Suppressors gun trust news
- Thread starter n64atlas
- Start date
Think approval takes forever now....? Just wait 'till there are MULTIPLE background checks and fingerprints PER FILING to process!
This has nothing to do with curbing "gun violence" (a term I despise as I have NEVER heard of a gun committing any act, much less one of violence) - anyhoo, this is aimed at curtailing the Second Amendment rights of the law abiding populace.
This has nothing to do with curbing "gun violence" (a term I despise as I have NEVER heard of a gun committing any act, much less one of violence) - anyhoo, this is aimed at curtailing the Second Amendment rights of the law abiding populace.
No, it wouldn't be impossible to enforce, any more than the current regs are. If you change trustees, the proposed rule requires the new trustee to submit a form with fingerprints and photos within 30 days. If a trustee doesn't, then the trust is breaking the law and the "responsible person" (or persons) can be held legally liable.
Believe it or not this was triggered by the NFATCA itself, which is supposed to be on our side. It was NFATCA that suggested that all trustees and corporation officers submit fingerprints and photos.
The BATFE gladly jumped on this because the NFATCA "represents" the NFA community.
What we need to focus on with laser-focus is changing the background check requirements FROM fingerprint/photo TO a simple NICS check run by the BATFE itself, or a licensed FFL, or both, to be documented with a photocopy of a government-issued ID ONLY. This is all that's needed.
The BATFE proposes to change the wording on the CLEO signoff slightly to remove any question about CLEO liability for misuse of the NFA item but still requiring that the CLEO certify that the applicant has no local background problem and that it's legal for the applicant to possess an NFA item in that locality.
This is NOT NECESSARY since it's already illegal to own an NFA item in a state that prohibits such ownership, and state laws are sufficient to cover that, and if the BATFE simply requires an applicant to certify under penalty of perjury that they are qualified to possess an NFA item in the particular state and location of the application then the BATFE can prosecute anyone who lies about it.
The BATFE's excuse for the CLEO sign off is that NCIC and other federal databases may not capture EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE disqualifying event, and the BATFE wants to be absolutely certain.
This of course is just a sham. The BATFE admits in the notice that things have changed since 1934 and that there are computer systems now but they say that the computer records are not complete enough for their comfort, alleging that some states don't report everything and that therefore the CLEO needs to do a local background check too.
We need to focus on getting the background check requirement reduced to a federal NICS check and eliminating the CLEO signoff and replace it with a CLEO NOTIFICATION. If the BAFTE cc's the CLEO (whom the applicant would have to specifically identify) then the CLEO can AT HIS OPTION review the application and if he has an objection he can file it with the BATFE which can reject or revoke the permit and prosecute the applicant for lying if necessary.
The local LEO's have no business sticking their nose in a federal issue. You are either permitted to have the item or not. If you are caught with a NFA item then you should be prosecuted by the federal gov.
Most field agents will even tell you it's not worth their time and funding to go after one person for some of the ATF violations. Do you REALLY think they care about a forward grip on a AR15 pistol?
It's all bullshit and that group that initiated this should be stoned. This is nothing more then stomping on the little guy to make them feel better about themselves and the lead times.
But, at this point it is all speculation as there is a 90 day review process and it might never go anywhere. They tried this a year or so ago and it got shelved.
Most field agents will even tell you it's not worth their time and funding to go after one person for some of the ATF violations. Do you REALLY think they care about a forward grip on a AR15 pistol?
It's all bullshit and that group that initiated this should be stoned. This is nothing more then stomping on the little guy to make them feel better about themselves and the lead times.
But, at this point it is all speculation as there is a 90 day review process and it might never go anywhere. They tried this a year or so ago and it got shelved.
I don't really know how easy to enforce it will be honestly. Trusts are organized under state law. I'm not sure the BATF has any authority to determine whether a new party can be added after the fact. Maybe or maybe not.
Let's home it goes no where.
Suppressors shouldn't be listed as an NFA item anyway - they are a firearm accessory...not a firearm.
Suppressors shouldn't be listed as an NFA item anyway - they are a firearm accessory...not a firearm.
Except that it's illegal in many, if not most states to possess an NFA item under state law. They are usually classified as "dangerous weapons" or some such. The exemption that allows us to have NFA items is most often language that says "unless properly licensed" which is interpreted to mean you have an NFA tax stamp.
As I wrote in another post, in Colorado for example it is a felony to possess an SBR, SBS, machine gun or silencer. There is an "affirmative defense" available that the item is properly licensed and permitted. But an "affirmative defense" is something you plead to the court AT TRIAL (usually at the arraignment), not to the cop who stops you and arrests you for felony possession of a dangerous weapon. Under the "affirmative defense" system the police can (and in some cases will) arrest you even if you have all the paperwork on your person, because they CAN. If they don't like rednecks with SBRs or mouthy "sovereign citizens" who give them attitude they have legal authority to hook and book you and let you spend the weekend in jail till your arraignment is scheduled. If at the arraignment (or sometimes another hearing if the DA is feeling particularly pissy) you claim the affirmative defense and present the requisite proofs to support it, your case can be dismissed by the judge. But that doesn't mean you're going to get your SBR or can back any time soon, because the police, if they are prone to this sort of action as some departments are, will hold on to it for as long as possible and force you to get a court order for its release...and you'll be lucky if it hasn't "disappeared" from the evidence room, or been fatally damaged by the time you get it back, if you get it back.
Listen, I'm a retired detective and I can tell you as a matter of fact that there are many, many police officers out there who DO NOT LIKE armed citizens at all, much less ones with SBRs, machine guns and silencers. The closer you get to a major metropolitan area the stronger and more institutionalized the anti-gun and anti-NFA opinions are. I worked with a good many cops who knew the gun laws of the state, including the NFA issues, like the back of their hand and were eager to violate ANYONE they stopped with a gun for SOMETHING they had done wrong, no matter how trivial, sometimes as a matter of department policy set by the administration. And yes, they would arrest you for a forward grip on your pistol.
Federal agents can be just as rule-bound and inflexible, and I've run into Forest Service LE Rangers who are likewise proficient with the federal regs and will bust you for anything they can find or think they have found...like shooting at trees. Yes, it's illegal in some forests to shoot at trees, or rocks, or anything but "paper targets." And if you've seen some of the ad hoc shooting areas west of Colorado Springs you'll understand why, because they look like the Ardennes Forest after the Battle of the Bulge from decades of literally mowing down the trees with gunfire. While it's silly to complain about a few acres among hundreds of millions of acres that are seriously impacted by irresponsible shooters who bring propane tanks and old washers to shoot at, they are usually visible from a forest road so all the gun-hating hoplophobes see them when they are out bunny-hugging and they complain to the Forest Supervisor who then looks for an excuse to shut the area down to shooting altogether. Happened right here with a very old range on Rampart Range Road west and north of Garden of the Gods. It had been used for decades with FS permission and then one day a couple of years ago some idiot negligently discharged his handgun in the parking lot and killed a friend of his. Within 48 hours the range was PERMANENTLY closed and they had erected concrete barriers to keep people from parking. The Forest Supervisor had been WAITING for some incident that would let him shut it down because it's been a trash and maintenance thorn in his side for a long, long time.
So please don't try to tell your grandpa how to suck eggs. This is a big deal and I guarantee you that the local Sheriffs deputies in many places will happily write you up for having a forward grip on your AR-15 pistol, and they will (as an organization) get to KEEP the item. They don't have to involve the feds at all because it's all illegal under state law.
Let's hope so, but the point is that we should all comment anyway, because if we don't, we give up the moral right to complain about what they end up doing.
It doesn't. But it DOES have the authority to demand that any new members who have access to NFA items undergo a background check because THEY enforce the NFA. And if a new member has a felony record it's certainly possible for them to deny an application. Whether they can revoke an existing tax stamp is something I don't know, but I'm betting they can. And if you, as a "responsible person" fail to run the background check, then YOU are liable if you let a felon get control of an NFA item, and YOU will get arrested.
That's the stick behind the carrot....wait...what carrot? No carrot, all stick.
That's a lot of false rambling. I have dealt with a few ATF agents and they were all very nice and helpful. I've been in our local gun stores many times with a SBR or suppressed bolt gun and they never say a word to me about paperwork or state laws.
And as a matter of fact the individual states do have the right to say no suppressors, SBR's or AOW's. Look at California. There are actually only a couple states that dont allow NFA items. But other then that as long as your state allows them to be owned and used, you can register as many as you can pay the tax on. I have done this for 8 years now, processed a few hundred forms by now. I have a decent grasp on what does and doesn't fly with local law enforcement and then on the Federal level.
The problem with your statement is that the majority of your local officers... they don't know the statutes or federal regs for NFA items. Then they get caught up in something they know nothing about thus resulting in an embarrassing mistake for their department. I have seen it happen more then once and I have been out of state and questioned for having a "silencer" in my possession. Once I had explained the legality of it and showed the paperwork they never said anything about it again. It's all about who you run in to and the questions you ask, or don't ask of them.
Well, I didn't say that EVERY federal officer is a rule-bound martinet. But they can be. The Forest Supervisor in Boulder County was as anti-gun as they get and her people were routinely hostile to anyone with a gun.
On the other hand, the folks on the Grand Mesa NF were uniformly friendly and understanding.
My point is that it's not necessarily the AFT you have to worry about, it's the local police/sheriff. My reply was in response to someone who said "The local LEO's have no business sticking their nose in a federal issue." I admit to going off on a rant about the FS, but my main intent was to demonstrate that the local LEO's DO have "business" inquiring about NFA items, at least in Colorado and a number of other states with similar statutory constructions. They aren't sticking their noses into a federal issue, they are enforcing a state law, and that's their job. Many CLEO's won't bother to mess with a properly-registered NFA item because they know it'll just get kicked at arraignment, but there ARE LEO's and CLEO's who are implacably hostile to NFA items and for that matter ANY firearm in the possession of a citizen. One such organization is the Denver Police Department and the Denver District Attorney. I know that for a fact because I wrote an article about one such abuse and had thoroughly researched it. Now it's true that since Bill Ritter quit as DA and got voted out as Governor things are somewhat better, but it's still a crap-shoot to carry or transport firearms, much less NFA items, through Denver. If the wrong cop stops you he can and sometimes will run you through the meat grinder.
I'm just counseling discretion and a realistic view of the laws as I know them, which is diametrically opposed to the notion that local LEO's have no jurisdiction when it comes to NFA items.
They do. Under state law. And that's my point.
Sorry for going off on a rant about the FS, but it's a sore subject with me at the moment.
Similar threads
