-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
gt rid of the social security sezure order other than that his nyc liberal roots will stop him from doing half of what he said he would do.
B
boomer81
Guest
Yeah but it's technically still against the law if I buy a gun for my dad for Christmas, sell as a private collection at a gun show or buy a gun off my buddy right. These are seen as straw sales/purchases if not handled by a ffl. if I understand the language. It was obamas attempt at closing the so called gun show loop hole. Most people don't even know this or care. But it still needs overturned.
Well, ATF did just reverse their ruling on the "arm brace" for pistols. It is now legal to shoot them from the shoulder.
What you cannot do is accept money to buy a firearm for someone else. Regardless of intent, that is a straw man purchase. Gifting a firearm is perfectly legal, assuming the recipient can legally own a firearm. You can sell firearms as a private seller, without a license, so long as you are not in the business of selling firearms. You can still buy a firearm from a private seller without a background check. All of the above assumes the buyer and seller can both legally own firearms. At least according to federal law. Your state and local laws may be more restrictive... I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at a holiday inn last night.
As much as you guys might think Obama did to gt rid of the 2A, the prior 3 repub presidents signed many many more laws, actual laws, taking and restricting your 2A rights than that communist POS did. Reagan was the worst, he is why we cant get new full auto rifles right now. That fkr.
Well, not in WA, but that's a state law and they are addressing several of the concerns such as the ones you mentioned. They wanted to close loopholes but the way they did it was far too restrictive and they realized that and are unfucking it now.
Just like when we got SBR's, they fucked up the wording on that too and so SBR ownership for most residents got delayed for a year. Unless you happened to be one of those people that bought them the day the law went into effect and before the hoopla like me, and then was put into a gray area for a year... In WA the law can't be interpreted, it has to be read for what it is, and anything missing isn't in the law and anything written is, regardless of how ridiculous or absurd.
Trump has said a lot about a lot... He's a fucking blowhard like all politicians and greedbags, so I only go by their actions. And so far his actions haven't been anti but they haven't exactly been pro yet either. Lots of stuff we want done, such as loosening the regulations on FFL's, national reciprocity, hearing pro act, etc. Maybe later his son will get a chance to influence dad and we'll get something out of it. Sad it's gotten to that point.
well...
1) trump has no say over state laws....elect better local reps if your state sucks.
2) hes been in office 100 days......and unfortunately, he does in fact have more pressing issues right now than our countries gun laws...like N Korea.....Syria....the immigrant crisis......
jesus, you guys call millennials impatient.........im sorry he cant just jump into office and change the way our country works over night.........goodness, at least give the guy till the middle of his term to start bitching and moaning.
My question is, how do we go about asking HIM for help? From what I've seen, he's been more than happy to do what the people sent him there to do, especially if it pisses the libtards off..... I think he actually enjoys pissing them off...... so I figure if he got the word of exactly what we wanted done, he'd probably be all over it, if for no other reason than to piss off the libs. My problem is, you can't just send the President an email or give him a ring on his cell phone, and it seems to me like they ate focusing on stuff that's important, but not as important to me. For example, I couldn't care less about national reciprocity, I don't travel that much, and even if I did, I'm covered by another law, but I understand why it matters to others. That said, it's going to be the hardest sell of all, since you have so many states that don't allow anybody to carry at all, and now all of a sudden, out of staters can walk into Cali packing heat and nothing those blithering idiots can do about it..... That's going to be a hard sale, even for some states whip allow concealed carry, but believe they should have control over who gets to carry..... the stares would lose control, and they don't like that.
On the other hand, reducing restrictions on FFL's, specifically gunsmiths, such as ITAR registration, should be as simple as a vote, plus it would hemp business owners, which Trump claims he's all about......I knows I'd already be in business of not for that stupid annual extortion for an activity I won't partake in (exporting arms). Why not work on the easy stuff and make some actual strides instead of getting held up on the hardest one and getting nothing done?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
On the other hand, reducing restrictions on FFL's, specifically gunsmiths, such as ITAR registration, should be as simple as a vote, plus it would hemp business owners, which Trump claims he's all about......I knows I'd already be in business of not for that stupid annual extortion for an activity I won't partake in (exporting arms). Why not work on the easy stuff and make some actual strides instead of getting held up on the hardest one and getting nothing done?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
I don't think there would be any vote required to do away with the ITAR registration for smiths (if you're talking about the regulation they put in last year). As I remember, that was a pure regulation done from within the ATF, and not a law passed by Congress. If that's the case, he can just sign an EO that reverses it and it's gone.
Actually, the law has always been there, but Obama, by EO, pushed the issue of redefining the meaning of manufacture beyond the "reasonable and customary meaning" of the word, to include any modification that involves anything other than hand tools basically. To take a pile of parts and assemble them into a functioning firearm, as with an AR build, or screwing on a fully complete barrel, like with the barrel nut setups, is "gunsmithing" according to State, but to drill and tap a fully complete rifle for scope mounts, or to take a complete rifle and chop 6" off the barrel and thread it for a muzzle brake is suddenly defined as "manufacturing". ATF didn't make any changes in that regard to my knowledge, they have always been clear about what it gunsmithing and what is manufacturing, and building and fitting parts to an existing firearm has never been manufacturing according to ATF..... under ITAR though, if you machine a scope ring, or handguard tube, even if it's already a completed part but you need to modify it for some reason...... you better be paying that $2250/ year to the state dept..... even if you only machine one part a year. It's ridiculous that a damn gunsmith has to register with the State Department in order to be allowed to practice his trade even though what he is doing has absolutely zero to do with anything international. Most guns will never leave the STATE they are smithed in, much less get exported for sale to another country. If you're exporting, then by all means, register, but for a local gun shop that threads barrels.....efffing stupid. But hell, I'm preaching to the choir, how the hell do we change that bullshit?
Basically, if I work at subway, I can assemble all the sandwiches I want from the precut, prepackaged ingredients provided and I'm performing sandwich smithing duties. But if a customer brings in a foot long and asks me to cut it in half, I'm suddenly manufacturing that sandwich? Or if the slice of ham is to wide for the bread, so I trim it to fit, I'm suddenly a manufacturer. How efffing stupid does that sound? Because that's exactly what Obama's admin did to gunsmiths.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
They already can bully the big names, they are trying to rid the masses of the ability/desire to know how to do their own.
R
The liberals have shown us how to defeat an EO all we have to do is find a pro Judge willing to go against the anti EO. Much like the libs have done with Trumps travel bans..
Problem is, what is unconditional aside from the fact that it's a regulatory change rather than a law? Most of your conservative judges follow the law as written, libtard activist judges have no such ethical obligations, they just rule however they feel, whether it's legal or not.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
All of this is certainly true, but you can't equally compare the time either. The sentiment in the gun community was much different under Obama than it was in previous administrations. Obama didn't fail to get new law passed because he did nothing, he failed because we stood in his way. There is a HUGE change in how we protect our rights today than there was before.
the sentiments of the bill of rights have been in place for 200+ years and were assaulted by the repubs much harder than the dems in recent decades. The repubs and dems have one thing in common, they are addicted to people control, dont fool yourself otherwise, they are two large groups of despotic scumbags who are a threat to our country and our freedom. every president in my life has assaulted the BOR at every chance they thought they had and could get away with it, my oarents and my generation let these fkrs do it out of a blind trust in the parties, this is how jews end up on trains, blind trust.
Clinton was just as bad as Reagan, Obama just as bad as Bush and so on and so on. Thse fkrs give not one shit about your or my rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.co...arch-to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/
This one is Rich, the Firearms Owners Protection Act(hahahahah), takes away your right to new machine guns leaving only the government armed with modern full auto. Not fkn good.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...ez-says-reagan-supported-assault-weapon-bans/
Lopez pointed out to us that in 1986, Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. The bill provided a number of protections for gun owners. But it also barred the private sale and ownership of any fully automatic rifles -- machine guns -- that were not already registered with the federal government on the day Reagan signed the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.co...arch-to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/
This one is Rich, the Firearms Owners Protection Act(hahahahah), takes away your right to new machine guns leaving only the government armed with modern full auto. Not fkn good.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...ez-says-reagan-supported-assault-weapon-bans/
Lopez pointed out to us that in 1986, Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. The bill provided a number of protections for gun owners. But it also barred the private sale and ownership of any fully automatic rifles -- machine guns -- that were not already registered with the federal government on the day Reagan signed the law.
nothing. fucking nothing.
Trump is only capable of being Trump's friend. The sooner you realize that the better.
Trump is only capable of being Trump's friend. The sooner you realize that the better.
I'll give the Trumpster one more year before I write him off like the rest of these shithead scumbag sumbitches. He is doing one thing better than I thought he would do and that is trolling the establishment, now if his socalle d friends in that fkd up lying assed republican party would just do what they said they would do over the past 8 fkn years things would be even better. Repeal the NFA and I will vote party line republican next election, If not, I will contribute $10k to whoever runs against my local RINO Brady.
You cannot purchase fully automatic weapons that were made post-1986. We have Reagan to thank for that. He effectively banned machine guns in America, it'll just take a long time.
Also, not sure why you highlighted Texas. Texas has pretty shit gun laws compared to Arizona and Vermont.
Calm down. He's barely in his first 100 days and some of you are freaking out.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Fake, no, liberal propaganda and intentionally misleading..... damn right. He didn't sign any restrictive laws because none made it to his desk, thanks to various gun rights groups. What he DID do, since he didn't have the power to legislate, was to REGULATE, or at least attempt to regulate. Remember the attempt to ban green tip 5.56 ammo? Remember his hardcore push to ban "assault weapons" after Sandy Hook? Remember him instructing heads of agencies to look for ways to "reduce gun violence"? That translates into "find a way to keep more people from owning guns"....ie, the Social Security rules that were recently rolled back. Even though he didn't directly sign any laws, and you can damn well put money on it that he would have, given the chance, his rhetoric drove many attempts at gun control on the Federal level, and some states succeeded in actually banning certain weapons.... that wouldn't have happened without Obummer pushing his agenda on the national level.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
If he does nothing else, these two things are light years better than how it could have gone.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/totalnewswire.com\/files\/2017\/04\/Neil-Gorsuch-sworn-in.jpg?w=600&h=0&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89"}[/IMG2]
I made a very specific statement that is actual fact, new full auto weapons, you didnt piss on anything. The end of the day, Reagan, Bush (both), were no friends of the 2A, neither are any Dem or Repub elected politician, they are active enemies of your rights, all of them not just the 2A.
If he does nothing else, these two things are light years better than how it could have gone.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/totalnewswire.com\/files\/2017\/04\/Neil-Gorsuch-sworn-in.jpg?w=600&h=0&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89"}[/IMG2]
Exactly. Blows my mind how some of you are saying he's as bad as Hillary and other bullshit.
Do you think Hillary and her SCOTUS nomination would have been the same or better than Trump's? Some of you dislike Trump, that's obviously. But you're absolutely delusional if you think Gorsuch being approved is not beneficial to us.
The jury is still out on Gorsuch, the last good Justice appointed was Thomas and maybe Alito, they have all sucked since, even the repub appointees, Roberts is just a left wing fkn asshole. I am not saying Trump is as bad as that evil kunt but I am saying he hasnt done anything good like getting rid of the NFA and the ATF.
How you can think Gorsuch isn't a good appointment yet is astounding. Take some time and read about his history.
Do you think Trump can just snap his fingers and abolish the NFA and ATF like that?
um yeah, all he has to do is defund the departments, do not sign a budget that funds them, done. Yeah yeah his history is one thing people change when they get a lifetime job, I suspect he will too.
I see EVERYTHING he has to do ULTIMATELY is what Armyjerry just said is getting rid of the NFA and the ATF...
(see bold print below)
UNDER CONSODERATION STILL:
1/20/17
ATF White Paper - Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations (BATF&E #2 Ronald Turks' opinion)
ATF is the only Federal law enforcement agency with a primary mission that directly involves an Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, our actions and policies are appropriately subjected to intense review and scrutiny. This paper serves to provide the new Administration and the Bureau multiple options to consider and discuss regarding firearms regulations specific to ATF.
These general thoughts provide potential ways to reduce or modify regulations, or suggest changes that promote commerce and defend the Second Amendment without significant negative impact on ATF’s mission to fight violent firearms crime and regulate the firearms industry.
This white paper is intended to provide ideas and provoke conversation; it is not guidance or policy of any kind. ATF’s enforcement and regulatory efforts are focused on reducing violence and increasing public safety. Positive steps to further reduce gun violence through enforcement or regulation are extremely important but are not the focus of this paper.
16 items of note (random from #13 below after 2 final paragraphs).
There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety. There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to support ATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence. In addition to these points of discussion, it is vital for ATF to find resources
to refresh aging technology and systems that support law enforcement and the firearms industry. Functionality at ATF’s Martinsburg facility and other areas has been severely hampered by outdated technology and systems that negatively impact ATF’s ability to provide services and information.
#
13 Pending ATF Regulation Regarding FFL Records Retention (20 years): ATF has a regulation pending at DOJ to increase the requirements for FFLs to retain records INDEFINATELY. The current standard is 20 years, and records older than 20 years can be
destroyed.
2 Armor Piercing Ammunition: ATF has regulatory authority to classify what is and is not armor piercing (AP) ammunition.
Continued inaction on these requests poses significant litigation and REPUTATIONAL RISKS to ATF. ATF can readily mitigate these risks by using the criteria established in the framework to process and approve many of the applications, while leaving the 5.56 “green tip” AP ammunition exemption intact.
Moving forward with approval of these applications is consistent with the statutory goal of protecting the public and law enforcement because, consistent with the statutory exemption, the projectiles involved are not associated with criminal use, but instead are clearly designed and intended for hunting and sporting purposes ...
If decisional restrictions were removed, ATF could readily apply drafted standards for reviewing AP ammo requests while leaving the 5.56 “green tip” AP ammo exemption intact. Many of the industries’ pending requests could be decided in a timely manner, meeting
both statutory requirements and safety concerns within the law.
Highlights:
5 Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace: Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm.
Many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA gun, ATF has a relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA '68 and NFA firearms with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with future requests based upon the firearm’s individual style.
6 Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study: Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as “modern sporting rifles” has increased exponentially in sport shooting. Many concerns from the firearms industry could be re-examined through the publication of a new Sporting Purpose Study along with an updated
Imports Branch Guide (can be made available to the public).
7 Creation of a Database of Agency Rulings: ATF lacks a consistent internal database to maintain and readily access private letters and ruling. The public also has no direct access to public rulings in a manageable format. The inability to access these rulings can create inconsistent agency interpretations of agency guidance. ATF can create a retrievable database for internal use that includes access by the public for open rulings.
14 Expanding Permissive Use of NICS Checks by FFL Holders: Standard pre-employment background checks frequently do not reveal that a person is firearms-disabled. A key aspect of this proposal is that it would be entirely elective; if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), ATF and others all concurred with this slight expansion of the use of NICS, there would be no mandate that licensees perform a NICS check on all employees.
15 Need for an ATF Confirmed Director: Since moving from the Department of Treasury to the DOJ in 2003, ATF has had only one Senate-confirmed Director. The agency needs a presidentially nominated, Senate-confirmed Director who has the support and backing of the Administration to lead ATF. This will enable the agency to be fully in sync with leadership, and maximize the agency’s potential regarding priorities, budgets, and support.
16 Old Regulations Under Review for Possible Removal or Amendment: Below is a list of the firearms and explosives regulations that are currently under review. They are likely no longer applicable (or portions of which are no longer applicable), and may be
removed as part of a final rule to remove expired regulations. 26 items listed a-z
Of Interest:
a. 478.40– Assault Weapons ban
b. 478.40a– prohibition language for assault weapons
c. 478.57(b) and (c)– assault weapons and large capacity magazines
d. 478.92 (portions)– AP ammo and large capacity magazines
e. 478.116 (portions)– importing large capacity magazines
f. 478.119– importing large capacity magazines and feeding devices (belts, drums, strips...)
g. 478.132– records keeping for large capacity feeding devices sold to law enforcement
8 Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress.
Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated.
Silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3455293/ATF-White-Paper-Options-to-Reduce-or-Modify.pdf
(see bold print below)
UNDER CONSODERATION STILL:
1/20/17
ATF White Paper - Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations (BATF&E #2 Ronald Turks' opinion)
ATF is the only Federal law enforcement agency with a primary mission that directly involves an Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, our actions and policies are appropriately subjected to intense review and scrutiny. This paper serves to provide the new Administration and the Bureau multiple options to consider and discuss regarding firearms regulations specific to ATF.
These general thoughts provide potential ways to reduce or modify regulations, or suggest changes that promote commerce and defend the Second Amendment without significant negative impact on ATF’s mission to fight violent firearms crime and regulate the firearms industry.
This white paper is intended to provide ideas and provoke conversation; it is not guidance or policy of any kind. ATF’s enforcement and regulatory efforts are focused on reducing violence and increasing public safety. Positive steps to further reduce gun violence through enforcement or regulation are extremely important but are not the focus of this paper.
16 items of note (random from #13 below after 2 final paragraphs).
There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety. There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to support ATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence. In addition to these points of discussion, it is vital for ATF to find resources
to refresh aging technology and systems that support law enforcement and the firearms industry. Functionality at ATF’s Martinsburg facility and other areas has been severely hampered by outdated technology and systems that negatively impact ATF’s ability to provide services and information.
#
13 Pending ATF Regulation Regarding FFL Records Retention (20 years): ATF has a regulation pending at DOJ to increase the requirements for FFLs to retain records INDEFINATELY. The current standard is 20 years, and records older than 20 years can be
destroyed.
2 Armor Piercing Ammunition: ATF has regulatory authority to classify what is and is not armor piercing (AP) ammunition.
Continued inaction on these requests poses significant litigation and REPUTATIONAL RISKS to ATF. ATF can readily mitigate these risks by using the criteria established in the framework to process and approve many of the applications, while leaving the 5.56 “green tip” AP ammunition exemption intact.
Moving forward with approval of these applications is consistent with the statutory goal of protecting the public and law enforcement because, consistent with the statutory exemption, the projectiles involved are not associated with criminal use, but instead are clearly designed and intended for hunting and sporting purposes ...
If decisional restrictions were removed, ATF could readily apply drafted standards for reviewing AP ammo requests while leaving the 5.56 “green tip” AP ammo exemption intact. Many of the industries’ pending requests could be decided in a timely manner, meeting
both statutory requirements and safety concerns within the law.
Highlights:
5 Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace: Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm.
Many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA gun, ATF has a relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA '68 and NFA firearms with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with future requests based upon the firearm’s individual style.
6 Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study: Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as “modern sporting rifles” has increased exponentially in sport shooting. Many concerns from the firearms industry could be re-examined through the publication of a new Sporting Purpose Study along with an updated
Imports Branch Guide (can be made available to the public).
7 Creation of a Database of Agency Rulings: ATF lacks a consistent internal database to maintain and readily access private letters and ruling. The public also has no direct access to public rulings in a manageable format. The inability to access these rulings can create inconsistent agency interpretations of agency guidance. ATF can create a retrievable database for internal use that includes access by the public for open rulings.
14 Expanding Permissive Use of NICS Checks by FFL Holders: Standard pre-employment background checks frequently do not reveal that a person is firearms-disabled. A key aspect of this proposal is that it would be entirely elective; if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), ATF and others all concurred with this slight expansion of the use of NICS, there would be no mandate that licensees perform a NICS check on all employees.
15 Need for an ATF Confirmed Director: Since moving from the Department of Treasury to the DOJ in 2003, ATF has had only one Senate-confirmed Director. The agency needs a presidentially nominated, Senate-confirmed Director who has the support and backing of the Administration to lead ATF. This will enable the agency to be fully in sync with leadership, and maximize the agency’s potential regarding priorities, budgets, and support.
16 Old Regulations Under Review for Possible Removal or Amendment: Below is a list of the firearms and explosives regulations that are currently under review. They are likely no longer applicable (or portions of which are no longer applicable), and may be
removed as part of a final rule to remove expired regulations. 26 items listed a-z
Of Interest:
a. 478.40– Assault Weapons ban
b. 478.40a– prohibition language for assault weapons
c. 478.57(b) and (c)– assault weapons and large capacity magazines
d. 478.92 (portions)– AP ammo and large capacity magazines
e. 478.116 (portions)– importing large capacity magazines
f. 478.119– importing large capacity magazines and feeding devices (belts, drums, strips...)
g. 478.132– records keeping for large capacity feeding devices sold to law enforcement
8 Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress.
Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated.
Silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3455293/ATF-White-Paper-Options-to-Reduce-or-Modify.pdf
Similar threads
