Comments on Trusts

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,485
    Westminster USA
    From the High Road:
    Comment Now on Proposed Additional Regulations on Gun Mufflers and Short Barreled Rifles

    300px-MarbleGameGetterGun.jpg


    The Firearms Coalition has provided an alert about the proposed BATFE Obama administration rules. The proposed rules make the application for trusts and companies to obtain federal tax stamps for gun mufflers (silencers, suppressors), short barreled rifles and shotguns, full-auto guns and a few other items, considerably more convoluted.

    The Firearms Coaliton supplied a sample comment in the article on ammoland to use as reference for comments, which can be made here. I found the proposed rule change comment section with a search for NFA trust at that link, and by clicking on the Comment Now button on the right side. After reviewing the Firearm Coalition comment, I decided to write my own. Feel free to use it or to take points from it as you choose.

    Quote:
    These proposals attempt to provide solutions for problems that are non-existent. The existing problem with the regulations is that they are non-responsive, result in unreasonable waiting times, and create barriers to good safety practice. I have not heard of a single example of criminal misuse of these items that resulted from NFA trusts or companies. The excessive federal regulation on gun mufflers, suppressors or silencers, has caused millions of people to have substantial hearing loss, a federally mandated health disaster. The regulations on short barreled rifles and shotguns, given the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald, no longer make any rational sense. To make them even more intrusive and complex is bad policy, on the edge of irrationality.

    The BATFE currently handles the annual caseload of about 30,000 transactions poorly, with delays of six to nine months. Instead of potentially doubling this caseload for frivolous political reasons, the administration should be looking to eliminate the requirement for these intrusive and unnecessary checks on items that are treated no differently than common firearms or accessories in many European nations. In Finland, for example, gun mufflers, suppressors or silencers are considered a constitutional right. No crime problems have resulted from this. Short barreled rifles and shotguns are functionally no different than handguns, possession of which has been ruled to be a constitutional right in the United States. They should be treated the same as handguns. If these actions were approved, the wait times for other applications could be handled in a timely manner.

    The current Chief Law Enforcement Officer certification requirement should be done away with completely. At present, local officials are able to stop individuals from obtaining federal licenses based on nothing by individual bias, discrimination, an unwillingness to process the forms, or simple caprice, without any appeal. The proposed rule changes would extend this affront to the rule of law to trusts and companies as well.

    The citizens that apply for these "tax stamps", which are in fact, poorly disguised licenses, have been shown to be the most law abiding of the top 10 percent of the country. They should not be punished for the remarkable safety record that they have established. There is no rational basis to make these regulations more restrictive.
    After submitting the comment, you will be given a tracking number to track it through the system. My tracking number is: 1jx-88wl-w71t.

    When we push to remove these frivolous infringements on the second amendment, we will be able to show that they were opposed by large numbers of commenters, but only if we bother to make a comment. Comments close on December 9th, so now is a good time to get your comment in the system.

    ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
    Link to Gun Watch
     

    Klunatic

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2011
    2,923
    Montgomery Cty
    I've added my comment. Hopefully this proposed change will fall flat... I'm so tired of more rules and regulations. Lets keep adding comments, even if they're one liners. It's the number against that counts.

    I doubt any new regs will fall flat. This is the Obama administration and he really needs to put something the liberals will think is a positive on the books:sad20:
     

    IMBLITZVT

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 20, 2009
    3,799
    Catonsville, MD
    You know it sucks, under the Dems things get worse. Under the Reps things don't get better... In 8 years of Bush, he could have solved this issue for us. After Obama, the next Rep is not likely to help us out much either.
     

    bobthefisher

    Durka ninja
    Aug 18, 2010
    1,214
    Definitely not where you are!
    You know it sucks, under the Dems things get worse. Under the Reps things don't get better... In 8 years of Bush, he could have solved this issue for us. After Obama, the next Rep is not likely to help us out much either.

    Exactly! We need this one-way gun control ratchet to go in reverse, not just halt until the next anti gun politician gets into office. Remember Bush wasn't very helpful, and would have resigned the Clinton AWB if congress had passed it. We barely got out of that one.
     

    IMBLITZVT

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 20, 2009
    3,799
    Catonsville, MD
    Exactly! We need this one-way gun control ratchet to go in reverse, not just halt until the next anti gun politician gets into office. Remember Bush wasn't very helpful, and would have resigned the Clinton AWB if congress had passed it. We barely got out of that one.

    Don't forget the Bush Jr. Barrel Import ban! This killed the era of cheap parts kits and gun builds. I built an AK right after the ban from a kit for $150 including a matching AK parts kit, Tapco FCG and receiver flat... $150 for a working AK. Today just the parts kit is like $500.

    I would say that at least Bush let us have, after a fight, some fairly conserative SCOTUS Judges giving us Heller. However after the Woollard and really Roberts ObamaCare Magic... no I will not even give him credit for that.

    I guess thats no shocker after Bush Sr. ban on import AWB.

    I can give Reagan a bit of a pass for the 86 MG ban only because the NRA was pushing to accept the FOPA with it.

    However really... the Rep bans have been worse than the Democrat bans on a national level since 1968. So much so that all Obama can ban are a few Garands and Carbines coming back into the country...
     

    bobthefisher

    Durka ninja
    Aug 18, 2010
    1,214
    Definitely not where you are!
    Don't forget the Bush Jr. Barrel Import ban! This killed the era of cheap parts kits and gun builds. I built an AK right after the ban from a kit for $150 including a matching AK parts kit, Tapco FCG and receiver flat... $150 for a working AK. Today just the parts kit is like $500.

    I would say that at least Bush let us have, after a fight, some fairly conserative SCOTUS Judges giving us Heller. However after the Woollard and really Roberts ObamaCare Magic... no I will not even give him credit for that.

    I guess thats no shocker after Bush Sr. ban on import AWB.

    I can give Reagan a bit of a pass for the 86 MG ban only because the NRA was pushing to accept the FOPA with it.

    However really... the Rep bans have been worse than the Democrat bans on a national level since 1968. So much so that all Obama can ban are a few Garands and Carbines coming back into the country...

    Yeah, only because he knows the House will cut down his laws just to spite him. I have no doubts we would already have another AWB in place if the dems ruled the House and the Senate. The best friend to the 2A is a split congress and presidency. Agreed... both parties suck at preserving individual liberties.
     

    Klunatic

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2011
    2,923
    Montgomery Cty
    Post your comments to this proposed rule change here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=ATF-2013-0001-0001
    Here is what I posted, feel free to copy/paste/modify but post something!


    I am against the proposed rule change to require fingerprinting and CLEO signoff for NFA trusts.

    The NFA process is already excessive as it is taking 9-12 months for a single item to work through the system. This is without the added delay of obtaining fingerprints and CLEO sign off. With the CLEO signoff it can add an additional 2-3 months.

    Additionally, this rule change is already covered by existing laws federal and state laws. The purchaser of of NFA items are already subject to NCIS background checks and is already legally responsible for making sure that prohibited individuals cannot access firearms/NFA items.
     

    elwojo

    File not found: M:/Liberty.exe
    Dec 23, 2012
    678
    Baltimore, Maryland
    I posted a duplicate thread on this last night because I didn't see anything on this issue in the forums. But trust me: I would have seen it if it were plainly said. Which is no where near done here in the thread title or first post.

    The DoJ is planning on changing ATF regulations to make CLEO sign-off, fingerprinting, and background checks mandatory for anyone listed on an NFA trust.

    Want to stop that? Post your comments here.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,485
    Westminster USA
    Yeah the title Comments on Trusts posted in the NFA Forum is very vague and confusing.

    I'm surprised the other 9 posters could even find it.

    Using the forum's search tool, see the post at the top revealed when you search on "NFA trusts?"

    really?


    .
    .
     

    Attachments

    • comments.jpg
      comments.jpg
      55.2 KB · Views: 339
    Last edited:

    elwojo

    File not found: M:/Liberty.exe
    Dec 23, 2012
    678
    Baltimore, Maryland
    "Comments on trusts" reads very ambiguously. You could be saying "these are my comments about trusts" - as in, I have one and here is what I think about them. Or "do you have any comments on trusts" - as in, I want one and I was curious what you thought about them. I searched for the name of the regulation in question: 41P. Nothing came up. I looked through the titles of the threads and nothing popped out. So if you want to call me out for that, go ahead.

    But this thread title is total crap for what it should be. Does it say the ATF is changing how it handles NFA trusts? Does it say to provide commentary to this regulation? Nope. Does the first post have a summary or anything other than a long-winded, hard-to-follow quoted article? Nope.

    That you are defending this blows my mind. You would rather feel right about a poorly worded title and first post than actually work towards what you supposedly say the post is about: providing comments to the ATF about proposed regulation changes that significantly influence NFA Trusts. Next time another SB281 comes about, maybe we should create a thread called "New Laws" in the "Maryland 2A Issues" section and that would clearly be sufficient for all talk on it, right?

    I don't like to be a dick - but this is definitely one of those times where I will dish it out.

    But seriously people. Send in comments to the ATF here.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,725
    Columbia
    I posted a duplicate thread on this last night because I didn't see anything on this issue in the forums. But trust me: I would have seen it if it were plainly said. Which is no where near done here in the thread title or first post.

    The DoJ is planning on changing ATF regulations to make CLEO sign-off, fingerprinting, and background checks mandatory for anyone listed on an NFA trust.

    Want to stop that? Post your comments here.

    How about you change your panties?
    There are numerous threads on this. Search is your friend.
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=129101
    or
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=130026
    or
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=129948

    All kinds of bent out of shape because somebody told you there was already a thread on this.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,546
    Messages
    7,285,932
    Members
    33,476
    Latest member
    Spb5205

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom