New gun rights group formed to concentrate on NFA reform

[mikeyp]

http://www.guns.com/2014/10/09/new-gun-rights-group-formed-to-concentrate-on-nfa-reform/

 

[Coyote33]

The legislation mandates that local the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in NFA parlance sign off on certifications for those applying for Title II firearms such as suppressors, machine guns, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. From there the group wants to work with the U.S. Congress to eventually eliminate CLEO certification altogether.

In addition to the push for shall certify, the group has nearly a dozen stated goals ranging from streamlining and expediting the process to obtain a regulated device or firearm to pushing legislative reform at the state levels.

Finally, the group aims to eventually remove silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns from NFA regulatory control and repeal the 1986 Hughes Amendment that prohibits new made machine guns for civilian ownership.

I'm up for silencers. The other stuff I'm not against, but not my cup of tea. Except the 1986 Hughes Amendment. THAT is one which needs to go away. Also, whatever law forbids importing and selling new full-auto AK's. Also, anything preventing use of some of the cool WWII stuff, and grease guns, and well, you get the picture.

 

[grey]

I hope it gains some traction. Its about time

 

[DarthRevan]

Talk about the biggest of all pipe dreams...
half mast thinking about Post '86 mgs

 

[Reptile]

I would like to get a SBR but I don't want to bother the CLEO or get a Trust.

I'll be watching these guys.

 

[exo]

Well, at least somebody is trying. Personally, the NFA (and GCA and its amendments) are immoral and unconstitutional, no matter what past courts have said.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Well, at least somebody is trying. Personally, the NFA (and GCA and its amendments) are immoral and unconstitutional, no matter what past courts have said.

Even Gura has been on record as saying that, at least when I heard him speak in 2011, that there wasn't any prospect for fighting against NFA and MG regulations in court. I know we have a much bigger body of 2A jurisprudence three years later, but I doubt the main issue that these aren't "firearms in common use" has changed.

 

[exo]

Even Gura has been on record as saying that, at least when I heard him speak in 2011, that there wasn't any prospect for fighting against NFA and MG regulations in court. I know we have a much bigger body of 2A jurisprudence three years later, but I doubt the main issue that these aren't "firearms in common use" has changed.

That might be the case, but they're only not "in common use" because of how heavily heavily they have been restricted. If we didn't have all these silly OAL and barrel length restrictions, who knows what might be common?

Isn't there a potential avenue of attack in the Miller decision though? It said something to the effect of they can't ban guns of military utility. Since the M4 would be NFA restricted by both its barrel length and select fire nature, shouldn't that be available? Or do they argue that $200, 6+ months, and $20,000 for a pre-86 transferrable receiver or sear doesn't constitute a ban?

 

[rivet_42]

Even Gura has been on record as saying that, at least when I heard him speak in 2011, that there wasn't any prospect for fighting against NFA and MG regulations in court. I know we have a much bigger body of 2A jurisprudence three years later, but I doubt the main issue that these aren't "firearms in common use" has changed.

That seems to me to be a self-eating watermelon. The reason nothing full-auto is a "firearm in common use" is that there's a law, but given recent jurisprudence, the law only works to ban it because it's not a "firearm in common use." I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that that kind of bootstrapping shouldn't work.

 

[JohnZ]

I think the intent of the founding fathers was for citizens to have parity with a tyrannical .gov. Given that, "common use" should be whatever is commonly used by .gov and/or LEO.

 

[The5thDentist]

I think the intent of the founding fathers was for citizens to have parity with a tyrannical .gov. Given that, "common use" should be whatever is commonly used by .gov and/or LEO.

THIS!!!!

 

[groundscrapers]

It may be an egg they don't want to crack open. All it takes is one politician to realize that the tax stamps haven't been increased since there inception to say its time for a raise.

 

[exo]

It may be an egg they don't want to crack open. All it takes is one politician to realize that the tax stamps haven't been increased since there inception to say its time for a raise.

I think it will take more than one. And it would raise a lot of questions about the reason for the NFA in the first place. Remember in 1934, $200 was effectively a ban for almost everyone.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think it will take more than one. And it would raise a lot of questions about the reason for the NFA in the first place. Remember in 1934, $200 was effectively a ban for almost everyone.

That was the idea. Congress knew a ban was unconstitutional, so they did the next best thing.

 

[dgrafton]

What would the required process be to raise the fee? If I remember, it is a lot more involved because of the part of the law it is written into.

 

[StevensMarksman]

How about if all the gun owners file a class action lawsuit against the 2A infringements?

StevensMarksman

 

[greencobra]

Remember in 1934, $200 was effectively a ban for almost everyone.

This is exactly what they're trying to do when they raise the fee on, say, Massachusetts LTC's. They try to use the economy to pare down the amount of people who will renew due to a massive increase. We all know people who don't renew because of this, for some, it's a big hit.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

That was the idea. Congress knew a ban was unconstitutional, so they did the next best thing.

My guess is the group will end up raising awareness of the NFA and the idea that people can and do own MGs and suppressors, and NFA items will end up being low-hanging fruit for PAG.

 

[exo]

My guess is the group will end up raising awareness of the NFA and the idea that people can and do own MGs and suppressors, and NFA items will end up being low-hanging fruit for PAG.

A lot of states have legalized the use of suppressors while hunting. The attitude about this stuff is different than here in MA/Northeast. PAGs might get worked up but I don't see all the froth and lather going anywhere.

 

[mpkeelee]

$200 tax stamp is just a legal bribe. "Give us money and we will give you your permission slip." BS

 

[Boris]

I doubt that big change is coming but it's a start.

Big things always start from humble beginnings.

 

[hunt4riches]

Well, at least somebody is trying. Personally, the NFA (and GCA and its amendments) are immoral and unconstitutional, no matter what past courts have said.

I'm truly shocked the moon bats didn't try to use the fact that shorter barrels reduce projectile velocity making rifles less powerful. But then I realized, "they are moonbats" and do not understand physics. "all rifles have to be SBR's, SBR tax now $1,000 and NFA staff capped at 100 examiners so stamps take 2 years to get" man... that would have sucked...