There’s some verbiage in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (And Really Big Fires) “Final Rule” on ATF 41F that deserves greater scrutiny. Specifically, the ATF’s justification for its provisions. Like this (paragraph breaks and emphasis added):
“The Department disagrees that it must show a direct link between the proposed rule and enhanced public safety. Congress has directed the Department to ensure that individuals who are prohibited from possessing NF A firearms do not obtain them, even if those individuals have no intention of using them in an unlawful manner . . .
“The Department regards the appropriate question to be whether the rule will better ensure that prohibited individuals do not unlawfully possess NF A firearms, not whether individuals who possess firearms are likely to use them to commit crimes. Additionally, the Department notes that some individuals who own NFA firearms do in fact commit crimes.
“A review of trace data and criminal records from 2006 to 2014 disclosed twelve incidents in which owners of NF A firearms were convicted of crimes; however, there is no evidence that these crimes were committed with NFA firearms.
“Convictions include attempted homicide, conspiracy to commit felony offenses of firearms laws, operating a drug involved premises, possession of unlawful firearms, possession of marijuana, intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during commission of drug trafficking, domestic violence, theft, dealing firearms without a license, and possession of an unregistered NFA firearm.
“In one instance the purchaser was arrested 9 days after the purchase of the firearm. In another instance the purchaser was arrested within 3 months of the purchase of the firearm. Both purchasers were convicted of drug related charges.
“The Department acknowleqges that the majority of firearms traced are handguns. However, between 2006 and 2013, local or Federal law enforcement recovered and ATF traced 5,916 NFA firearms . . . There were also at least seven instances in which the possessor of the firearm at the time it was traced was not the person it was registered to in the NFRTR . . .
“The Department also emphasizes that NFA weapons are dangerous weapons that can empower a single individual to take many lives in a single incident. Therefore, a low incidence of the use of NFA firearms in crimes does not reflect the threat to public safety that they pose.
“A low usage of NFA firearms in crime may also bespeak the success of the NFA in preventing such weapons from reaching the hands of prohibited persons in the past. The large increase in transfers in which no background check takes place, however, increases the risk that NFA firearms will reach prohibited persons.
“The Department does not believe it is reasonable to wait for an NFA firearm to be used in a significant criminal incident before crafting procedures reasonably calculated to carry out its regulatory mandate to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining NFA firearms.”
So basically, they’re bad because we say so.
Crime Against Bureaucracy. That’s it. No real victim of harm, just “they said they are illegal, and the proles didn’t listen to us.”
The way of America in 2016.
The funniest thing is that it is still possible for people under the trust who do not have management rights over the trust (how it gets amended, what language it contains) to possess NFA items and NOT PROVIDE PHOTOS or FINGERPRINTS. The ATF scrivener really screwed the pooch, or they realized that they couldn’t accomplish anything they wanted legally. As the managing trustee, you will now have to provide prints and photos at first, and then if anything in your trust changes, but the other folks will not have to IF YOUR TRUST IS WORDED CORRECTLY. Is it annoying, yes. On the plus side, the folks on my trust don’t have to do it, and now folks caught behind enemy lines can enjoy NFA items. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a larger nothingburger in my life.
you know, when a NFA item gets used in a high profile crime, and STASTICALLY THIS IS EVENTUALLY INEVITABLE, the grabbers are going to flip their everloving shit.
What are we going to do about that?
We’re going to ask the ATF why they sold the gun to them.
The grabbers have been over-hyping weapon descriptions after tragic events for so long that such an event will have little effect on the public after hearing story after story about military-style assault machine guns with high-capacity clipazines.
We’re just going to keep doing what we’ve been doing. Take a look around, I grew up in Cali, so I know what losing the gun debate looks like, and it looks nothing like where we are right now. If some good ol’ boy decides to off his wife and her boyfriend with his SBR we’ll just keep our heads down and plowing forward.
Yep, those pistols with forward handgrips, or an SBR – those things are really deadlierer than regular deadly guns.
Don’t forget silencers! Deadly silencers “that can empower a single individual to take many lives in a single incident.”
Make it more illegal, that should fix it!
Wow, 12 whole crimes, by every NFA owner, over a nine-year period – and none of which included NFA items?
During that same period, were any crimes committed using NFA items, whether legally possessed or not?
Yes. But unfortunately, the illegal possession of an NFA item is often the crime in and of itself. Also, here in Texas, there have been crimes committed with fully automatic weapons in the hands of cartels here illegally, doing well, other illegal things. However, I don’t have any evidence that says these weapons were manufactured, sold, or purchased here in the US.
Take this for what it’s worth as it’s hearsay. But I also live in Texas a friend and coworker of mine essentially did base security for military installations evaluating how secure they were, what needed to be done etc. While doing this near the border an incident occured where some narcos threw a live frag grenade into a bar full of people. Luckily it was a dud.
The ATF can eat all the dicks, for people with the money and connections anything can be bought laws be damned.
If they were, they’d certainly yell it loud and clear…
A better question might be “How many firearms related crimes were commited by atf agents and swept under the rug during that same time period?”
“The large increase in transfers in which no background check takes place”
If this is true, Why does it take 6-8 months to get an approved form back? What the fuck are they doing in that time frame?
“What the fuck are they doing in that time frame?”
Delaying the otherwise legal purchase of an otherwise legal inanimate object….otherwise in this case referring to “well, it would be legal except we declared it not by fiat.”
The idea of legal items and illegal items is so morally bankrupt it boggles the mind. THIS is the purpose of the federal government? Or, better question, this is what many people believe is the purpose of federal government?
First and most egregious, a suppressor is an NFA “weapon” that really is not a “weapon” at all. No one, in the entire history of the entire world, has ever used a suppressor to kill anyone. To say that a suppressor is a “dangerous weapon” is just plain silly.
Second, and of possibly greater importance, common NFA “weapons” are no more dangerous than their non-NFA counterparts. An NFA shotgun (whose barrel is shorter than 18 inches) is no more dangerous or deadly than the same shotgun with an 18 inch barrel. In fact, an NFA rifle (whose barrel is shorter than 16 inches) is very likely less deadly than the same rifle with a non-NFA 20 inch barrel because the longer barrel of the same rifle will generate higher bullet velocities which are more dangerous and deadly than slower bullet velocities generated in NFA short-barreled rifles!
So, according to the ATF’s rationale, they should be trying to prevent people from owning shotguns and rifles with longer barrels!
That is the ultimate end game, don’t hasten the process.
Well, their statement (granted I haven’t read the rule) looks to specifically exclude suppressors. This sentence in particular:
“The Department also emphasizes that NFA weapons are dangerous weapons that can empower a single individual to take many lives in a single incident.”
A suppressor is not a weapon, and is not capable of taking many lives in a single incident. Explosive devices are. This ATF is going to have to learn that Merriam Webster is not a legal source and that words have meanings. Turning down the sound on your stereo doesn’t stop you from enjoying music but ensures other people don’t have to be nuanced by it.
My little soapbox moment. What will the liberals do when they discover gasoline?
Silencers (per ATF terms)/Suppressors are considered firearms in the eyes of the NFA.
Ban it, of course. Haven’t you heard of global warming?
Save the Baby LGBT Whales?
Noted the 5000+ traces of guns to illegal possessors. Doesn’t that just about equal the number lost by ATF in Fast And Furious?
Hmmm. If I recall correctly there’s something called strict scrutiny when it comes to constitutional rights. The government much show a clear, compelling, and narrow focus, extremely so, and just prove benefit. I’d be inclined to say this would not pass muster.
Good luck getting a court to apply strict scrutiny. That has yet to happen in any gun case that I am aware of.
This is ultimately an issue of Congress, not the courts. It’s entirely within Congress’ explicit authority under Article III to regulate the courts and require strict scrutiny in 2nd Amendment cases. I’d personally ague they should apply that to all BoR cases.
They could also regulate the courts and reign in the abuse of the 14th Amendment, as well, if they wished.
Strict scrutiny is for everything else. It diesnt apply to the 2A because guns!
“The Department also emphasizes that NFA weapons are dangerous weapons that can empower a single individual to take many lives in a single incident.”
Of course! I completly forgot how a single barrel shotgun with a 17 7/8 inch barrel turns into the M65 “Atomic Annie”.
It is insane that an infinitesimal difference in length could be the difference between a pleasant Saturday afternoon at the range and a felony.
Wake up, it’s not about guns. It’s about control. Obama’s new executive action will now make you a gun dealer if you sell ANY firearm and require you to obtain a license (1/5/16). So If I want to sell my adult brother a .22 caliber single shot rifle, I am now a gun dealer and requires me to get a ATF approved dealer license. Just like I-594 in Washington state. Does nothing to curb crime, infringes on law abiding gun owners, is not enforced by almost every L.E. agency in Washington state. Clear violation of separation of powers, Congress writes laws, not the president. What is the time line for me to get approved by the ATF to be approved as a gun dealer to sell one gun to my brother? Will a dealer license take over a year to obtain? This is really scary, that is if you are informed and actually have a thought process. The second amendment is under attack today. .
NO IT DOES NOT. Stop parroting what you are being told.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/atf-guidance-on-who-qualifies-as-firearms-dealer.html
Occasional sales from your personal collection WILL NOT MAKE YOU A DEALER. They have to prove that you are in the business for profit. Other than Pythons, and ARs during the Sandy Hook scare, have any of you ever sold your used firearms for a profit?
Jim, thanks for posting that link. I referred to that guidance earlier. It’s something everyone should read before freaking out.
The neo-fascist/statist tyranny is here. Behold the slithering breed of lawyers who are running Washington D.C. Every word of this EO is an open attack on the 2nd amendment, and the constitutional republic it was designed to protect. These neo-fascist/statist lawyers are pissing on the U.S. constitution,….and every American who doesn’t support the rising tyranny. Look what we have. Educated lawyers….are justifying their shredding the constitution. This is how you overthrow a republic… you pervert the “promote the general welfare” into the need…nay, justification, for giving birth to a statist dictatorship. But that couldn’t ever happen here, right? It’s happening right now.
The ATF’s justification for its provisions, restated in English: “Because King Hussein done said so, that’s why.”
Am I reading this correctly in that a background check was never initiated on persons who are listed in a trust?
If so wtf takes so long to approve a damn form? I also don’t believe that.
More rules (and fees) = less compliance. It’s that simple. Nothing but unintended consequences.
What bugs me the most is the restriction of silencers. Liberal idiots go out of their way to limit all kinds of pollution. They create laws, bans and impose penalties. But when it comes to noise pollution, something easily remedied with a silencer, they’ll fight tooth and nail against it. So which is it, you progressive morons? You’re either against all types of harmful pollution or you’re not. Their idiocy and hypocrisy knows no bounds. Which leads to idiots at the ATF to impose more stupid restrictions to non-existing problems.
Yeah my AK SBR is waaaaaay more deadly with a 12″ barrel than it ever was when it was 16″. Are the people who wriite this garbage even reading what they write?
Comments are closed.