If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
The CMP isn't a private entity. Its a GSE (Government Sponsored Entity). And I believe the rifles it sells aren't imported into the US, but returned to the Army, who by law has to turn them over to the CMP. That isn't to say he could order a stop to that also.
After you bitch here, pick up the nearest phone and dial 202-456-1111
Wait a few moments and you will be put through to the White House comment line.
When you get a comment volunteer, say the following...
"I am calling to express my displeasure with the President. Today he signed two executive orders, one restricting the importation of older US firearms previously donated to foreign countries and the other restricting NFA and other gun trusts.
These executive orders are clearly focused on legal gun owners, and not criminals."
Usually they will follow up for clarification as they are trying to write down what you say.
Thank you.
Great.....$1000.00 Mosins around the corner.
From the White House "Fact" Sheet (Which, incidentally contains very few actual "facts")
This could have significant ramifications for the acquisition of NFA items by trusts. If the terms "individuals associated with trusts" is read to mean the trustees (e.g., the people with the right to possess the firearm), then very little has effectively changed. However, if this vague terminology is construed to mean all parties to the trusts, then it becomes impossible to background check all beneficiaries, particularly in situations where the trust beneficiaries are presently unlicancealbe. For example, if the contingent beneficiaries of a trust are your children, but your children have not reached age 21 and do not have an LTC, can they be successfully background checked? What if provisions of your trust specifically dictate that the contingent beneficiaries do not have an actual right to the firearm; i.e., they will be sold, and they get the money, for example? What then? They are arguably an "individual associated with the trust", but would be practically impossible for ATF to background check every potential trust beneficiary.
Therefore, three possibilities exist: (a)This is an attempted end-run to nullify NFA trusts at the federal level (including NFA Trusts that are already established) by making it "impossible" background check all parties, and deny the acquisition; (b) this is not the intent, but reflects only sloppy drafting; or (c) we can expect to see additional guidance from BATFE on the legallity of NFA trust construction. However, this is unlikely, as BATFE has consistently stated that their primary concern is only that the trust be legal under state law. Therefore, my bets are on A or B.
Before the official keeper of the clock makes any decisions, though, this charlie foxtrot drafting needs to get sorted out.
Yes, it's referring to trusts. Although you'd be hard pressed to find anyone owning NFA items through a trust that would tell you that they hadn't undergone "background checks".
Some people spent a lot of money to setup their NFA trust and some people have a boatload of money tied up in said trust (machineguns). If this nullifies all existing trusts, a nice big class action lawsuit funded by people with tons of money will be suing the feds all the way to SCOTUS.
Some people spent a lot of money to setup their NFA trust and some people have a boatload of money tied up in said trust (machineguns). If this nullifies all existing trusts, a nice big class action lawsuit funded by people with tons of money will be suing the feds all the way to SCOTUS.
Why would anyone pay a grand for one of those ugly, ancient, hideous, (did i say ugly yet) things unless no U.S. manufacturers could make bolt action rifles?
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk 2
You called me on a good point. I could have been more clear here.
Even if .gov's intentions are nefarious, I'm not sure that this would nullifies trusts that are already in existence; it would not seem to dissolve or revoke the trust's ability to hold NFA firearms that were already owned by, and registered to, the trust. The tax stamp is paid, and the NFA item is still registered. The trustees are the lawful possessors on behalf of the trust. The excerpt (and all I have seen is an excerpt) does look like it could negate the trust's ability to be funded by future acquisition of NFA items by the same trust. In other words, what's in there is safe, but adding more items could be difficult.
I should have made this more clear.
That does make it more clear.
Suppose I decide to liquidate my bolt action sniper rifle to fund an NFA trust and a suppressor. Since we are looking at a 6 month (or more) wait on NFA checks, would this rule change screw me over or would I be fine since I filled out the paperwork before the rule change took affect?
I would not take that bet.I think pretty much everyone here has known that part for the past 4+ years.
If a stupid gang banger had a Garand they would have no thumbs. Because they're too stoopid to load correctly.Yeah, because gang bangers are running around the 'hood with M1 Garands.
Could be the end of the CMP
Could be the end of the CMP
Orest doesn't think so:
"From what I read - it has no direct impact on the CMP. Of course others will argue it.
__________________
CMP Chief Operating Officer"
I think it will definitely have a big impact on the CMP. Unless this order doesn't include firearms made in foreign countries and the CMP starts importing Swiss straight pulls, Mosins, etc. where will any US made rifles come from?
This whole idea was discussed on a few different forums months ago and it included banning ALL imports and ammo from countries such as Russia. If that happens you can bet companies both here and overseas that import rifles such as Saigas, Veprs and ammo such as Wolf and Tula will either fold or take a huge hit.
One thing is for sure... just when prices started to settle down and products started appearing on the shelves and racks at gun shops, with gun show season coming up here in New England, prices are going to go through the roof yet again.
62 pages, dated yesterday. Assume it's legit since it's on the ATF site.
Supposedly this is in there (I'm still reading):
ATF does not propose to eliminate the CLEO certification at this time. Rather, ATF proposes extending the CLEO certificate requirement to responsible persons of a legal entity.
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/f...uctive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf
Good, I hope they are retarded. Once Skynet is built in Utah, we need more retards in place so we aren't shot for posting on NES/Google searches etc.Really? The ATF is so retarded that they scanned in the document so that is is UNSEARCHABLE on a computer. And on top of that the quality SUCKS. I've seen FAXES that look better than that.
Those ****s.