend the resources to hunt down anyone, much less everyone, who sold a pistol to an 18 year old on a 4473. Same thing about reinstating the NFA tax. Just need to sit back and enjoy what we have. Vigilance is necessary but fear is pathetic. I'll admit to buying a few cans and finding some parts in my collection to assemble some more toys because of this ruling, because I expect Maryland to ban what were previously defined as NFA items this upcoming legislative session. Trump's DOJ is going after state-level bans so you may be just fine. We are living in unprecedented times for the 2nd Amendment. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By WildBoar: Wish we could have FRTs in Florida Originally Posted By WildBoar: Originally Posted By Action45: 100% man. Imagine how many badass retro SMGs (errr semi-auto FRTs) we could have Wish we could have FRTs in Florida |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By mike_nds: They even used the "DumDum" bullet boogie man trope |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By ParityError: Or, Everybody wants somebody else to take the risks. The ones talking trash about FFLs not doing 4473 transfers aren’t the ones who will lose their businesses or freedom. Possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor is a serious federal felony under the National Firearms Act (NFA) that carries penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines per device. We're BOTH taking risks. So save it! In my line of work a felony of ANY kind is permanent decertification. So it's not only my freedom it's also my family's income and security. Fuck any FFL not a part of the movement. |
|
Originally Posted By Ivan1: Whatever happened to the sbr stuff? All I read is about the silencers. If you are a member of a Silencer Shop v ATF / Jensen v ATF organizational plaintiff and your state law does not restrict SBRs then you can make one with out a Form 1 (if you're a Jensen plaintiff, you don't have to engrave it). You can't buy one on a 4473 because the GCA '68 requires it to be transferred by an FFL with approval of the AG (Form 4) and that was not enjoined. |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: What "sbr stuff"? If you are a member of a Silencer Shop v ATF / Jensen v ATF organizational plaintiff and your state law does not restrict SBRs then you can make one with out a Form 1 (if you're a Jensen plaintiff, you don't have to engrave it). You can't buy one on a 4473 because the GCA '68 requires it to be transferred by an FFL with approval of the AG (Form 4) and that was not enjoined. What orgs are Jensen Plaintiffs? I'm a GOA and FPC member |
|
Originally Posted By FJB247: What orgs are Jensen Plaintiffs? I'm a GOA and FPC member Originally Posted By FJB247: Originally Posted By ODA_564: What "sbr stuff"? If you are a member of a Silencer Shop v ATF / Jensen v ATF organizational plaintiff and your state law does not restrict SBRs then you can make one with out a Form 1 (if you're a Jensen plaintiff, you don't have to engrave it). You can't buy one on a 4473 because the GCA '68 requires it to be transferred by an FFL with approval of the AG (Form 4) and that was not enjoined. What orgs are Jensen Plaintiffs? I'm a GOA and FPC member You need to be in FPCAF, legally discrete from FPC. Jensen v ATF plaintiff orgs: FPC Action Foundation (Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation) Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) |
|
Originally Posted By st33ve0: You need to be in FPCAF, legally discrete from FPC. Jensen v ATF plaintiff orgs: FPC Action Foundation (Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation) Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) Originally Posted By st33ve0: Originally Posted By FJB247: Originally Posted By ODA_564: What "sbr stuff"? If you are a member of a Silencer Shop v ATF / Jensen v ATF organizational plaintiff and your state law does not restrict SBRs then you can make one with out a Form 1 (if you're a Jensen plaintiff, you don't have to engrave it). You can't buy one on a 4473 because the GCA '68 requires it to be transferred by an FFL with approval of the AG (Form 4) and that was not enjoined. What orgs are Jensen Plaintiffs? I'm a GOA and FPC member You need to be in FPCAF, legally discrete from FPC. Jensen v ATF plaintiff orgs: FPC Action Foundation (Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation) Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) FPCAF is a $10/year membership, separate from FPC. TSRA has family 3 year memberships for $110, for 6 of us in my household that worked out to $6 a year. |
|
Originally Posted By dc4e: Possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor is a serious federal felony under the National Firearms Act (NFA) that carries penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines per device. We're BOTH taking risks. So save it! In my line of work a felony of ANY kind is permanent decertification. So it's not only my freedom it's also my family's income and security. Fuck any FFL not a part of the movement. That's not a 50/50 risk. I've talked to several attorneys and all agree on what the injunction says, but all advised as a business I not do anything different. I chose to ignore that advise. A recent question was raised regarding civil liability. In this case the judge is not saying the challenged law is illegal, he's saying it can't be enforced. As a business owner I have the option to sell a customer a suppressor on a Form 4, OR skip that process and illegally sell it to him on just a 4473 without fear of federal prosecution. If that guy uses a gun with that suppressor attached to kill his neighbor, how could it play out in a civil wrongful death lawsuit that I illegally sold him the suppressor? |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By DPeacher: Or...Just hear me out...you could call the shop and ask. In fairness they're a little hard to get ahold of on the phone, that place has been a complete and utter madhouse every time I've been in there on a weekend. Shark Coast is in Sarasota though, so it should be pretty convenient. They've had folks driving all the way from Orlando for 4473 cans, which has to suck I'm sure... |
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: We need to pressure the hell out of them as soon as they're sworn in a couple months from now. That bullshit and the waiting period need to go away ASAFP. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By WildBoar: Originally Posted By Action45: 100% man. Imagine how many badass retro SMGs (errr semi-auto FRTs) we could have Wish we could have FRTs in Florida The bad news is our anti-gun cowardly republican supermajority consistently refuses to deliver any kind of wins on gun rights and actively tries to maintain the gun control laws that some of them helped develop and vote in and then blame it on some cowardly nonsense like "the sheriffs don't support it so I dunno" like that excuses their spinelessness or malice... ...The good news is a certain ARFCOMmer has been kicking ass in his role for GOA and gave some quiet but positive indications on the whole bump stock ban thing in the HTF not that long ago. All you Florida folks should hang around in there more! All you non-FL folks, just like in real life we're full and stay out 
|
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: That's not a 50/50 risk. I've talked to several attorneys and all agree on what the injunction says, but all advised as a business I not do anything different. I chose to ignore that advise. A recent question was raised regarding civil liability. In this case the judge is not saying the challenged law is illegal, he's saying it can't be enforced. As a business owner I have the option to sell a customer a suppressor on a Form 4, OR skip that process and illegally sell it to him on just a 4473 without fear of federal prosecution. If that guy uses a gun with that suppressor attached to kill his neighbor, how could it play out in a civil wrongful death lawsuit that I illegally sold him the suppressor? Isn't PLCAA supposed to cover that kind of frivolous stuff or does that only cover manufacturers? |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Isn't PLCAA supposed to cover that kind of frivolous stuff or does that only cover manufacturers? Yes, but that's not how it works. You'll still pay an attorney thousands of dollars to go through the legal hoops to get to the point where you can submit the motion for summary judgment based on PLCAA. Been there, Done that. Here is my PLCAA MSJ that took 2 years to get to. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
2066
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By madmacs69: Or instead of the appeal, the govt gets taken back to court for failing to provide guidance to FFLs and the judge just makes it nationwide and bans the ATF from having toys. Originally Posted By madmacs69: Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Originally Posted By ODA_564: Originally Posted By FRT:So next month SBR/SBS will be open to everyone outside of the plaintiff groups? There's only two ways that happens. 1. is Congress repeals the NFA '34 and GCA '68 as it applies too suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. That will not happen by next month or ever. 2. SCOTUS decision that the enjoined parts of the NFA '34 and the associated but not enjoined bits of the GCA '68 are unconstitutional. To have (2) the case has to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Then if the government (or the plaintiffs) loses the appeal the government (or the plaintiffs) has to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari and SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case.* So we want the government to appeal or this stays in this gray limbo of sort-of-and-sort-of-not where it applies to the plaintiffs and no one else - until another judge does something else. Hypothetically, if the Brown v ATF judge issues an exact opposite mirror decision and that doesn't get appealed? *A circuit split could do the same thing. SCOTUS is far mor likely to hear the case if it's the government appealing. Or instead of the appeal, the govt gets taken back to court for failing to provide guidance to FFLs and the judge just makes it nationwide and bans the ATF from having toys. Except thats not how a district court jurisdiction works....... he has no national authority as the USSC ruled in order to stop district judges from going after Trump............. |
|
Here's an interesting article that seems to claim Trump told DoJ not to appeal the recent case this thread is about. Yes it People Magazine. No I don't care if you like them or not. |
Fuck Cancer. Love you Pop.
|
Originally Posted By dc4e: Possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor is a serious federal felony under the National Firearms Act (NFA) that carries penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines per device. We're BOTH taking risks. So save it! In my line of work a felony of ANY kind is permanent decertification. So it's not only my freedom it's also my family's income and security. Fuck any FFL not a part of the movement. Not so. I am fully convinced that a member of a plaintiff class taking delivery of a can on a 4473 is absolutely in compliance with the NFA as set forth in the injunction. FFLs, on the other hand, face a different issue. A can comes on a Form 3 and a disposition must be recorded. Nobody knows *how* to do that, as several FFLs here have noted. Note that 18 USC 923(g) is not part of the injunction. Nor is Rule 2021R-05F. So FFLs are in a gray area with STEEP edges. Failure to follow proper record keeping as defined by the ATF gets you a $1000 fine per item, and that’s if the ATF is being nice. If they deem the errors “willful” the fines can jump to six figures. Very different things. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Isn't PLCAA supposed to cover that kind of frivolous stuff or does that only cover manufacturers? It is *supposed to*. There is a long thread around detailing how BigBore got completely fucked over repeatedly in the courts and the PLCAA didn’t stop any of it. He was sued by the insolvent estate of a suicide, so he couldn’t even recover costs. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By jchewie1: FPCAF is a $10/year membership, separate from FPC. TSRA has family 3 year memberships for $110, for 6 of us in my household that worked out to $6 a year. Yep, good way to spend $10 a year. I even set a reminder to do it annually, just in case I forget to donate more in between now and then. Attached File |
Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.
~John Adams
~John Adams
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: In fairness they're a little hard to get ahold of on the phone, that place has been a complete and utter madhouse every time I've been in there on a weekend. Shark Coast is in Sarasota though, so it should be pretty convenient. They've had folks driving all the way from Orlando for 4473 cans, which has to suck I'm sure... Originally Posted By CZRider: Originally Posted By DPeacher: Or...Just hear me out...you could call the shop and ask. In fairness they're a little hard to get ahold of on the phone, that place has been a complete and utter madhouse every time I've been in there on a weekend. Shark Coast is in Sarasota though, so it should be pretty convenient. They've had folks driving all the way from Orlando for 4473 cans, which has to suck I'm sure... I've tried calling numerous times, always went to VM or something of that nature, I'm sure they are slammed. |
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: What "sbr stuff"? If you are a member of a Silencer Shop v ATF / Jensen v ATF organizational plaintiff and your state law does not restrict SBRs then you can make one with out a Form 1 (if you're a Jensen plaintiff, you don't have to engrave it). You can't buy one on a 4473 because the GCA '68 requires it to be transferred by an FFL with approval of the AG (Form 4) and that was not enjoined. Originally Posted By ODA_564: Originally Posted By Ivan1: Whatever happened to the sbr stuff? All I read is about the silencers. If you are a member of a Silencer Shop v ATF / Jensen v ATF organizational plaintiff and your state law does not restrict SBRs then you can make one with out a Form 1 (if you're a Jensen plaintiff, you don't have to engrave it). You can't buy one on a 4473 because the GCA '68 requires it to be transferred by an FFL with approval of the AG (Form 4) and that was not enjoined. 'In theory' places like Capitol Armory could send you an SBR in the mail like they do silencers. They were both considered firearms, and needed a form 4. Why shouldn't we get SBRs through the mail? |
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: 'In theory' places like Capitol Armory could send you an SBR in the mail like they do silencers. They were both considered firearms, and needed a form 4. Why shouldn't we get SBRs through the mail? Because there is a non-enjoined provision in GCA ‘68 regarding delivery of an SBS or SBR that requires permission from the Attorney General - which is currently satisfied by the issuance of a Form 4. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: I've tried calling numerous times, always went to VM or something of that nature, I'm sure they are slammed. Yeah, they have a weird Google voice thing or something and I honestly got a faster response from emailing them than calling trying to sort something out. Check their stock online, try to get there pretty early before the parking lot fills up with giant trucks, bring proof of GOA membership, buy with confidence. |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: In fairness they're a little hard to get ahold of on the phone, that place has been a complete and utter madhouse every time I've been in there on a weekend. Shark Coast is in Sarasota though, so it should be pretty convenient. They've had folks driving all the way from Orlando for 4473 cans, which has to suck I'm sure... I guess I don’t get driving 120 miles one way just to get a 4473 suppressor. I understand that it’s nice to be able to pick one up and take it home with you right there and then, but with $0 tax stamps, I’m fine with waiting a week, especially if I don’t know if the place I’m going has what I want in stock. |
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: I guess I don’t get driving 120 miles one way just to get a 4473 suppressor. I understand that it’s nice to be able to pick one up and take it home with you right there and then, but with $0 tax stamps, I’m fine with waiting a week, especially if I don’t know if the place I’m going has what I want in stock. I'm of the same thought. I'm thrilled that we are making good headway on the Second Amendment front, but with Form 4 and Form 4473 suppressor purchases costing the exactly the same, I'll most likely continue going the Form 4 route. My last one was approved in essentially one business day. My reasoning is that it protects me from uneducated law enforcement. Sure, I may be 100% legal with a 4473, but there's no guarantee that I won't be paying bail and lawyer fees up until winning the case. |
It is not so much for its beauty that the forest makes a claim upon men's hearts, as for that subtle something, that quality of air, that emanation from old trees, that so wonderfully changes and renews a weary spirit.
|
Honestly I wish I could get rid of most of mine now just so my wife or daughter doesn’t have to fool with them all when I’m no longer here. That day will come. I went crazy buying in the 90s! Main reason I stayed away from any NFA stuff. |
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: I guess I don’t get driving 120 miles one way just to get a 4473 suppressor. I understand that it’s nice to be able to pick one up and take it home with you right there and then, but with $0 tax stamps, I’m fine with waiting a week, especially if I don’t know if the place I’m going has what I want in stock. I totally get it. But I’ve lived in a state where everything was registered. Not just a background check and 4473 but actual registration. Any cop could pull up a list of everything you owned. Unregistered guns are priceless |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
Originally Posted By st33ve0: You need to be in FPCAF, legally discrete from FPC. Jensen v ATF plaintiff orgs: FPC Action Foundation (Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation) Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) CCRKBA is more straightforward - they have a join link on their website. |
01010111 | 57 | 127 | LXXXVII
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: I guess I don’t get driving 120 miles one way just to get a 4473 suppressor. I understand that it’s nice to be able to pick one up and take it home with you right there and then, but with $0 tax stamps, I’m fine with waiting a week, especially if I don’t know if the place I’m going has what I want in stock. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sure - if you're in the NFRTR already, it's probably not moving the needle much. You're already on the registry, you've already been through the system, whatever. Sort of like an inverse of after the first felony the rest are free, I guess. Maybe do one for the sheer novelty, definitely be happy for the group I'm getting to in a second here, but otherwise, meh. Meanwhile, I never thought I'd own a suppressor. Nothing against people who followed the process, but I refuse to submit to their bullshit tax scheme and I was perfectly willing to just do without because of it. This injunction has offered the one and only lawful method for me to buy and use a suppressor, and beyond that, it's an opportunity to put my money where my mouth is and take some kind of personal action in support of my rights instead of just paying my membership and occasionally leaving a voicemail at a congressional office that nobody will ever give a shit about. Thankfully Sarasota isn't terribly far, but I'd drive across the state and back for the chance to be part of that. When you thought you'd go your whole life without a suppressor because of some idiotic Jim Crow tax scheme, a day's worth of effort really doesn't seem like much. ETA: All you Form 1/4 folks, whatever your thoughts are on the utility of 4473 cans, please try and get your suppressed stuff out and visible as much as you can as a way to normalize them to the gun-owning public and maybe get a few conversations going to boot. Even if it's somewhere like a public indoor range where you need ear pro regardless, let's all do what we can to try and normalize them and spread the word about the injunction. Anything and everything that boosts the number of people with suppressors/SBR/SBS or at least break the perception that they're some kind of rare mysterious scary things is a benefit at this point. |
|
Originally Posted By MongooseKY: How does one join FPCAF? Their website has a donation link but nothing about membership. This seems more like the NRA-ILA, which also has no direct membership option that I'm aware of. Are FPC members automatically a member of/affiliated with FPCAF? CCRKBA is more straightforward - they have a join link on their website. I won't lie, that's why I went with them for Jensen protection. No weird distinctions to watch out for, no similar-but-different-but-lands-you-in-jail-on-a-technicality name troubles. |