User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 11:51:40 AM EDT
[#1]
Nil.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 11:57:36 AM EDT
[#2]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:03:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:11:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:14:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well said.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:21:54 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:34:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:53:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:53:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Yep. Only RPs at the time of submission matter as far as prints & photos & CLEO Notification goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 1:23:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 1:31:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 1:33:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great points and very well stated. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 1:40:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, yes. Great point. Praise the NFATCA! Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 1:45:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 1:53:25 PM EDT
[#15]
41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 1:58:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Don't forget, Trump was once for an assault weapon ban to
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:00:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 41f actually opened up NFA items to a lot of people who were closed off from them before. LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:29:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget, Trump was once for an assault weapon ban to And the NRA was a big help in getting him elected! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:33:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:35:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:48:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would only laugh out of ignorance. What he said is correct. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:48:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off. No problem now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. And I am not a wizard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:56:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Does anything think we can get the Hearing Proctection Act passed now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:57:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off. No problem now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. While I won't deny there aren't exceptions to my next statement, the majority of those that couldn't get sign off didn't put in effort. They probably tried the Sheriff, and if they showed a little more initiative they tried the Chief of Police next. If they didn't get a signature, they stopped and complained about not being able to get CLEO sign off. The reality is the list of people eligible to sign is into the double-digits...but few people keep going down the list. From the current Form 1, the list includes: The chief law enforcement officer is considered to be the Chief of Police; the Sheriff; the Head of the State Police; or a State or local district attorney or prosecutor.. Just think how many people fall into the "state or local district attorney or prosecutor" bucket. Additionally, the NFA Handbook includes: 6.2.4 Law enforcement certification. As provided by the regulations, the law enforcement certification located on the back of Form 1 must be completed and signed by the local chief of police or county sheriff, the head of the State police, the State or local district attorney or prosecutor, “or such other person whose certificate may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director.” Examples of certifying officials, other than those specifically mentioned in the regulations, who have been found to be acceptable are State attorneys general, heads of district State police offices and certain State court judges. Judges’ certifications have been accepted if the judges preside over courts of general jurisdiction having original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases or the authority to conduct criminal jury trials in felony cases. Generally, State magistrates and constables do not have such authority. NOTE: no official’s certification will be accepted unless the official has jurisdiction over the place where the applicant resides. The signature on each copy of the certification must be an original signature in ink. NOTE: if the Form 1 being submitted is to reactivate a properly registered unserviceable firearm, the law enforcement certification is not required. See Section 6.6. ATF used to have a Q&A section on their website that answered the question in a similar manner, including listing the AG and judges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 3:19:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 4:09:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 4:41:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 6:40:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, yes. Great point. Praise the NFATCA! Would not want a person with a 10 year old DUI to have fun shooting MGs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 7:01:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A single DUI doesn't make you a prohibited person. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 7:51:14 PM EDT
[#30]
There shouldn't be any gun laws period.
No free man shall be barred the use of arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 12:39:37 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Realistically: Sound suppressors aren't dangerous weapons, they are just lumped in with things like rifles that are scary because they are 'black'. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quoted:
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. Quoted:
There should not be any such thing as a prohibited person or the NFA. Disagree on prohibited people. Agree on NFA. Quoted:
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. Quoted:
Does anything think we can get the Hearing Proctection Act passed now? Probably not as written, but some version of it, better than 50%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 12:51:58 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Cause the NICs check does a great job of keeping guns away from felons. 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. Quoted:
There shouldn't be any gun laws period. No free man shall be barred the use of arms. 
Good luck with that. I'm sure you will be super popular when the adults are talking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 12:59:34 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 1:33:01 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 9:42:01 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 9:47:45 AM EDT
[#36]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 10:21:08 AM EDT
[#37]
Nothing will be repealed. All laws and EOs will stay the same. You're hopes of change were misplaced.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 10:50:21 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 12:26:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 1:00:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 1:04:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 2:19:41 PM EDT
[#42]
I'd rather get 922r & the Hughes Amendment repealed than 41f.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 9:21:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 9:23:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Plenty of ppl couldn't get CLEO's to sign-off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 9:26:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 10:14:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd rather get 922r & the Hughes Amendment repealed than 41f. Me too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 10:15:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are in for a surprise. Pro-gun changes are coming legislative and with pen and phone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 10:28:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Me too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'd rather get 922r & the Hughes Amendment repealed than 41f. Me too. Third |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 11:05:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Third Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 1:33:54 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry, but no law states that. Application requirements are CFR, not law. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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." |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
