NFA... Why?

[chazthebiker]

Hey guys. I know the short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns (aow) etc. are really cool. I like the pics of them a whole lot. Fantastic weapons and I have to admit to having a fetish for them. My questions are these:

1. Does anyone worry about a new AWB that doesn't grandfather you in?

2. Does it bother anyone that the Federal Govt. retains these records of your firearms ownership concerning your NFA weapons?

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love to put together an SBR. I just have a real aversion to that kind of information being in Govt. records. Especially when the Govt. behaves in such a fickle manner from one administration to the next. At least with a standard build there is no database maintained as to who owns what in some states at least.

For me, at least, an NFA weapon build will be out of the question. Just wondering whether these questions have crossed anyone else's mind and the thought process that let you overcome any reservations to go forward with a build.

For those who have gone through with such a build... more power to ya! And I love to look at them posted here.

[Army Chief]

We've dealt with some of these questions before, and there are admittedly a couple of different schools of thought on the issue. To be sure, the prospect of NFA ownership was significantly re-shaped in 1986 with changes in the law, as prior to that time, NFA ownership most often meant purchasing a machinegun. These days, unless you have unusually deep pockets and are looking at a transferable select-fire weapon, NFA ownership is more often about unique configurations (i.e. SBR) or capabilities (i.e. suppression or AOW).

Addressing the AWB component of your question is somewhat difficult, since we cannot know for certain what sort of legislation might be proposed on the next iteration; that said, we can find some strong clues by considering precedent. In the past, NFA weapons were largely unaffected by other ban proposals for a couple of reasons: (1) they tend to fly under the radar, since they are rarely seen in general circulation, and (2) they are already subject to the most stringent controls provided for under the law. Now, in reality, the original NFA was less about restriction than it was about taxation, but from a legislative standpoint, it still accomplished the same thing, since it made ownership of these weapons both inconvenient and expensive. That remains the case today, so there is little overt reason to change the existing law(s) where these weapons are concerned. Since the previous AWB did not have much of an affect upon NFA weapons, it seems unlikely that a future ban would deal with them any differently.

The question of the federal government having detailed records of ownership strikes me as legitimate, but still slightly overwrought. With the exception of those weapons purchased privately, inherited, or otherwise obtained "off of the books" by other legal means, the government already has a fairly detailed record of what you own, when and where you purchased it, and where you took it (i.e. presumably, your residence). For this reason, it isn't terribly relevant to suggest that NFA weapons run a greater risk of confiscation or removal; and in fact, for the reasons outlined above, one might argue that these things are actually less likely. Again, there isn't a lot of incentive for the government to expend the energy and burn the political capital to enact new laws or restrictions against a class of weapons that is already rigidly controlled, and in no way contributing to crime in America.

One might argue that all of this might be subject to change in a governmental collapse/civil disorder scenario, but I would submit that, if such a calamity were actually taking place, it would be a tall order for whatever functioninng government remained to go after NFA weapons; doubly so, considering that the typical NFA owner would likely be in-transit to a more secure (or defensible) location if something that dire was truly underway. Let's hope and pray that this always remains a wildly hypothetical question, but either way, I think you have to don a tin hat to lose too much sleep over the possibilities here.

The bottom line for me is this: NFA ownership makes sense because it gives me the opportunity to own and use non-standard configurations which are better suited to my needs and desires, and because it is provided for under the law. As with general firearms ownership under the Second Amendment, I find value in exercising the legal rights we have been afforded; if for no other reason than simply to insure that they do not fall into disuse. I may be off-base here, but I tend to think that those who can own an NFA weapon (assuming they are serious, responsible shooters with the right mindset), probably should own one.

One needn't have a bunker mentality, be a conspiracy-theorist, or be stockpiling arms in order for this to make good sense; if anything, our community would be well-served by counterbalancing some of those perceptions by educating and encouraging "regular Joe" ownership. There are legal requirements, to be sure, and NFA ownership demands a much greater familiarity with the law, but there is no reason why the typical WeVo member in a non-restricted state could not -- or should not -- exercise his rights in registering an SBR at some point along the way. Those that do might very well someday find this a solid financial investment as well as a more protected class of ownership, if indeed the laws were to change significantly.

AC

[todd.k]

You are posting on the Internet, in a gun forum that you are worried the government could find out you own guns?

[chazthebiker]

You are posting on the Internet, in a gun forum that you are worried the government could find out you own guns?

No, that was not it at all. My questions were more in line with the response that Army Chief gave above. It had more to do with my perception that the hoops one must jump through to legally own NFA weapons may give Govt. more information about what one has than one is comfortable with. It also had to do with whether or not anyone worries about the loss of those valuable weapons in the event of a new AWB that may also target those weapons already owned. If you are suggesting I might be unaware of where I am posting or who may have access to what I am posting, that is not the case. Don't know why anyone would imply that.

From what I understand, the Federal Govt. does not maintain records of ordinary gun ownership. Records of transactions (from my understanding) are retained by dealers and not in a Federal Database. NFA is different in that the Federal Govt. does know who owns what. I may be wrong here, but an NICS only checks for eligibilty to own a firearm and does not record any transactions or serial numbers. My state does not register any firearms, not handguns or rifles.

[chazthebiker]

We've dealt with some of these questions before, and there are admittedly a couple of different schools of thought on the issue. To be sure, the prospect of NFA ownership was significantly re-shaped in 1986 with changes in the law, as prior to that time, NFA ownership most often meant purchasing a machinegun. These days, unless you have unusually deep pockets and are looking at a transferable select-fire weapon, NFA ownership is more often about unique configurations (i.e. SBR) or capabilities (i.e. suppression or AOW).

Addressing the AWB component of your question is somewhat difficult, since we cannot know for certain what sort of legislation might be proposed on the next iteration; that said, we can find some strong clues by considering precedent. In the past, NFA weapons were largely unaffected by other ban proposals for a couple of reasons: (1) they tend to fly under the radar, since they are rarely seen in general circulation, and (2) they are already subject to the most stringent controls provided for under the law. Now, in reality, the original NFA was less about restriction than it was about taxation, but from a legislative standpoint, it still accomplished the same thing, since it made ownership of these weapons both inconvenient and expensive. That remains the case today, so there is little overt reason to change the existing law(s) where these weapons are concerned. Since the previous AWB did not have much of an affect upon NFA weapons, it seems unlikely that a future ban would deal with them any differently.

The question of the federal government having detailed records of ownership strikes me as legitimate, but still slightly overwrought. With the exception of those weapons purchased privately, inherited, or otherwise obtained "off of the books" by other legal means, the government already has a fairly detailed record of what you own, when and where you purchased it, and where you took it (i.e. presumably, your residence). For this reason, it isn't terribly relevant to suggest that NFA weapons run a greater risk of confiscation or removal; and in fact, for the reasons outlined above, one might argue that these things are actually less likely. Again, there isn't a lot of incentive for the government to expend the energy and burn the political capital to enact new laws or restrictions against a class of weapons that is already rigidly controlled, and in no way contributing to crime in America.

One might argue that all of this might be subject to change in a governmental collapse/civil disorder scenario, but I would submit that, if such a calamity were actually taking place, it would be a tall order for whatever functioninng government remained to go after NFA weapons; doubly so, considering that the typical NFA owner would likely be in-transit to a more secure (or defensible) location if something that dire was truly underway. Let's hope and pray that this always remains a wildly hypothetical question, but either way, I think you have to don a tin hat to lose too much sleep over the possibilities here.

The bottom line for me is this: NFA ownership makes sense because it gives me the opportunity to own and use non-standard configurations which are better suited to my needs and desires, and because it is provided for under the law. As with general firearms ownership under the Second Amendment, I find value in exercising the legal rights we have been afforded; if for no other reason than simply to insure that they do not fall into disuse. I may be off-base here, but I tend to think that those who can own an NFA weapon (assuming they are serious, responsible shooters with the right mindset), probably should own one.

One needn't have a bunker mentality, be a conspiracy-theorist, or be stockpiling arms in order for this to make good sense; if anything, our community would be well-served by counterbalancing some of those perceptions by educating and encouraging "regular Joe" ownership. There are legal requirements, to be sure, and NFA ownership demands a much greater familiarity with the law, but there is no reason why the typical WeVo member in a non-restricted state could not -- or should not -- exercise his rights in registering an SBR at some point along the way. Those that do might very well someday find this a solid financial investment as well as a more protected class of ownership, if indeed the laws were to change significantly.

AC

Thanks Army Chief. That is exactly the type of response I was looking for. Am I wrong in my belief that an NICS check for a standard firearms purchase does not record the serial number of the weapon being purchased? I thought only dealers maintained those records.

[chazthebiker]

From Gunsite.com:

"These forms and records are used by law enforcement agencies to trace firearms associated with crime. To initiate a firearm trace, the police must note the serial number of the gun, then forward a firearm trace request (Form 3312.1) with other pertinent information to the ATF. The ATF then contacts the manufacturer who identifies the wholesaler that bought the firearm. The wholesaler then refers the ATF to the retail dealer who, using the bound-book, identifies the original retail purchaser.

The ATF considers a trace successful if the original purchaser is identified. Normally at this point, the ATF turns the case over to local law enforcement, however in rare cases the ATF attempts to follow the chain of possession. To trace a gun beyond the first retail purchaser, law enforcement authorities must conduct interviews and use informants, and of course these methods are often unsuccessful.

It averages 11.4 days to trace a firearm to the first retail purchaser. The ATF has developed a computer system that reduces trace time to an average of five days. Participation is voluntary, and it is anticipated the number of licensees participating will increase. (ATF, Commerce in Firearms in the United States, February 2000, p. 20) "

This is for a standard firearm. Obviously, NFA is handled differently. That is why I asked what I did. Other than NFA there is not National Registry maintained by the Federal Govt. that I am aware of.

[chazthebiker]

1986
A change in the political climate over firearms is apparent in the title of next important federal gun legislation, in 1986. Eighteen years after the Gun Control Act came the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, championed by Harold Volkmer, a Democratic congressman from Missouri, and Sen. Jim McClure, an Idaho Republican. (Volkmer went on to become a board member of the NRA, which supported the act.) It rolled back federal oversight of firearms transactions by reversing some provisions of the 1968 act. It eliminated the ban on interstate sales of rifles and shotguns and limited inspections and prosecutions of gun dealers. It also authorized sales of guns between private firearms owners—the exemption that allows unregulated trafficking of firearms at gun shows. It prohibited the government from creating a database of gun dealer records.

[CCK]

I relish the idea of the feds knowing of an ever increasing segment of the population going through the hassle of owning a Title II arms. The original intent of a $200 tax stamp was to be cost prohibitive and to discourage ownership of a class of weapons that at the time were considered dangerous. Like AC said everyday joe buying these is a good thing.

As to bans, I would suggest that if you ever feel a need to be burying your firearms, that is exactly the time you should be digging them up.

Chris

[chazthebiker]

I relish the idea of the feds knowing of an ever increasing segment of the population going through the hassle of owning a Title II arms. The original intent of a $200 tax stamp was to be cost prohibitive and to discourage ownership of a class of weapons that at the time were considered dangerous. Like AC said everyday joe buying these is a good thing.

As to bans, I would suggest that if you ever feel a need to be burying your firearms, that is exactly the time you should be digging them up.

Chris

I would have to agree with you on that bud. At the same time, remaining as invisible as possible has its advantages too.

[rob_s]

Todd's point is that it's too late. Whether you think so or not, if there is a radar screen you're already on it. these weird paranoid theories that somehow buying class III items, or getting a CCW, etc. are the difference between being "on the list" or not are just that, weird paranoid theories.

Go re-watch Red Dawn. When the invading force comes to town the general tells one of his underlings to go to the local gunshop(s) and pick up the 4473 forms. If it ever came to it, the govt would simply do the exact same thing.

[GriffonSec]

There is an anecdote in my local gun store (LGS) where I am currently residing here in the panhandle of Florida (lower Alabama). Conspiracy theories abound, but from shop employees comes this:

There is a regular customer who almost weekly over the course of a year, purchased 1-2 firearms. It is reported after said number of purchases (near 100 in the year), ATF agents had discussions with the store with regards to his purchases and the number of them over a short period of time. What this customer would basically do is purchase, and return/trade towards new. He didn't possess all that he had purchased due to this, but from the LGS employees, this was common pratice for him for years. This was the first time the ATF had contacted them regarding anyone specifically, and it is alleged to be with regard to the number of purchases.

This story (not mine) was told to me when I was in the shop talking about Title II weapons and the theory of the "Government in Your Business". They fall back on - they already are so buy all you want. They (BATFE) of course don't document what you buy and register it, but they do know you made a purchase.

On Edit:

It doesn't bother me in the least that information of mine is in the hands of the Government. Considering the increase in Carry Permits and recent weapons sales, I honestly feel a bit safer in my ownership than before because that information is known. Should the conspiracy theories prove out, there won't be the disarming of a few, but the attempt of many, and that's a road that most likely won't be travelled. The only irritation to me is the letter for permission for travel between states with a NFA firearm, and it's simply an irritation.

[todd.k]

The idea that you are off the radar because you don't own NFA is a stretch at best. I am also far more concerned about being armed when I need it that being on a list because I got my CCW. Unless you buy ALL your guns, ammo, accesories with cash, FTF you could be tracked.

A slightly more serious answer.
The tax paid transfer nature of NFA ownership would make confiscation MORE not less difficult in my opinion.
4473's are FOREVER. The dealer keeps them and ATF has access to them, if the dealer goes out of business they get shipped to the ATF.

[chazthebiker]

Good information and opinions guys. Thanks!

[chazthebiker]

Todd's point is that it's too late. Whether you think so or not, if there is a radar screen you're already on it. these weird paranoid theories that somehow buying class III items, or getting a CCW, etc. are the difference between being "on the list" or not are just that, weird paranoid theories.

Go re-watch Red Dawn. When the invading force comes to town the general tells one of his underlings to go to the local gunshop(s) and pick up the 4473 forms. If it ever came to it, the govt would simply do the exact same thing.

Well, I already have 3 CCW's. I guess my main concern would be having the weapons confiscated after spending thousands for them should a new AWB without a grandfather clause take effect. There are always those with such a scheme on their mind (anti gun politicians and activists). I personally don't think that is a "wierd paranoid theory", but... OK.

As far as the reference to "Red Dawn" that is exactly what I mean... except that they would not have to go to a dealer to get the records if they wanted to confiscate all NFA, AOW weapons. They could never hit every dealer in the country all at once. Now, I am assuming there is a "list" of all class three owners at the federal level, and I guess that is what I am really wondering. Or if the Gun Owners Protection Act even protects from a Federal database when it comes to an NFA. AOW weapon. Of course, all bets are off if the Feds don't obey their own laws as spelled out in the act anyway.

[chazthebiker]

Just for the record: I asked 2 simple questions and wasn't refering to or trumpeting any conspiracy theories. Just two simple questions about owner's personal thoughts about those two questions.