PDA

View Full Version : ATF-41P



Josh S.
30 December 2015, 09:54
We're days away from the final action date but I figured I'd post this anyways for discussion sake. Below is a link to a thread on the Hide regarding bill ATF-41P. According to this legislation, they will redefine who is deemed "responsible" in terms of NFA item ownership. It will also force everyone to obtain a CLEO signature, even with a trust. Just another left-wing attempt to "suppress" gun rights....

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=541&f=5521&t=14333522

UWone77
30 December 2015, 16:42
At this point I think most of us have done what we can as far as leaving comments and feedback. Kind of a wait and see now... what are they going to do?

jdhill
30 December 2015, 17:07
We're days away from the final action date but I figured I'd post this anyways for discussion sake. Below is a link to a thread on the Hide regarding bill ATF-41P. According to this legislation, they will redefine who is deemed "responsible" in terms of NFA item ownership. It will also force everyone to obtain a CLEO signature, even with a trust. Just another left-wing attempt to "suppress" gun rights....

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=541&f=5521&t=14333522

Perhaps it's semantics, but this is not legislation, it is a regulatory rule making... the effect may not be different, but it is. At this point it is pretty much a wait and see what they are actually going to do... they had almost 10k comments they must respond to in the final rule and there are already organizations teed to file suit, on a number of procedural issues.

din
30 December 2015, 17:31
Even if it ends up being a crock of hooey, I'm dropping an efile Form 1 for an SBR a little later tonight, for just in casies. Even got the wife's blessing, so yeah!

alamo5000
30 December 2015, 17:35
If stuff is in process right now (already submitted) what would be the odds that they could retroactively change the rules and deny based on new criteria?

Or is it one of those 'the government can do whatever it wants' kind of things?

jdhill
30 December 2015, 18:49
If stuff is in process right now (already submitted) what would be the odds that they could retroactively change the rules and deny based on new criteria?

Or is it one of those 'the government can do whatever it wants' kind of things?

ATF has already stated that things submitted before any final action is taken would be grandfathered... of course they could change their minds, but that would open themselves up to more litigation

alamo5000
30 December 2015, 18:55
ATF has already stated that things submitted before any final action is taken would be grandfathered... of course they could change their minds, but that would open themselves up to more litigation

*WHEW!*

I didn't know that... good to know.

din
30 December 2015, 19:14
*WHEW!*

I didn't know that... good to know.

Yeah, well, they also said you could shoulder the Sig brace. Some pack of mouthbreathing mall-ninjas will poke it with a stick until we get it taken away again.

mustangfreek
31 December 2015, 01:21
Stupid..

Want a few nfa items but missed the boat I guess and WA with the dumb form 1 situation...

Oh well I'll just troll the nfa threads and drool as usual..

SwissyJim
4 January 2016, 18:47
Here's an update and it AIN'T good... (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our) ← Linky

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

If anyone thinks 41P won't happen, this should change your mind. Get those applications in people!!! Hopefully the comments made by NFA branch will hold, that applications already pending will be grandfathered.

Can't find specifically, but others are saying TOMORROW. If so, byebye final SBR :(

Dstrbdmedic167
4 January 2016, 19:00
Can you not get a CLEO signature Jim? I can but it still doesn't make it easier... I wonder if there is a postmarked date?

SwissyJim
4 January 2016, 19:10
I believe I can, but it's the principle, dammit! :mad:

And... if everyone has to be fingerprinted and checked... my bro-in-law is on mine and he's in Utah. Makes it hard to do things easily and speedily. Just sucks that others in a non-signing CLEO are are going to royally be screwed over this.

Worst is... how many crimes have been committed by NFA registered items/users? two? This won't change anything OTHER than screw with (probably) the most honest and law abiding members of the firearms community. Screw him.

BoilerUp
4 January 2016, 19:15
Reading that link, it looks like that is the only material change, which was in-progress already. So, grandstanding and showmanship for political points, but no real changes aside from requiring a background check for those on a trust. IIRC, the last time a legally owned NFA item was used in major crime, it was owned by a LEO. Frankly, they should be able to institute background checks without requiring LEO sign-off and that wouldn't be too much of a hurdle. Or am I missing something?

Not real thrilled about having 200 new ATF agents, but that will have to be funded through a budget first, so is quite likely to not happen.

DeviantLogic
4 January 2016, 19:23
Here's an update and it AIN'T good... (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our) ← Linky

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.


Seriously??? Makes it sound like we don't go through background checks when using a trust. I know they check my damn name every time I buy something.

John Moses
4 January 2016, 19:25
I would also like clarification. As far as I know, the only new hurdle will be CLEO sign off and fingerprinting. I have always had to pass a NICS / 4473 with all my NFA Items. Ie, you still have to buy the lower, or if you tranfer a NFA item, it still oes through a FFL. Am I missing something? Is there a way to bypass a background check that I am unaware of?

SwissyJim
4 January 2016, 19:26
Reading that link, it looks like that is the only material change, which was in-progress already. So, grandstanding and showmanship for political points, but no real changes aside from requiring a background check for those on a trust. IIRC, the last time a legally owned NFA item was used in major crime, it was owned by a LEO. Frankly, they should be able to institute background checks without requiring LEO sign-off and that wouldn't be too much of a hurdle. Or am I missing something?

Not real thrilled about having 200 new ATF agents, but that will have to be funded through a budget first, so is quite likely to not happen.

Yup... no real change from what was already talked about - but there was some debate online as to whether or not this would actually happen (I always thought it would and operated on that premise, thankfully). This removes any and all doubt as to IF it will happen. Looks like it WILL happen tomorrow.

Dstrbdmedic167
4 January 2016, 19:27
Yea slippers lives a county over from me and their Sheriff won't sign despite us being a shall sign state now...

My wife and kids are the only people on my trust. If I have to go through the fingerprints and what not I'll just file as an individual. Supposedly those are coming back much quicker now...

John Moses
4 January 2016, 19:39
Sooooo, For those who have done a personal e-file, (I have always been a trust) what is the process for the Fingerprint and Sign off card? Do you go in to LEO , get fingerprinted and then the Rosco P Coultraine signs the card? Do you have to send that in, or can you upload that as a Image etc? Is that Card Dowwnloaded at ATF.gov?

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:11
I am hopeful that they keep to the grandfathering thing. I have two things already submitted and paid.

Our sheriff will sign off on things but I am seriously hoping that I don't have to deal with all that bullshit.

UWone77
4 January 2016, 20:16
Looks like you guys have 180 days.

din
4 January 2016, 20:17
My sheriff is the only one in the entire state who refused to sign the letter to the feds saying they won't enforce any unconstitutional firearms laws passed on a national level. He's a complete assbag, so this isn't something I'm thrilled about, even with my job.

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:18
Looks like you guys have 180 days.

Where did you come up with that number? 180 days for what?

Slippers
4 January 2016, 20:20
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:20
I also might add that Congress has yet to speak up on this issue.

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:21
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

Thanks for the link.

Slippers
4 January 2016, 20:22
James provided it to me. :)

Dstrbdmedic167
4 January 2016, 20:25
I just hadn't got around to posting it since I was talking with him and UW about it.. I need to win the lottery...

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:25
James provided it to me. :)

When does 'publication in the Federal Register' actually take place?

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:29
Just found this in the link provided... page 5


"The Department has also reassessed the need for CLEO certification and is implementing a new approach that focuses on notifying CLEOs. The final rule only requires that the applicant maker or transferee, including each responsible person for a trust or legal entity, provide a notice to the appropriate State or local official that an application is being submitted to ATF. "

UWone77
4 January 2016, 20:29
I'm wondering what kind of backlash we're going to see going forward here. I know having to do fingerprint cards/photos is going to be a pain, so sales for Suppressor/SBR/AOW manufacturers are going to take a hit in the bottom line. I know a lot of guys who want to get into the NFA game, but are already like fuck it, the trust part is too difficult apparently for them. Anyhow, go forth and buy buy buy!

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:34
I'm wondering what kind of backlash we're going to see going forward here. I know having to do fingerprint cards/photos is going to be a pain, so sales for Suppressor/SBR/AOW manufacturers are going to take a hit in the bottom line. I know a lot of guys who want to get into the NFA game, but are already like fuck it, the trust part is too difficult apparently for them. Anyhow, go forth and buy buy buy!

Apparently as I read the above quote they did away with CLEO signatures, but are requiring fingerprints and all that.

tappedandtagged
4 January 2016, 20:36
What I want to know, if my current e-file form 1 gets denied for an error, do I get to re-do without the new measures affecting me?

BoilerUp
4 January 2016, 20:53
I haven't read all 248 pages yet, but this quote is in the Executive Summary:


To lessen potential compliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule to eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) and instead require CLEO notification.

That will certainly lessen the blow.

DutyUse
4 January 2016, 20:54
Tomorrow is going to be an expensive day [BD]

John Moses
4 January 2016, 20:55
So do the grantors and the Trustees all have to get LEO approval for each Form?

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:56
So do the grantors and the Trustees all have to get LEO approval for each Form?

If you read above, they apparently did away with CLEO signatures.

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 20:58
Tomorrow is going to be an expensive day [BD]

My Christmas was expensive as hell. Now I am glad I spent the money.

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 21:00
That will certainly lessen the blow.

Yes, that is what I was thinking. I referred to that earlier in the thread.

I would hope that Congress would get it's head out of it's ass and take SBRs and Suppressors off the NFA list entirely.

UWone77
4 January 2016, 21:07
So do the grantors and the Trustees all have to get LEO approval for each Form?

You just need to get fingerprints and photos of all the members of your trust. How convenient.

John Moses
4 January 2016, 21:08
Ok, so read the God Damn thing..... So now Trust will need Photos, and fingerprints submitted to the BATF, as well as a notification form to LEO........ The ATF is a joke, and so is this President.

John Moses
4 January 2016, 21:09
You just need to get fingerprints and photos of all the members of your trust. How convenient.

She will just love that ! hahaha. Now I am more fucked and not by the Government. "Honey I want a new SBR.......SAY CHEESE, and rol your finger in this ink pad please"

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 21:10
You just need to get fingerprints and photos of all the members of your trust. How convenient.

If they took all this stuff OFF the NFA list from the get go you 1) get a background check on every single item when it is purchased 2) do away with the months long wait and tax stamp bullshit.

DutyUse
4 January 2016, 21:14
If I was SilencerShop or any other large suppressor whole saler I would be cranking out the Flyer for a suppressor sale starting tomorrow. I imagine quite a few folks (including myself) will be trying to get those last minute cans they've been wanting

UWone77
4 January 2016, 21:20
If I was SilencerShop or any other large suppressor whole saler I would be cranking out the Flyer for a suppressor sale starting tomorrow. I imagine quite a few folks (including myself) will be trying to get those last minute cans they've been wanting

I don't think they'll have to put on a sale, I think it's going to be a NFA panic the next 6 months. Gotta love this administration! Continuously punishing law abiding citizens who pay additional taxes to boot!

tappedandtagged
4 January 2016, 21:27
What page defines "responsible person?" Is there any way to avoid having to get all 6 of us on my Trust printed/photoed every time "I" want to buy a new item? I'm just glad I never got around to putting my sister on it, since she lives out of state.

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 21:34
What page defines "responsible person?" Is there any way to avoid having to get all 6 of us on my Trust printed/photoed every time "I" want to buy a new item? I'm just glad I never got around to putting my sister on it, since she lives out of state.

If this stands for the long term just buy it under your name and be done with it. One set of prints and that's it.

John Moses
4 January 2016, 21:38
If this stands for the long term just buy it under your name and be done with it. One set of prints and that's it.

Unless he needs CEO approval......which he will need as an individual.

alamo5000
4 January 2016, 21:41
Unless he needs CEO approval......which he will need as an individual.

Dude. Are you not reading?

There are three or four references above stating that they are doing away with CLEO signatures/approvals.

John Moses
4 January 2016, 21:47
Dude. Are you not reading?

There are three or four references above stating that they are doing away with CLEO signatures/approvals.

Yeah, I thought we were talking Trusts chief....sorry to ruffle your panties "dude"... it seems to like totally like bother you and stuff.

Stone
4 January 2016, 21:52
https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/

It will not take effect until 180 days after publication in the Federal Registry so there is still time to purchase items under the existing rules.

I may be wrong but I think this can be appealed.

UWone77
4 January 2016, 22:44
Dude. Are you not reading?

There are three or four references above stating that they are doing away with CLEO signatures/approvals.

For filing as an individual, they are not going away from a CLEO signoff.

cjd3
4 January 2016, 23:36
Well, ATFonline is all borked up. This is what happens when you lollygag.

mustangfreek
5 January 2016, 00:02
So my head hurts and want a few nfa items..so filing as a individual or with a trust is there any benefits to either? Or one better, I'm assuming a trust is a good idea.

I inquired last summer and our local sheriff would sign it, that was my local PD as I'm unincorporated if it means anything.

So 180 days and then?

But I still need a winning lottery ticket, wish dealers would do payments.. Lol

fledge
5 January 2016, 00:03
I did a form 1 earlier today without a problem. Tonight, no go after 90 minutes if trying. Will try another form 1 again tomorrow.

I'm sure there are other scenarios, but the only indee de where one can get an NFA item without background check would be acquiring a firearm through private sale and then form 1 as a trust/Corp. Is this the only situation the president is referring to? All my form 1s originated through FFL purchases with BG check.

Pyzik
5 January 2016, 07:43
Okay, so can someone help out this simpleton?

I was (and still am) planning on getting a Trust this month. I was planning on taking my time to pick up a Griffin Optimus, now I guess I need to light a fire under my ass a little.

SO, lets just say I get my trust at the end of the month. I'll then have nearly five months to get the suppressor and file before this takes affect.

IF I miss this window and I purchase AFTER this date, I will also need to notify CLEO?'

alamo5000
5 January 2016, 08:12
Okay, so can someone help out this simpleton?

I was (and still am) planning on getting a Trust this month. I was planning on taking my time to pick up a Griffin Optimus, now I guess I need to light a fire under my ass a little.

SO, lets just say I get my trust at the end of the month. I'll then have nearly five months to get the suppressor and file before this takes affect.

IF I miss this window and I purchase AFTER this date, I will also need to notify CLEO?'

From what I gather (and I am probably wrong) if you file as a trust each person on the trust will be required to provide finger prints and photos submitted with each form for each purchase. No CLEO signature required but you will have to notify him of the filing.

If you file as a individual it's the same as before. Some of the language in the documents I read are misleading. In some places it says no CLEO signature and others here say you still need CLEO signature. You will have to do finger prints and photos in either case.

Pyzik
5 January 2016, 08:18
From what I gather (and I am probably wrong) if you file as a trust each person on the trust will be required to provide finger prints and photos submitted with each form for each purchase. No CLEO signature required but you will have to notify him of the filing.

If you file as a individual it's the same as before. Some of the language in the documents I read are misleading. In some places it says no CLEO signature and others here say you still need CLEO signature. You will have to do finger prints and photos in either case.
That's what I was gathering except, fingerprint and photo per person PER FILE? I was thinking per trust. EVERY file? How retarded.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

alamo5000
5 January 2016, 08:20
That's what I was gathering except, fingerprint and photo per person PER FILE? I was thinking per trust. EVERY file? How retarded.

Don't quote me on that because I don't know for sure, but that's what it sounds like.

Of course they just announced on TV legal challenges to this 'executive action' so who knows what will ultimately happen.

UWone77
5 January 2016, 08:46
Everything you need to know: https://nlolegal.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-atf-rule-41f-formerly-rule-41p/

tappedandtagged
5 January 2016, 12:56
^Awesome, informative link. Thanks for finding that.


https://nlolegal.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-atf-rule-41f-formerly-rule-41p/ Although certainly not confirmed, the wording of the rule appears to raise a question as to the ability to appoint a Special Trustee who may have authority to possess/transport an NFA weapon, but not the power to direct the management and policies of the trust. This may be a potential avenue to add someone to a trust without having them considered a “Responsible Person” under the new rule. Meaning, this could potentially be a way to exempt trustees from the new requirements. This does not appear to be the intent of the ATF in drafting the rule, but the wording of the rule certainly raises the question. We will update this post once we receive confirmation from the ATF regarding this issue.

Seems to me having a trust set up with a "special trustee" would be counter productive. A "responsible person" is considered anyone who may possess your NFA, so if you have Trustees who, by the language of your Trust, can't posess the item, then why have them on the Trust?

The whole reason I put the members I did on my Trust is so they can use/possess my NFA items. I see no other reason to put someone on my Trust. Am I missing something?

DutyUse
5 January 2016, 13:44
^Awesome, informative link. Thanks for finding that.



Seems to me having a trust set up with a "special trustee" would be counter productive. A "responsible person" is considered anyone who may possess your NFA, so if you have Trustees who, by the language of your Trust, can't posess the item, then why have them on the Trust?

The whole reason I put the members I did on my Trust is so they can use/possess my NFA items. I see no other reason to put someone on my Trust. Am I missing something?

I have my young children on our trust, but I wouldn't want them in possession of our NFA items until their of age. But if something happened to my wife and I, id want the items to go to them. We have all our firearms on the trust, not just the NFA items

Jerry R
5 January 2016, 14:01
Everything you need to know: https://nlolegal.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-atf-rule-41f-formerly-rule-41p/

I have a copy of ATF 41P Final Rule and tried to place it in the downloads section, but it is too large to upload - 248 pages. Not sure if my copy of 41P Final Rule has the same content as 41F - the signed document.

But your link has explanations on sections that are very informative.

Ordered a Rainier Arms Billet Ambi lower this morning. I will be submitting a Form 1 on it as soon as I have a serial number. With what I have in process currently, this will probably be my last NFA item (for awhile [BD])

Jerry R
5 January 2016, 14:04
I have my young children on our trust, but I wouldn't want them in possession of our NFA items until their of age. But if something happened to my wife and I, id want the items to go to them. We have all our firearms on the trust, not just the NFA items

Copied from the link UW provided:


Under this broad definition this would mean a “Responsible Person” is anyone authorized by the trust to currently possess your NFA weapons. This would mean any Trustors or Trustees. It does not, however, necessarily include beneficiaries on your trust.

If your children are listed as beneficiaries, they may not be affected. I have two "Co-Trustees" on mine that would be included in the new reg.

gatordev
5 January 2016, 15:45
Something to keep in mind about the 41P especially, but the whole issue today was that it's an "Executive Action," and not an "Order." So any and everything can be very quickly countered by either Congressional action or the courts. Probably the biggest annoyance on all of this is that they included 41P into all the other nonsense, but again, it's just a "keep working on what you've already been working on and you're still bound by procedural rules."

All that said, I've been eyeing getting a full-sized 7.62 can for a while and ended up grabbing one off of Silencer Shop today, just because I figured everyone else would freak out. When I called, the guy I talked to (Jarrott) said it was pandemonium. Good thing we don't panic, as a species, right?

tappedandtagged
5 January 2016, 16:01
I have my young children on our trust, but I wouldn't want them in possession of our NFA items until their of age. But if something happened to my wife and I, id want the items to go to them. We have all our firearms on the trust, not just the NFA items

I can see that use. I purposefully left my kids off, for the time being anyway. But they aren't even school age. One wasn't even a thought when I made the Trust.

Deadwing
5 January 2016, 17:35
Everything about this makes my head hurt. But the fact that there are people who are stupid enough to believe that any of this shit will actually prevent, or even reduce, crimes committed with or involving firearms just blows my fucking mind. God help us all.

SwissyJim
5 January 2016, 19:05
Stopped by a local shop and the guy said it was NUTS. They weren't even answering the phone as they had people stacked 4 deep for each employee at the counter. I can only imagine what it's like at Silencer Shop and other NFA dealers.

That said... my 2 Aero 'Pew' and the 'Battle Kitty' lower I won are all getting the Form 1 treatment... screw it. May even get a dedicated 9mm can. Will it get overturned in courts or by the next Prez? Hopefully so, but I operate on the 'Worst Case Scenario' theory... not 'panic mode' mind you, but WCS purchases planned over time. I have 180 days to scheme and drool.

alamo5000
5 January 2016, 19:08
I wonder what the flood of new people buying stuff will do to wait times? Will they take longer or will they hurry up?

gatordev
5 January 2016, 19:15
I wonder what the flood of new people buying stuff will do to wait times? Will they take longer or will they hurry up?

It will certainly extend wait times, just like back in 2012-13. But I have a feeling this is much ado about little and a lot of this, in the long run will end up not influencing much or just go away.

SwissyJim
5 January 2016, 19:16
my guess is initially slow everything down. But I thought I saw something about 200 new ATF employees? What are the chances they will be NFA branch ones? That would be awesome

alamo5000
5 January 2016, 19:29
It will certainly extend wait times, just like back in 2012-13. But I have a feeling this is much ado about little and a lot of this, in the long run will end up not influencing much or just go away.

Especially if we win the election. Think about it...180 days until implementation assuming no challenges, legal or congressional or otherwise....so if it goes on without any challenge whatsoever it will be in place no more than six months before a new President is seated.

BoilerUp
5 January 2016, 20:48
my guess is initially slow everything down. But I thought I saw something about 200 new ATF employees? What are the chances they will be NFA branch ones? That would be awesome

I think those 200 new agents will be on internet forums recording serial numbers and user ids.

SwissyJim
5 January 2016, 21:08
I think those 200 new agents will be on internet forums recording serial numbers and user ids.

[BD]
Um, yeah... mine all sank with my boat this coming April

cjd3
5 January 2016, 21:44
I didn't think I was getting a .45 can this year. Looks like I will be.

Thompson
5 January 2016, 22:09
[BD]
Um, yeah... mine all sank with my boat this coming April
Funny mine too; I don't even have a boat.

... good thing I turn 21 in June, I guess.

SwissyJim
5 January 2016, 22:19
Funny mine too; I don't even have a boat.

... good thing I turn 21 in June, I guess.

hey, that gives me a great idea. Lets have the 1st Annual WEVO 'I lost My Guns' fishing trip. Everybody come up to AK to visit, and 'bring all your guns' (wink wink nudge nudge). We'll take my boat out, do some fishing, shooting and other shenanigans. In the process of doing so, all our guns will become 'lost overboard'. We can all swear as to each others 'loss'. Who's in? [:D]

Battle Cock
5 January 2016, 23:54
hey, that gives me a great idea. Lets have the 1st Annual WEVO 'I lost My Guns' fishing trip. Everybody come up to AK to visit, and 'bring all your guns' (wink wink nudge nudge). We'll take my boat out, do some fishing, shooting and other shenanigans. In the process of doing so, all our guns will become 'lost overboard'. We can all swear as to each others 'loss'. Who's in? [:D]

I'm down for a fishing trip in AK but unfortunately all my guns were crushed by the 200 year old oak that cut my house in half back on 02. (even my Battle Kitty build...) Just gone. Smashed beyond any evidence of existence. So no shooting on that trip for me.

Deadwing
6 January 2016, 11:40
hey, that gives me a great idea. Lets have the 1st Annual WEVO 'I lost My Guns' fishing trip. Everybody come up to AK to visit, and 'bring all your guns' (wink wink nudge nudge). We'll take my boat out, do some fishing, shooting and other shenanigans. In the process of doing so, all our guns will become 'lost overboard'. We can all swear as to each others 'loss'. Who's in? [:D]

I'm in, if I get any guns to replace all the guns I just lost to the depths of the Puget Sound. Rouge wave hit my buddy's boat. My entire collection, gone. Was lucky to escape with my life.

tappedandtagged
7 January 2016, 06:51
All joking aside, I have been to a house fire site where the owner pointed to a blackened part of the concrete slab and said,"That's what's left of my Remington 700."

SwissyJim
7 January 2016, 10:44
All joking aside, I have been to a house fire site where the owner pointed to a blackened part of the concrete slab and said,"That's what's left of my Remington 700."

We just had a house fire here last month where when we started doing salvage/overhaul we started finding guns EVERYWHERE. Like, between the studs behind the sheet rock kind of everywhere! Dude was a prepper in an old home that was remodeled, and the theme was guns everywhere. Literally. Even grenades, which at the time caused us to stop operations until we were informed they were inert training 'nades. Still, for a bunch of knuckle dragging firemen, it was quite the shock to see them come rolling out of a closet!

Joelski
7 January 2016, 12:36
We had a fire at an un-organized militia whacko's house years ago. Rounds cooked off for hours. So did the rest of the house.

DeviantLogic
8 January 2016, 11:57
Just received the below email from SilencerCo...

"After reviewing the almost ten thousand comments from loyal Second Amendment supporters such as yourself, the ATF came back with answers to those comments and a ruling on 41P. The ruling weighs in at 248 pages. In the interest of providing you with the information you need without having to spend hours reading it yourself, we have provided a summary below:

• We will not see any changes take effect until 180 days after the official ruling has been published in the Federal Register. The ruling has not been published at this point.

• This ruling is not retroactive and will not apply to applications that are in pending status, or to previously approved applications for existing legal entities and trusts holding NFA items. Anything that is in process before the effective date will be grandfathered under the current rules (Page 198).

• Once the final ruling goes into effect, the CLEO certification rule will change to simply CLEO notification for all silencer purchases - whether through a trust, LLC, or as an individual.

• Once the ruling goes into effect, the responsible persons in a trust or LLC must have a background check completed which will require fingerprinting and photographs, much like when an individual purchases a silencer today.

• The ruling provides a clear answer in regards to what happens when a person or entity that owns a trust dies. The person who is authorized to dispose of the property of an estate may possess a firearm or other item (such as a silencer) that is registered to a decedent during the term of probate without such possession being treated as a transfer under the NFA. Also, any transfer of the NFA item to any beneficiary of the estate is tax exempt.

Bottom line: Once this ruling is officially published, things will continue as they are for 180 days - so don’t wait any longer to get your trust and silencer(s) - paperwork in process at the end of the 180 days will be grandfathered.

As always, we will keep you up-to-date with any new information as soon as it becomes available to us.

2015 was the best year ever for SilencerCo, and we look forward to continuing to lead the silencer market."

alamo5000
8 January 2016, 18:20
• Once the final ruling goes into effect, the CLEO certification rule will change to simply CLEO notification for all silencer purchases - whether through a trust, LLC, or as an individual.

That's what I originally thought too, but I guess we will find out for sure eventually.

Dstrbdmedic167
15 January 2016, 11:08
Appears this was published today. Interwebs says it'll go into effect July 13, 2016

UWone77
15 January 2016, 11:13
I'm waiting for 3 cans on Form 3's to RA. I'm sure with the log jam, it's gonna be awhile until I can file a Form 4 on them.

alamo5000
15 January 2016, 12:36
I'm waiting for 3 cans on Form 3's to RA. I'm sure with the log jam, it's gonna be awhile until I can file a Form 4 on them.

I just had a form 3 clear in 41 days from when I bought the stuff to when it shipped.

Now though who knows how long it will be. I'm wondering if they are going to put people on overtime to catch up...

Jerry R
15 January 2016, 13:17
I'm waiting on a Form-4 762-SD that should get out of jail sometime in February. I Form-1 eFiled Battle Kitty on December 22, and another Rainier Billet UM Lower should arrive at my dealer on Monday. If so, I will Form-1 eFile it next Tuesday. All done via Trust. That's gonna have to do me for awhile.

cjd3
15 January 2016, 17:35
Ident has my lower (BTW, fantastic customer service), and I hope to have it back in a month. Then it's form 1 time. In the interim, I guess I have 180 days to decide on an Osprey or Hybrid for a .45 ACP can, then find one in stock. Do you think there'll be a lull in 2 months, or because it seems that NFA patrons are more in tune with the times, it will just keep ramping up?

Thompson
16 January 2016, 08:48
This sucks, I hope I'll be back home in time before the deadline to at least get stuff started ...

UWone77
16 January 2016, 09:31
This sucks, I hope I'll be back home in time before the deadline to at least get stuff started ...

You know, it's an extra step, but fingerprint cards and photos are not deal breakers. At least now you don't need a trust.

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 10:04
You know, it's an extra step, but fingerprint cards and photos are not deal breakers. At least now you don't need a trust.

That's what I was thinking too. From the looks of it it becomes way easier to do things without a trust than with one.

SwissyJim
16 January 2016, 11:09
Agreed... taking out the CLEO signoff was a huge win IMO, at least as far as the new rules go.

DeviantLogic
16 January 2016, 11:22
Unless it speeds up the turnaround time or removes the requirement to tattoo your lower...it still sucks balls.

jdhill
16 January 2016, 11:31
You know, it's an extra step, but fingerprint cards and photos are not deal breakers. At least now you don't need a trust.

Keep in mind, you need them every time you do a transfer... not just a one time thing... and if you do have a trust, you have to do multiple people, every time... and you are also being compelled to release otherwise confidential tax information (CLEO notification) that you otherwise didn't have to... so yeah, it kinda sucks...

ETA, and also unless they figure decide to do electronic submission of photos and fingerprints, say goodbye to eForms...

Thompson
16 January 2016, 11:34
You know, it's an extra step, but fingerprint cards and photos are not deal breakers. At least now you don't need a trust.
I know it's an extra step - I'm okay with that (especially since it could have been a lot worse). Still want to get a trust though, long term planning and all.

Plus I might to add a couple people to the trust. Figured I'd try to save them a little hassle if I can.

jdhill
16 January 2016, 11:42
On page 60 of the pdf from the federal register, ATF estimates that it takes 15 min to process a background check... so why does it take 6+ months to get a form approved?

DeviantLogic
16 January 2016, 13:40
... so why does it take 6+ months to get a form approved?

I could be wrong on my understanding of this but...

1) Processing forms is a manual, paper process (as opposed to NICS over the phone)
Example 1A) Combing through a 30 page trusts to make sure things appear kosher

Example 1B) Sending off fingerprints to be reviewed by FBI
2) There's only a limited number of people that review/approve the forms - each person can only process x forms per day
3) No incentive for employees to churn out approvals

JoshAston
16 January 2016, 14:13
so why does it take 6+ months to get a form approved?

It's not just the background check, the entire approval process only takes a few minutes. Waiting for your turn in line is what takes so long.

UWone77
16 January 2016, 14:21
Keep in mind, you need them every time you do a transfer... not just a one time thing... and if you do have a trust, you have to do multiple people, every time... and you are also being compelled to release otherwise confidential tax information (CLEO notification) that you otherwise didn't have to... so yeah, it kinda sucks...

ETA, and also unless they figure decide to do electronic submission of photos and fingerprints, say goodbye to eForms...

Yes, I knew as much. I know for some it might be a pain, but no CLEO sign off is a huge plus.

Now I can just go down to the PD get 4 or 5 print cards at once, and then to Costco for 4 passport pics for what? $5-6?

I'll just keep a stack handy.

Deadwing
16 January 2016, 14:52
You know, it's an extra step, but fingerprint cards and photos are not deal breakers. At least now you don't need a trust.

It's not a deal breaker, but it is asinine for certain people to be required to jump though those hoops. LEOs for example. Or CCW holders. These people have already been vetted. Those credentials ought to allow them to bypass the fingerprint and/or photo requirements. As for me personally, i'm a federal employee with a security clearance, i hold a valid CCW, and have current passport. i have already been put under the microscope multiple times. My photos and fingerprints are on file with multiple agencies, and i'm damn sure not the only one. There needs to be agency cross talk. As long as one's credentials are valid and current, it should be as simple as passing a background check like you do every time you fill out a 4473. It's absurd to require those people to prove themselves yet again. But then, the entire NFA in general is absurd so it fits right in i reckon.

UWone77
16 January 2016, 16:08
It's not a deal breaker, but it is asinine for certain people to be required to jump though those hoops. LEOs for example. Or CCW holders. These people have already been vetted. Those credentials ought to allow them to bypass the fingerprint and/or photo requirements. As for me personally, i'm a federal employee with a security clearance, i hold a valid CCW, and have current passport. i have already been put under the microscope multiple times. My photos and fingerprints are on file with multiple agencies, and i'm damn sure not the only one. There needs to be agency cross talk. As long as one's credentials are valid and current, it should be as simple as passing a background check like you do every time you fill out a 4473. It's absurd to require those people to prove themselves yet again. But then, the entire NFA in general is absurd so it fits right in i reckon.

100% Agree.

NFA is outdated, and everything should be GTG with just an over the counter 4473.

BUT... we are stuck with what we have for now. IMHO in this climate it could have been a lot worse. Say... let's adjust the NFA $200 stamp for inflation and go back to what it was intended for?

No more Trusts at all? Yeah, it's 2 more hoops for sure, but killing off the CLEO sign off was a win in my book.

Joelski
16 January 2016, 16:16
I thought the prints had to be on a certain type of Federal print card, rather than the type commonly used by LEAs? With most agencies doing electronic print scanning now, I played hell and gave up trying to go the individual route with my SBR. The CLEO sign-off taken care of, the prints were the hangup.

Deadwing
16 January 2016, 19:19
100% Agree.

NFA is outdated, and everything should be GTG with just an over the counter 4473.

BUT... we are stuck with what we have for now. IMHO in this climate it could have been a lot worse. Say... let's adjust the NFA $200 stamp for inflation and go back to what it was intended for?

No more Trusts at all? Yeah, it's 2 more hoops for sure, but killing off the CLEO sign off was a win in my book.

You're right, it could've been much worse. And i guess we should count our blessings and take removal of the CLEO sign off as a win. But with that comes the requirement to notify the CLEO in all instances, correct? Granted, our NFA items are already on a federal registry, but i feel that the new requirement to notify the CLEO opens up some privacy concerns. I can see states using this information to build their own databases. And in jurisdictions that are less than 2A friendly i can see that information being misused, like publishing names and address of people who own NFA items like some places have done with names of those who hold CCWs. I try to avoid conspiracy theories, but given this administrations track record on our second Amendment freedoms, i can't imagine the ATF writing any new rule with our best interest in mind.

Deadwing
16 January 2016, 19:29
I thought the prints had to be on a certain type of Federal print card, rather than the type commonly used by LEAs? With most agencies doing electronic print scanning now, I played hell and gave up trying to go the individual route with my SBR. The CLEO sign-off taken care of, the prints were the hangup.

I believe you're correct that there is a specific card the ATF wants your prints on, and that's the only one they'll accept. I think you can request them from the ATF and have them mailed to you, but i could be wrong. I haven't had to get my prints taken in a while, but it was pretty easy the last time i did need them. My local PD did prints on certain days during certain hours and it was first come, first served. But that was a while back and things may have changed.

GriffonSec
16 January 2016, 19:32
With regards to fingerprint cards and fast tracking. This from the Silencer Shop blog:


There will be a 2-year exemption after an approval

It’s not 100% clear how this will work yet, but we’re sitting down with the ATF to get more details next week.

The way we’re reading the ATF 41F ruling appears to indicate that you won’t need to provide fingerprint cards or a 5320.23 with photos – or even a copy of your trust, if you’ve had any approval within the preceding 2 year period and your trust hasn’t changed.

It will be interesting to see if these applications get fast-tracked by the NFA Branch in some way…

If that's the case, that'll be a huge improvement for all of us.

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 19:50
I know a solution to all of this... let's get suppressors and SBRs out from under the NFA and ATF all together. That would cut back on a ton of paperwork for them. Let em start working on something constructive for once.

UWone77
16 January 2016, 19:56
I know a solution to all of this... let's get suppressors and SBRs out from under the NFA and ATF all together. That would cut back on a ton of paperwork for them. Let em start working on something constructive for once.

Doubt the government will give up collecting an extra $200 in ransom.

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 20:05
Doubt the government will give up collecting an extra $200 in ransom.

You never know... with the way Obama and his political class has been treating gun owners, if we win the white house they could get it through. I am thinking and hoping that Obama's executive orders are stirring enough contention that it might actually cause a change.

Also there is still hope....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvlcbXvQWAk

UWone77
16 January 2016, 20:25
I'm just being realistic. We've had plenty of PRO 2A presidents since 1934.

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 20:36
I'm just being realistic. We've had plenty of PRO 2A presidents since 1934.

I am not getting my hopes up but I guess anything is possible.

Stone
16 January 2016, 20:46
Not sure if you guys know but The 180 day countdown starts today
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/atf-41f-published-in-the-federal-register/

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 20:51
One thing I do wonder though is where the ATF is going to get the money to do any of this extra stuff they want to do? Executive order or not somebody other than Obama has to fund this stuff.

Stone
16 January 2016, 20:55
It was given to him in the last CR.

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 21:05
It was given to him in the last CR.

I just heard that from someone else who is in the know as well.

I did find this online though... some interesting reading... just scanned it though.

https://edit.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/pages/attachments/2015/02/02/26._bureau_of_alcohol_tobacco_firearms_and_explosi ves_atf.pdf

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 21:22
"The enhancement includes 10 additional positions in the NFA
branch to reduce processing delays and backlog and improve NFA application processing
performance. The NFA mandates registration and a tax payment for making or transferring -
machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, destructive devices, and
certain concealable weapons classified as “any other weapons.” Market demand for NFA
services continues to escalate annually, primarily due to a continuing trend in the states to revise
firearm laws to allow the use of firearm silencers for hunting, which has resulted in a dramatic
increase in workload over the past several years and has substantially degraded ATF’s ability to
meet performance standards. "

---

"Moreover, beyond the resource demands of completing timely and thorough application
inspections for new Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), these new FFLs also often require more
technical assistance and instruction from ATF than established FFLs, placing even greater
resource demands on ATF Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs). New FFLs also increase the
universe of licensees requiring routine compliance inspections. As a result of the increase in
FFLs, ATF has been challenged to conduct basic, scheduled compliance inspections at an
appropriate pace. FFL compliance inspections should be conducted every three years; however,
in light of resource constraints and the ever expanding FFL population, they are currently being
inspected once every seven years. (See also, Department of Justice Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) reports, “Review of ATF’s Federal Firearms Licensee Inspection Program” and
“Review of ATF’s Explosives Inspection Program,” released April 2013). 1
Corresponding to the increase in FFLs, the volume of firearms commerce has also continually
increased. Consequently, the number of individual firearms records and transactions that must
be reviewed by an IOI during FFL compliance inspections has also significantly increased,
leading to lengthier inspection times. In FY 2014, ATF was only able to complete
approximately 10,000 FFL compliance inspections, which was a 24 percent decrease from 2011,
and represented approximately 7 percent of the total FFL population. The lack of timely
inspections presents a significant risk to public safety. ATF’s FY 2014 enacted and requested FY
2015 budget begin to address this challenge by providing funding for ATF to hire additional
IOIs. Until ATF has sufficient IOIs onboard to meet the three year inspection schedules, it will
continue using risk-based assessments to target future inspections to those entities that have been
identified as repeat violators, as well as focus on vulnerable regions. "

---

"As noted, another productivity challenge facing ATF is the processing of NFA applications.
Between FYs 2008 – 2014, the number of NFA applications ATF received increased from
approximately 78,500 to over 200,000. ATF has been unable to meet internal NFA application
processing goals due to the shear workload, resulting in processing backlogs. Oftentimes a
single NFA application will involve multiple firearms, and each request must be thoroughly
researched against federal and state laws prior to approval. Backlogs will continue to mount
without additional staffing for this function. Ten federal staff is included in ATF’s FY 2016
Budget submission to address this challenge. "

---

"In addition to applications for weapons, market demand for NFA services continues to set annual
records, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in workload over the past several years. In
FY 2014, ATF received 221,261 NFA registration applications. The number of NFA registration
applications has increased by over 60 percent since FY 2011 and had more than doubled since
FY 2007. As depicted in the map shown below, most of this increase can be attributed to
changes in several state laws that allow for the use of gun silencers for hunting purposes. The
increase in overall firearms commerce continues to significantly increase ATF’s workload and
impact ATF’s ability to meet internal and external performance targets. "

---

"ATF is challenged by the fact that a large portion of its special agent
workforce is approaching retirement. As provided by 5 U.S.C. §§ 8335 and 8425, retirement for
Federal law enforcement agents is mandatory at the age of 57. In the next 5 years, over 1,000
current ATF special agents are anticipated to retire, which is nearly one-half the entire current
special agent workforce."

---

"As noted in the challenges section, ATF’s regulatory and support functions have seen
dramatic and unprecedented increases due to expansion and growth of commerce within
the firearms industry and is challenged to keep pace with the firearms industry that is
growing at an unparalleled rate. This growth is evidenced by significant workload
increases experienced by the NFA Branch and the Licensing Centers in large part due to
changes in many State laws that are impacted by the NFA mandates. ATF has been
actively addressing the State legislative reality that between FY 2008 – 2014, the number
of NFA applications ATF received increased from approximately 78,500 to over 200,000.
ATF is being affected and limited by outside legislative mandates. While ATF has
internal NFA application processing timelines and goals, we are still unable to meet
performance targets due to the shear workload. Oftentimes a single NFA application will
involve multiple firearms, and each request must be thoroughly researched against federal
and state laws prior to approval, which is time consuming. Backlogs will continue to
mount without additional resources to address capacity for this function. Since FY 2011,
NFA Application receipts have consistently exceeded what could be physically
processed. During this same period, ATF has experienced a 30 percent increase in
applications each year.

What is Causing the Sustained Increase in NFA Volume?

As depicted in the earlier chart in the challenges section the legalization of silencers in 39
states, 32 of which allow use of a silencer for hunting is having a definable impact on
ATF’s work pace. Since FY 2009, 245,869 of 318,643 (77 percent) tax paid transfers of
NFA firearms are associated with silencers which are relatively inexpensive. In addition,
states are relaxing laws on the possession of short barreled rifles and shotguns, which
also fall under the purview of the NFA. "

DeviantLogic
16 January 2016, 21:37
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9c/dd/eb/9cddebb20ee07485d4ff24594e8ea264.gif

Farva
16 January 2016, 22:21
I agree with Deadwing. Working for a Sheriff's Office, having both a passport and a CCW license holder the process should be simplified.

alamo5000
16 January 2016, 22:38
I agree with Deadwing. Working for a Sheriff's Office, having both a passport and a CCW license holder the process should be simplified.

They have to do 'extra' background checks on you.

It wouldn't be the government if they didn't demand triplicates of everything including the effort.

Deadwing
17 January 2016, 04:45
They have to do 'extra' background checks on you.

It wouldn't be the government if they didn't demand triplicates of everything including the effort.

Sounds like a job for the Office of Redundancy Office.

I will disagree with you on one point: suppressors and SBRs shouldn't be removed from the purview of the NFA. Instead, the entire damned NFA should be repealed, along with the GCA, and the ATF should be defunded and dismantled. Unfortunately, the chances of that happening are even slimmer than getting cans and SBRs removed from NFA regulation. Not only is there this disturbing trend of a bloated government seeking to restrict liberty, but as UW said, no way the government give up their $200 tax that allows you to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

gatordev
17 January 2016, 08:22
It was given to him in the last CR.

Do you know if it was actually approved in the current budget? We're not operating under a CR anymore, so wasn't clear if it was approved through the FY.

Stone
17 January 2016, 09:03
There is also one really big loophole that many people seem to overlook. If I’m the only trustee on my trust when I submit the paperwork, I need to comply with the documentation requirements. If, however after I get my item, I add a new trustee, I don’t have to submit responsible person paperwork for them on any prior purchases. As a Grantor of a trust you can add and remove trustees as you deem necessary. If in your trust you reserved the power to amend the trust then all you have to do is fill out a "Trust Amendment and Notification form" and keep it with the trust.

urhero
17 January 2016, 09:19
There is also one really big loophole that many people seem to overlook. If I’m the only trustee on my trust when I submit the paperwork, I need to comply with the documentation requirements. If, however after I get my item, I add a new trustee, I don’t have to submit responsible person paperwork for them on any prior purchases. As a Grantor of a trust you can add and remove trustees as you deem necessary. If in your trust you reserved the power to amend the trust then all you have to do is fill out a "Trust Amendment and Notification form" and keep it with the trust.
You could do that but, at a point you might as well just get the prints and photos. Might be viable once or twice but seems like a case of diminishing returns. Really all comes down to how much NFA stuff you're buying.

It would likely be easier to get prints and photos for everyone on your trust and then make an effort to buy as much as you can during the 2 years following submission, otherwise you still need to submit every time you trust changes.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Thompson
17 January 2016, 09:51
I will disagree with you on one point: suppressors and SBRs shouldn't be removed from the purview of the NFA. Instead, the entire damned NFA should be repealed, along with the GCA, and the ATF should be defunded and dismantled.
Fair point. Food for thought though. Say, ultimately, we are somehow able to get rid of the ATF. Where do you suppose all of the ATF taskings/jobs will go to? Probably the FBI.

From a manufacturer standpoint, my former boss told me that he'd much rather deal with the ATF (he said the ATF is actually willing to work with manufacturers to get them up to standard and such). Whereas the FBI would be much more merciless.

Either way; damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Joelski
17 January 2016, 11:06
Just call him ole "Mag Dump Ted". I could hear barrels melting and cyclic rates plummeting without even seeing the video! If Trump wants to upstage this guy, all he has to do is hold his finger outside the guard in the ready position for a second or two, but at least he got out there.

mustangfreek
17 January 2016, 13:20
So cause I have read about all of this bit am still a nfa virgin, can someone break it down easily as what's needed now?

Or has anything not changed till the 180 days deadline/rule thingy?

Thanks

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 13:28
So cause I have read about all of this bit am still a nfa virgin, can someone break it down easily as what's needed now?

Or has anything not changed till the 180 days deadline/rule thingy?

Thanks

If you buy before the 180 days is up nothing changed.

Supposedly after 180 days you have to supply finger prints and pictures to the ATF with your forms. If you do it with a trust after the 180 days then everyone on the trust has to supply pics and finger prints.

There might be some other stuff that is still iffy.

Also after 180 days are up there is no more need for a CLEO sign off.

mustangfreek
17 January 2016, 13:38
Thanks Alamo

Ok so a trust is still needed/advised..

So the CLEO sign off is totally going away totally after 180 days.. Even for individual filing or what not? Sorry I try to stay up to date but no nfa toys yet.

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 13:42
Thanks Alamo

Ok so a trust is still needed/advised..

So the CLEO sign off is totally going away totally after 180 days.. Even for individual filing or what not? Sorry I try to stay up to date but no nfa toys yet.

From what I gather the CLEO sign off is gone after 180 days. Others may know and be more aware of the situation though.

As far as doing it with a trust... if I do one after the 180 days is gone I probably won't mess around with a trust. Although for me I only have two people on my trust so it would be fine either way. If you have a half dozen people on your trust it will make the process cumbersome.

There is still a lot that needs to be clarified but that's my take so far.

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 13:47
Keep in mind what is put in place by executive action can be undone and changed by executive action.

Thompson
17 January 2016, 15:29
Keep in mind what is put in place by executive action can be undone and changed by executive action.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but do you mean executive order?

My understanding is that an executive action is more of a suggestion, where an executive order is one that is legally binding.

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 15:38
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but do you mean executive order?

My understanding is that an executive action is more of a suggestion, where an executive order is one that is legally binding.

Whatever the difference it's nuanced at best. My point is that the next President can unilaterally undo every last word of this stuff that Obama has unilaterally done including 41F.

Thompson
17 January 2016, 15:49
Whatever the difference it's nuanced at best. My point is that the next President can unilaterally undo every last word of this stuff that Obama has unilaterally done including 41F.
I gotcha. And yep, totally agree with you.

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 16:45
I gotcha. And yep, totally agree with you.

If they can't or won't take the items off of the NFA list hopefully the next President makes it an instant automated approval system. Pay your $200, get a receipt and transfer can take place immediately. Have a auto generated tax stamp that gets emailed to whoever pays the tax.

If Obama can do what he did the next President can do that too and he doesn't have to ask congress either.

gatordev
17 January 2016, 18:28
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but do you mean executive order?


The spat of recent policy changes were not EOs, but were EAs. They hold no legal weight and can be challenged. And as alamo said, they can also be undone (along with EOs).

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 19:00
I don't even have a .308 yet but I am really tempted to get a GA Recce 7... I will get into .308 at some point... maybe a bolt gun, maybe AR10... probably both... but money wise it's up the road a bit....

I am still extremely tempted to drop a grand on the 7 even though I am not in that caliber yet.

Dstrbdmedic167
17 January 2016, 19:03
I don't even have a .308 yet but I am really tempted to get a GA Recce 7... I will get into .308 at some point... maybe a bolt gun, maybe AR10... probably both... but money wise it's up the road a bit....

I am still extremely tempted to drop a grand on the 7 even though I am not in that caliber yet.

I told you to get the 7 from the get go...

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 19:06
I told you to get the 7 from the get go...

I am loving the 5... I am glad I got it...I am just experiencing a moment of financial weakness right now. [BD]

I guess it's maybe a good thing that they are sold out...

Dstrbdmedic167
17 January 2016, 19:11
I am loving the 5... I am glad I got it...I am just experiencing a moment of financial weakness right now. [BD]

I guess it's maybe a good thing that they are sold out...

Well of course you do. Have you ever heard of anyone not like a suppressor?

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 19:13
On the flip side there is another dealer here in Texas that has them in stock...Son of a B*****!!!!!

I have spent right around $5000 bucks in the last 2 months on gun stuff...

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 19:16
Well of course you do. Have you ever heard of anyone not like a suppressor?

That was my first one...so I was dipping my toe in...

I know up the road a year or so once my finances recover that I will get a .308....

I wasn't planning on expanding my calibers just yet... so if I go ahead and order the 7 it will just sit there for a while...

Decisions decisions...

Dstrbdmedic167
17 January 2016, 19:19
Buy once cry once... I'm guilty of not doing so more than enough...

You can still use it. You can even compare the two.

alamo5000
17 January 2016, 19:35
Buy once cry once... I'm guilty of not doing so more than enough...

You can still use it. You can even compare the two.

I put my fingers in my ears and start going LALAALLAAAALALAAA!!! [:D]

I should know better than to say something around here... I already know what ya'll are going to say... LOL!!!![BD]

urhero
18 January 2016, 00:59
I know up the road a year or so once my finances recover that I will get a .308....

I wasn't planning on expanding my calibers just yet... so if I go ahead and order the 7 it will just sit there for a while...

Decisions decisions...[/QUOTE]




Just get an Optimus. It will handle the .308 when you get there and in the mean time it's versatile enough to use it on plenty of other stuff

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Deadwing
18 January 2016, 02:15
I put my fingers in my ears and start going LALAALLAAAALALAAA!!! [:D]

I should know better than to say something around here... I already know what ya'll are going to say... LOL!!!![BD]

I was in the same boat. I bought two 5.56 cans thinking "i don't have any other rifle calibers i want to suppress" before i bought a .308 can. I really wish i would've just bought the .308 can from the get-go. Although, with my pistol cans, i started with a .45 can knowing i'd be shooting sub calibers, and all my pistols cans are .45s.

Slippers
18 January 2016, 05:37
I guess I'm the opposite. Started with a 308 can and now picking up a 5.56 because it gets old hanging 24 oz off the end of my barrels.

DutyUse
18 January 2016, 06:27
I agree with Slippers. Probably a good idea to start with a good quality "do-all" 30 can. I think with the omega, recee 7 and others your really not losing much but gaining a lot of versatility. That said I'd really like a short/lightweight 556 only can to compliment the .30cal can

Former11B
18 January 2016, 14:24
I don't even have a .308 yet but I am really tempted to get a GA Recce 7... I will get into .308 at some point... maybe a bolt gun, maybe AR10... probably both... but money wise it's up the road a bit....

I am still extremely tempted to drop a grand on the 7 even though I am not in that caliber yet.

Even if you don't get a .308 for ten years, you can use the Recce 7 on anything 5.56 until then


I told you to get the 7 from the get go...

I'm a fan of caliber specific stuff ;)

UWone77
18 January 2016, 14:31
You guys should just buy cans for every gun you own. Problem solved.

tact
18 January 2016, 15:07
Agree on a can for every weapon....makes it easy.

Thompson
18 January 2016, 17:10
You guys should just buy cans for every gun you own. Problem solved.
... sounds expensive. I'm out of lunch money too.

alamo5000
18 January 2016, 17:18
You guys should just buy cans for every gun you own. Problem solved.

That's the goal. I'm just debating getting a can for a gun that I don't own....

Deadwing
18 January 2016, 17:30
You guys should just buy cans for every gun you own. Problem solved.

I'm going to need a much bigger safe...

Former11B
18 January 2016, 17:34
You guys should just buy cans for every gun you own. Problem solved.

Working on it! Slow but steady start

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/DownSouthTAS/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsiqkdnpva.jpg

UWone77
19 January 2016, 12:54
Obvious my comment was tongue in cheek, but I am a fan of dedicated platforms if you can afford it. If you can only afford say 2 cans, I'd stick with what everyone else has mentioned, get a 30 cal, and a .22lr. I think a 22lr can is about the most fun you can have with a firearm in any caliber.

SwissyJim
19 January 2016, 13:53
Obvious my comment was tongue in cheek, but I am a fan of dedicated platforms if you can afford it. If you can only afford say 2 cans, I'd stick with what everyone else has mentioned, get a 30 cal, and a .22lr. I think a 22lr can is about the most fun you can have with a firearm in any caliber.

I agree... nothing brings a smile to my face, or someone that I am letting shoot my .22, like a suppressed .22! Did it yesterday with my M&P15-22 with a father and his son. They were shooting their 10/22 and the dad had just finished building his first AR. So I called them over and handed him my M&P with a couple of mags. To say he was grinning at the end would be an understatement! Even his boy (10?) got a mag and he was beyond thrilled. Altho a suppressed 300BLK SBR with subs would rate a close second (like mine did with them)

mustangfreek
20 January 2016, 07:46
You guys should just buy cans for every gun you own. Problem solved.

Was planning on it but I didn't win that big power ball ....[BD]


Obvious my comment was tongue in cheek, but I am a fan of dedicated platforms if you can afford it. If you can only afford say 2 cans, I'd stick with what everyone else has mentioned, get a 30 cal, and a .22lr. I think a 22lr can is about the most fun you can have with a firearm in any caliber.

From my view (sad sack with no cans.. Lol ..) I have thought if and when a 30 cal and 22 can is what I would go after, the 30 cal obvious of the ar stuff and what not, but was around once when a guy had a can and a bolty 22 and damn thing was stupid quiet with subs, went out and bought a savage FV-SR for a host for a can...as far as be got..lol

Right now I just wish the form 1 crap was fixed here in our state

alamo5000
20 January 2016, 09:22
Who in here wants to buy me a Recce 7 for my birthday today? :) You can all pitch in if you would like... LOL

Deadwing
20 January 2016, 09:35
Who in here wants to buy me a Recce 7 for my birthday today? :) You can all pitch in if you would like... LOL

Happy Birthday!

I'll buy you a Recce 7 for your birthday if you buy me an H&K P7M8 for mine. [BD]