Letter writing campaign

[nfafan]

<snip>

What is weird with NFA, is normally the Feds tell the states what they can or have to do.

Not so when it comes to the NFA world, suddenly the states have final say on if its Citizens can have with NFA stuff, including none at all.

The states can and do trump the feds here with NFA, maybe the states have more authority than they know.

So there might be something here and maybe the Firearm Freedom Act movement is a way to force this into the light.

Not new at all, states can always make tighter gun laws, typically not WEAKER gun laws.

Would be interesting to see how this Montana thing actually works out; would the STATE defend the Montana citizen if the Feds bust the citizen at a range for a home-built SBR or can??

Or leave them twisting in the wind??

[WhiteFeather]

Not new at all, states can always make tighter gun laws, typically not WEAKER gun laws.

Would be interesting to see how this Montana thing actually works out; would the STATE defend the Montana citizen if the Feds bust the citizen at a range for a home-built SBR or can??

Or leave them twisting in the wind??

Read articles in the thread

Several state attorney generals have filed brief in support of Firearm Freedom Act. One state proposed a extra level to actual prosecuting feds that try to enforce feds laws over FFA in that state. Lots more info on the FFA national effort web site also on link. Take some time to study up on the subject see IF its something you could support. Go fast option is not part of FFA, but silent knight and shorty are along with fed free ammo added cost.

Following in Montana'a Footprints? HB 752

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...-hb-752-a.html

[Philadelphia]

If I pass PICS I should be able to buy what I want.

You hit the nail on the head. What does the NFA really accomplish? It's obsolete for the most part.

I'd start with suppressors, maybe SBRs too, and go from there. I'd suggest first creating a list of members of congress willing to introduce and sponsor such legislation and then enlist as many pro-gun groups to write in as possible. Everyone in support of national reciprocity, for example, might be an easy start. A list of email addresses is likely best because it's less work on both ends -- for us to write and for the legislators to read.

I'd be happy to draft up a short letter if you want to put together the list of who to send it to. The message would really be as simple as you put it. What's the point of the forms, reviews and tax stamps for a suppressor or SBR when we now have NICS and PICS -- just more government bureaucracy and waste.

Suppressors might be a good first issue because it's easy to explain to anyone why people want them. Hearing preservation, etc.

[nfafan]

You hit the nail on the head. What does the NFA really accomplish?

<snip>

just more government bureaucracy and waste.

Suppressors might be a good first issue because it's easy to explain to anyone why people want them. Hearing preservation, etc.

It's easy money for the Feds from the well-heeled. And a financial hurdle that the lesser classes can't over come - so it serves as a form of gun control. That and the signatures and wait-times.

It means more govt jobs; see any gov't offices open today (10/10 Cols Day)?

What .gov employee is gonna give up their jobs? They're (ATF) LOOKING for ways to expand the empire.
I used to point at gov't employees in the knowledge that they were at the employer of last resort. Now I realize they get every effin' holiday off - and will retire long before I ever will.

Somehow I would think LEOs would look MORE askance at signing an F1/F4 on a "silencer" than a 1942 Vickers... A silenced 9mm is more likely to make them nervous than a cumbersome belt-fed.

[kahamlett]

I would leave the actual NFA process alone, it's a revenue generator for the Gov't, it has been functioning as written since 1934 and it's controlled by Congress, but if you want to have the 86 MG ban repealed that would be ok.

The MG ban is unconstitutional as all hell and specially how it was ILLEGALLY passed. The NFA might be too however the NFA is a double edged sword, this time it is the positive side. Going through the massive amounts of BS when getting your stamp toys, the government is actually doing us a HUGE favor. Everyone knows only about 2 crimes since '34 have been with legal MG's. One by a police officer. That leaves 1 'civilian' in 75 years that has gone off the deep end. Think about it....1 crime in 75 years. With all the shootings that take place every day, every month, every year for 75 years, the percentages couldn't be anymore in our favor. Conclution - NFA poses 0% public safety concerns and justifies why civilians are responsible enough citizens to have NFA. Facts speak for themselves and facts against liberals are like kyriptonite against Superman.

[buckengr]

The MG ban is unconstitutional as all hell and specially how it was ILLEGALLY passed. The NFA might be too however the NFA is a double edged sword, this time it is the positive side. Going through the massive amounts of BS when getting your stamp toys, the government is actually doing us a HUGE favor. Everyone knows only about 2 crimes since '34 have been with legal MG's. One by a police officer. That leaves 1 'civilian' in 75 years that has gone off the deep end. Think about it....1 crime in 75 years. With all the shootings that take place every day, every month, every year for 75 years, the percentages couldn't be anymore in our favor. Conclution - NFA poses 0% public safety concerns and justifies why civilians are responsible enough citizens to have NFA. Facts speak for themselves and facts against liberals are like kyriptonite against Superman.

As much as I hate to say it, I agree 100%. If new MGs could be manufactured within the current NFA framework, I would be thrilled. Combine that with hiring some more examiners and streamlining the application process a bit (i.e. web submission or something so they don't just lose paperwork for 6+ months at a time), and this process wouldn't really be all that painful.

[claudel]

Good idea, normanvin. Here is my take on the rationale to eliminate the restrictions on suppressors - at least for rifles:

POINT 1: In many civilized countries, suppressors are either not regulated or minimally regulated. In the UK they are virtually required from a public health perspective:

"Police forces (in the UK) usually approve applications for a suppressor for hunting and target shooters, as the risks of litigation for personal injury, especially high-tone deafness resulting from shooting-induced hearing loss, are significant; and noise pollution in general is a problem for shooting sports."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Europe

POINT 2: Eliminating the restrictions (regulatory and financial) on suppressors for rifles would create a nationwide surge in the design and manufacture of suppressors. Unlike the banks and the oil companies -- Washington's inaccurately named favorite 'job-creators' -- the small businesses that dominate the suppressor marketplace would know what to do with such an opportunity. They would immediately increase capacity, output and sales -- and hire some out-of-work people in the deal. A byproduct would be to put a few ATF bureaucrats on the streets.

Now, we just need a coalition of private sector Republican capitalists and the few health conscious, 2A-supporting Democrats to push the legislation. See, common ground can be found by those who are willing to look. Pro public health, pro economy, pro gun, anti-regulation, smaller government - something for everyone! Can world peace be far behind?

I'm def on board with this...

One additional suggestion would be to change the language by referring to suppressors as "mufflers",
which in essence is what they actually are...

[Kramer]

POINT 2: Eliminating the restrictions (regulatory and financial) on suppressors for rifles would create a nationwide surge in the design and manufacture of suppressors.

the small businesses that dominate the suppressor marketplace would know what to do with such an opportunity. They would immediately increase capacity, output and sales -- and hire some out-of-work people in the deal.

First off, eliminating the restrictions would not create a surge in design or new designs... it would actually go the other way.

Right now because of the cost, waiting period and transfer tax, the current manufacturers are designing the best suppressors for the money.

If the restrictions were removed, there would be a boat load of yahoos cranking out crappy disposable cans because it would not be worth it to spend a lot of time doing the R&D development for better designs. Buy a can for a hundred or two hundred and if you don't like it, chuck it and buy another one.

Second, the companies that are out there now are trying to crank out as many cans as they can to satisfy the current demand. It's not like they are sitting on loads of inventory and shops are filled with cans for your choosing. Most cans produced already have a buyer before they send in the Form 3 for the dealer.

Even Gemtech ditched their tax free deal this year since they were still trying to make and deliver cans from last years deal.

Hiring out of work unemployed guys sounds good, but unless they know how to run CNC/CADD/CAM machinery, and do expert tig welding, they probably would not be hired so it would not really help the unemployed workers.