AFT41F in a Nutshell - Straight Talk about the New Rules and Defunding ATF41F

[Mike D]

AFT41F in a Nutshell - Straight Talk about the New Rules and Defunding ATF41F

Thanks for the video.

I support this version of ATF 41P/41F. It makes sense and it's reasonable. My hope is that we can eventually work towards removing suppressors from the NFA's purview entirely. They are safety devices, not dangerous weapons. They should be on the shelf at Academy.

I don't know enough about the procedural aspects of executive actions and orders to have an opinion on whether the executive branch should be changing the laws, so no comment there.

Why would you support more unnecessary government regulation that will have virtually zero effect on crime?

I do agree suppressors should
Be removed from NFA entirely.

[mmoses]

Why would you support more unnecessary government regulation that will have virtually zero effect on crime?

I do agree suppressors should
Be removed from NFA entirely.

x2

[Jethro]

Listening to all the talk on NFA forums and such, common consensus is that they can only remember a couple of cases where a registered NFA item was used to commit a crime. One was an ex-cop who used a Mac 10 or 11 to commit a murder, and the other was where a guys wife used his suppressed Ruger pistol to off him. All of the other crimes where any type of NFA item was used, they were unregistered and already illegal anyways. So why would we want more regulation into an area where it will make absolutely no statistical difference on crime? Makes no sense at all.

And 100% suppressors should be removed from NFA IMO.

[35remington]

Mike, I believe it's important to find some sort of olive branch to extend. Life has become too polarized (us versus them). I think it's very reasonable to expect trustees to be using NFA firearms, therefore background checking them also seems reasonable.

If we support this, we make some friends across the aisle, while in reality giving up very little freedom in exchange for abolishment of dictator-like CLEO approval.

Suppressor removal from NFA registry is a "when," not an "if," provided things keep moving the direction they have been.

[boomer453]

Mike, I believe it's important to find some sort of olive branch to extend. Life has become too polarized (us versus them). I think it's very reasonable to expect trustees to be using NFA firearms, therefore background checking them also seems reasonable.

If we support this, we make some friends across the aisle, while in reality giving up very little freedom in exchange for abolishment of dictator-like CLEO approval.

Suppressor removal from NFA registry is a "when," not an "if," provided things keep moving the direction they have been.

X2-Seems to make perfect sense.

[Mike D]

Mike, I believe it's important to find some sort of olive branch to extend. Life has become too polarized (us versus them). I think it's very reasonable to expect trustees to be using NFA firearms, therefore background checking them also seems reasonable.

If we support this, we make some friends across the aisle, while in reality giving up very little freedom in exchange for abolishment of dictator-like CLEO approval.

Suppressor removal from NFA registry is a "when," not an "if," provided things keep moving the direction they have been.

There are some things you compromise on and some things you don't. Guns and accessories are one of the things that I don't.

That's why we are where we are at today with overbearing regulations on our 2A rights.

Wonder why the 2A has so many restrictions while the others don't seem to? Except maybe the 4A.

[HoustonR6ryda]

so basically-it crunch time

I got 5 months to get my trust-suppressor(s) and sbr with no hassle?-I have procrastinated and could lose

[bm22]

Mike, I believe it's important to find some sort of olive branch to extend. Life has become too polarized (us versus them). I think it's very reasonable to expect trustees to be using NFA firearms, therefore background checking them also seems reasonable.

If we support this, we make some friends across the aisle, while in reality giving up very little freedom in exchange for abolishment of dictator-like CLEO approval.

Suppressor removal from NFA registry is a "when," not an "if," provided things keep moving the direction they have been.

If our generation decides to compromise on our 2nd amendment rights the next generation will have it's 1st amendment rights comprimised.

This rule just affects supressors but as you can see in the media they are steadily chipping away at the right. Murder in and of itself is illegal, make the tool they use to murder illegal doesn't make the act any more or less illegal. Murder is already illegal. Taking away our 2nd amendment rights does nothing but make us weaker.

If a mouse wants a cookie and we give it to them where does it stop? I can tell you for democrats and liberals it doesn't stop until the only guns in america are owned by the police and criminals.

[boomer453]

so getting rid of the required CLEO signature is a loss? one guy sitting in an office is allowed to tell you "no" for no other reason than he feels like it, forcing you to incur extra cost by forming a trust in order to purchase an NFA item. I don't see how removing that obstacle is a loss. i'm not seeing the issue to having to get a background check. i agree you shouldn't have to get one for a non firearm but i'm not seeing a big downside.

removing CLEO signature requirements is a win.

[Mike D]

AFT41F in a Nutshell - Straight Talk about the New Rules and Defunding ATF41F

so getting rid of the required CLEO signature is a loss? one guy sitting in an office is allowed to tell you "no" for no other reason than he feels like it, forcing you to incur extra cost by forming a trust in order to purchase an NFA item. I don't see how removing that obstacle is a loss. i'm not seeing the issue to having to get a background check. i agree you shouldn't have to get one for a non firearm but i'm not seeing a big downside.

removing CLEO signature requirements is a win.

That's the only positive in it. And it's easily worked around with a trust without 41P. Or just maybe people do their due diligence to get rid of a CLEO that won't sign off. The negatives far outweighs the positives.
.

The minimal cost of a trust is FAR outweighed by the multiple advantages of having one.

The downside is every responsible person on the trust has to go through all that unnecessary BS not just 1 person.

If NFA stuff was causing "blood to run in the streets" then it may be a valid point. But it's not. Not even close. I'd love to know the actual statistics of NFA items purchased through a trust are actually used in crimes of any kind every year. I would be its 0.1% or less.

It's not necessary, period.

[boomer453]

i don't even see it as an issue regarding terrorists or crime or anything else. we "won" background checks as a way around a 5-7 day waiting period. no reason anyone on a trust shouldn't have to get a background check, it's reasonable to use the assumption that anyone on the trust has a right to use the item(s) on the trust which could be an SBR or other firearm. If your going to possess and use it it only seems logical that you'd go through the same background check as if you bought it yourself.

I still say that non-firearms should not be part of any NFA trust (suppressors) but if the trust includes anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger then everyone on the trust should be legal to possess and use it. Currently the only way to do that is through a background check.

[35remington]

I've never seen any weeping and gnashing of teeth over the fingerprint and photograph requirement to get a CHL.

Why complain now?

[Mike D]

i don't even see it as an issue regarding terrorists or crime or anything else. we "won" background checks as a way around a 5-7 day waiting period. no reason anyone on a trust shouldn't have to get a background check, it's reasonable to use the assumption that anyone on the trust has a right to use the item(s) on the trust which could be an SBR or other firearm. If your going to possess and use it it only seems logical that you'd go through the same background check as if you bought it yourself.

I still say that non-firearms should not be part of any NFA trust (suppressors) but if the trust includes anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger then everyone on the trust should be legal to possess and use it. Currently the only way to do that is through a background check.

No the NRA sold gun owners out with the NICS system and the AWB. See where that got us. There is a 4473 with every NFA item and you have to show either DL or CHL.

I've never seen any weeping and gnashing of teeth over the fingerprint and photograph requirement to get a CHL.

Why complain now?

That's a one time deal and it only affects the individual, not every single trustee listed on the trust. And they are only good for 24 months.

And the fact that we have to have a license to carry is a farce all the way around.

[boomer453]

i have to respectfully disagree-whether you like it or not there are situations that make it illegal for certain individuals to possess or own a firearm (no need to argue that point) the only way to verify if your legally precluded from owning/possessing is by background check.

not a perfect system but no one has come up with something better. what i see as the larger hangup for background checks is making it accessible for everyone. If i want to do a background check in order to sell a gun to joe bob down the road, how do i access the system to do it? do i have to go through an FFL or will there be a way for me to access the system directly?

[Mike D]

i have to respectfully disagree-whether you like it or not there are situations that make it illegal for certain individuals to possess or own a firearm (no need to argue that point) the only way to verify if your legally precluded from owning/possessing is by background check.

not a perfect system but no one has come up with something better. what i see as the larger hangup for background checks is making it accessible for everyone. If i want to do a background check in order to sell a gun to joe bob down the road, how do i access the system to do it? do i have to go through an FFL or will there be a way for me to access the system directly?

I guess we will have to respectfully disagree. And I'm fine with that. Neither of us are going to change the other's mind.

What I see happening if it ever gets to the point where ALL firearms transactions require a background check, then all transactions will be directed through an FFL.

But I don't see how that would ever be enforceable.