Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 76
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Glockin, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    3,769
    Rep Power
    21474848

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Quote Originally Posted by HKusp 45 View Post
    Am I crazy I cannot seem to get to the actual comment page for this.
    As of yesterday it wasn't actually posted yet. It should be up in the next few days.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ::1, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Age
    35
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    718483

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Would one of our wordsmiths kindly create a copy-pastable comment for when they do put up the comment section? I may find it hard to keep civil trying to explain to those idiots how I feel.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Where the amish roam, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    19453760

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Quote Originally Posted by XavierBK View Post
    Would one of our wordsmiths kindly create a copy-pastable comment for when they do put up the comment section? I may find it hard to keep civil trying to explain to those idiots how I feel.
    clear and concise statements that are fact based in opposition are probably the best, I hate that we have ti be on our "best behavior" but if we aren't then we are to the media crazy gun people. Never works well in our favor.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    4,818
    Rep Power
    21474854

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Quote Originally Posted by HKusp 45 View Post
    clear and concise statements that are fact based in opposition are probably the best, I hate that we have ti be on our "best behavior" but if we aren't then we are to the media crazy gun people. Never works well in our favor.
    What bothers me is that our side continues to act as if we're invisible. We're 100 MILLION plus people...why are we being treated like dirt? Why in the living f*** are we tolerating being abused while minority groups with 1/10th to 1/100th our size act like they own the place? Of course we shouldn't burn buildings or harm people, but damn can't we at least assert ourselves as being doctors, lawyers, accountants, business owners, investors, etc. who the people "in charge" know personally? It cannot be a fact that we are so distant from whoever "they" are that we are so easily dismissed as inconsequential.

    We need to get out of the closet and stop being pushed around. Stop accepting being the butt of jokes and smears by Hollywood and journalists and the political crowd. We need to stop allowing them to act like they're some kind of superior variety of person, that the person they're trying to degrade and impose on is their brother, their uncle, their cousin, their schoolmates, their accountant, their banker, their son's or daughter's teacher, the guy whose restaurant they're sitting in, etc. Correct them to their faces. It has worked for groups that are a fraction of a percent of the population.
    "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" -- Penn Jillette

    "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." -- Ted Nugent

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Glockin, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    3,769
    Rep Power
    21474848

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Quote Originally Posted by XavierBK View Post
    Would one of our wordsmiths kindly create a copy-pastable comment for when they do put up the comment section? I may find it hard to keep civil trying to explain to those idiots how I feel.
    NO do not do that. There is potentially an algorithm that filters and deletes duplicate comments.

    Write your own, keep it brief and clearly state your opposition to the 2021R-05 proposal. Doesn't need to single handedly convince them - just needs to be another opposition 'vote' in this nonsense.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Bedford
    Posts
    236
    Rep Power
    13052195

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Quote Originally Posted by jthrelf View Post
    NO do not do that. There is potentially an algorithm that filters and deletes duplicate comments.

    Write your own, keep it brief and clearly state your opposition to the 2021R-05 proposal. Doesn't need to single handedly convince them - just needs to be another opposition 'vote' in this nonsense.
    Correct, but it would be nice to have a bulleted list of points that can be made in ones own words.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tioga County, Pennsylvania
    (Tioga County)
    Posts
    4,702
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    When the comments open, inform yourself, write your own comment and submit it.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    State College, Pennsylvania
    (Centre County)
    Posts
    14
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Folks, a couple things to note:

    - Model airplane guys got a few changes made to recent FAA rule. The comment count? 50K or so. That said, the FAA still got what they wanted (remote identification of drones), but some changes were made in HOW they got it. We are not going to get them to drop this rule. Hate to say it, but it's clear they're going to get it in some form. So we need to work on the "HOW" thing .. just like the model plane guys did.

    - Commenter that noted they us algorithms to "discount" copy/paste comments is true. FAA posted a ppt a while back describing how they hired an outside firm to analyze. I can't see ATF going to someone that's a neutral arbitrator.

    - ATF specifically said they will ignore profanity etc. That probably won't mean just ignore that sentence, probably through out the whole submission.

    What this means is we have to be polite, business-like, cogent ... AND have hundreds of thousands of comments ... if we want to have any hope. I'm still going through it, but it seems to me that the definition of "firearm" is exceptionally broad. Anything that uses explosive to propel object? That includes every potato cannon ever made, not to mention heretofore not regulated black powder stuff.

    The "submission" and they'll decide part? Seems to be a black hole. How about recommend specific timelines (hint .. that they likely won't be able to meet), where no response within X days results in automatic determination of "non-firearm." Also may things like admin requirements for them to provide, upon request, paper trail to submitter complete with date of receipt, name/office of receiving it, and record of every step along the way (promotes accountability).

    Note that the rule is specifically vague on what current private owners MUST do. One could argue that it talks a lot about licensees, but given legal consequences of getting it wrong, suggest adding specific section that defines current owner of an object, and EXACTLY what they need to do in order to remain legal. Again, I'm still reading through it, but my impression is that you can probably have one not marked up until you take it to a gunsmith / sale for anything ... Seems they're using that as the "net" to trigger the changes they want (i.e. marking).

    Recommendation: one page, polite, free of insults, factual, and clearly say "I oppose the rule as written" in the opening sentence. Bonus point for offering specific recommendations to fix individual parts.

    Anyway, just my thoughts.
    If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Aviation is not for you...

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Glockin, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    3,769
    Rep Power
    21474848

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Quote Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
    Folks, a couple things to note:

    - Model airplane guys got a few changes made to recent FAA rule. The comment count? 50K or so. That said, the FAA still got what they wanted (remote identification of drones), but some changes were made in HOW they got it. We are not going to get them to drop this rule. Hate to say it, but it's clear they're going to get it in some form. So we need to work on the "HOW" thing .. just like the model plane guys did.

    - Commenter that noted they us algorithms to "discount" copy/paste comments is true. FAA posted a ppt a while back describing how they hired an outside firm to analyze. I can't see ATF going to someone that's a neutral arbitrator.

    - ATF specifically said they will ignore profanity etc. That probably won't mean just ignore that sentence, probably through out the whole submission.

    What this means is we have to be polite, business-like, cogent ... AND have hundreds of thousands of comments ... if we want to have any hope. I'm still going through it, but it seems to me that the definition of "firearm" is exceptionally broad. Anything that uses explosive to propel object? That includes every potato cannon ever made, not to mention heretofore not regulated black powder stuff.

    The "submission" and they'll decide part? Seems to be a black hole. How about recommend specific timelines (hint .. that they likely won't be able to meet), where no response within X days results in automatic determination of "non-firearm." Also may things like admin requirements for them to provide, upon request, paper trail to submitter complete with date of receipt, name/office of receiving it, and record of every step along the way (promotes accountability).

    Note that the rule is specifically vague on what current private owners MUST do. One could argue that it talks a lot about licensees, but given legal consequences of getting it wrong, suggest adding specific section that defines current owner of an object, and EXACTLY what they need to do in order to remain legal. Again, I'm still reading through it, but my impression is that you can probably have one not marked up until you take it to a gunsmith / sale for anything ... Seems they're using that as the "net" to trigger the changes they want (i.e. marking).

    Recommendation: one page, polite, free of insults, factual, and clearly say "I oppose the rule as written" in the opening sentence. Bonus point for offering specific recommendations to fix individual parts.

    Anyway, just my thoughts.
    Agree with all of the above. But I want to be optimistic and say the rule CAN be abandoned if enough people comment.... 10 million informed comments would likely throw the whole thing out.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Bedford
    Posts
    236
    Rep Power
    13052195

    Default Re: ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

    Quote Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
    Folks, a couple things to note:

    - Model airplane guys got a few changes made to recent FAA rule. The comment count? 50K or so. That said, the FAA still got what they wanted (remote identification of drones), but some changes were made in HOW they got it. We are not going to get them to drop this rule. Hate to say it, but it's clear they're going to get it in some form. So we need to work on the "HOW" thing .. just like the model plane guys did.

    - Commenter that noted they us algorithms to "discount" copy/paste comments is true. FAA posted a ppt a while back describing how they hired an outside firm to analyze. I can't see ATF going to someone that's a neutral arbitrator.

    - ATF specifically said they will ignore profanity etc. That probably won't mean just ignore that sentence, probably through out the whole submission.

    What this means is we have to be polite, business-like, cogent ... AND have hundreds of thousands of comments ... if we want to have any hope. I'm still going through it, but it seems to me that the definition of "firearm" is exceptionally broad. Anything that uses explosive to propel object? That includes every potato cannon ever made, not to mention heretofore not regulated black powder stuff.

    The "submission" and they'll decide part? Seems to be a black hole. How about recommend specific timelines (hint .. that they likely won't be able to meet), where no response within X days results in automatic determination of "non-firearm." Also may things like admin requirements for them to provide, upon request, paper trail to submitter complete with date of receipt, name/office of receiving it, and record of every step along the way (promotes accountability).

    Note that the rule is specifically vague on what current private owners MUST do. One could argue that it talks a lot about licensees, but given legal consequences of getting it wrong, suggest adding specific section that defines current owner of an object, and EXACTLY what they need to do in order to remain legal. Again, I'm still reading through it, but my impression is that you can probably have one not marked up until you take it to a gunsmith / sale for anything ... Seems they're using that as the "net" to trigger the changes they want (i.e. marking).

    Recommendation: one page, polite, free of insults, factual, and clearly say "I oppose the rule as written" in the opening sentence. Bonus point for offering specific recommendations to fix individual parts.

    Anyway, just my thoughts.


    Can we add a "PS: Please don't shoot my dog"

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 26th, 2021, 06:55 PM
  2. Definition of Antique Firearm to Change
    By Sparks in forum National
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: December 21st, 2017, 08:30 PM
  3. Proposed new rule for Classifieds....
    By Delkal in forum Support & Suggestions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: June 5th, 2013, 10:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •