NFA... Why?

[Army Chief]

The tax paid transfer nature of NFA ownership would make confiscation MORE not less difficult in my opinion.

Hear, hear.

AC

[chazthebiker]

Hear, hear.

AC

Really? Never thought of that. There must be something I am missing. This stuff gets confusing for a noob like me. Could someone explain that for me? I would really like to understand this. Maybe my thinking on the subject is wrong because I really don't know enough yet. Thanks!

[chazthebiker]

Could you explain this part for me Tood.k? There must be something I am missing and would really like to know. I am confused, I guess, about the difference between the tax paid transfer and the 4473 transfer. Are you saying that once the stamp is paid that there is then no data base of owners or retained record?
Maybe I should be more specific: An SBR or Short barrel shotgun is all I would consider. I could never afford a machine gun. Those might both be AOW, I don't know. Thanks!

[Hmac]

My local FFL tells me that ATF agents can drop by and access, review, and copy any and all of his 4473's. And there's a thread over on one of the other forums about a Texas resident that had just that thing happen - ATF agents at his door wanting to audit his personal weapons inventory based not on a government database, but their local access to all of his 4473's.

[CCK]

My local FFL tells me that ATF agents can drop by and access, review, and copy any and all of his 4473's. And there's a thread over on one of the other forums about a Texas resident that had just that thing happen - ATF agents at his door wanting to audit his personal weapons inventory based not on a government database, but their local access to all of his 4473's.

Keep in mind the proper response to this is "got a warrant?'

[8'Duece]

Keep in mind the proper response to this is "got a warrant?'

I don't think that would a very good response.

My Class III dealer has told us the same. Although he admits, he's never been visited by the ATF.

[CCK]

Working at a C3 dealership myself.....
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution tells me otherwise, so you'll excuse me if I don't do back flips over what your C3 dealer says.


Chris

[Explorer1]

"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. "

Its essentailly too late when this happens IMHO........

[cbarker777]

I don't think that would a very good response.

My Class III dealer has told us the same. Although he admits, he's never been visited by the ATF.

I don't care why le is at my door the response is got a warrant. I am le and would still ask for one no matter what.

[FortTom]

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

First let me address the OP's original questions.
1. Yes
2. Yes

Now your's, short and simple.
Your argument is well thought out, very articulate, and very, very reasoned and logical.
I think you missed one important variable, and that is we are not dealing with a logical, and reasoned segment of the exective and legislative branch. This president has been caught on tape stating that he is "working under the radar" as far as proactive gun control legislation - speaking to leaders of the Brady foundation. I believe it was Hillary Clinton that warned her core constituency while a sitting Senator, to avoid 2A issues at all, "because it has cost our party more elections than any other single issue".

So let's examine this point. If the sitting POTUS, stays silent on these issues during the campaign, retains his seat at the will of the people, he'll then have carte blanch to enact any restricive laws he feel's, and he's proven that he's willing to do such things by decree, hiding under the faux permission of executive decision. Should this occur, a lot of damage can be done before any legislative branch can stop him, before states can sue, etc..etc.

In short, I hope that you are 100% correct, I respect your reason and insight, but I believe you posess a degree of confidence and well placed reason, upon an insane and out of control legislative and executive branch, that is sadly misplaced, given it's track record and goals.

Of the two of us, I hope you're correct.

FT

[rob_s]

If you think that by not having an SBR you are somehow sparing yourself from potential confiscations, you're missing the boat by a mile.

[TehLlama]

A AWB or any similar ban that would involve confiscation would prove deleterious to whichever organization is trying to pull that off. All previous attempts have been 'voluntary', but those powers that be have already tipped their hands too much, and are aware of it.

Thanks to the '08 panic, there are too many firearms out there, instead the targets will be ammunition (any lead components), registration thereof, and trying to minimize access for groups such as veterans.

[FortTom]

If you think that by not having an SBR you are somehow sparing yourself from potential confiscations, you're missing the boat by a mile.

Not sure who you're responding too, but an "assault weapons ban" will be an AWB, at the discretion of the person with the power to rule by decree, e.g. executive ban. Years ago, I remember a lot of the gun writer's basically chastising the gun owner world against referring to their weapons as "assault" weapons. Actually during the Clinton administration, there was quite a bit of fighting over the wording of what constituted an "assault" weapon. Years later, all you see on the cover of any gun magazine is the latest "assault weapon" system. That, and bold headlines bragging about "sniper" rifles that easily reach out 1500 - 2000 yards or more. Pictures show weapons with umpteen sighting systems, "silencers", and al the other "tacticoolness" someone can hang off their weapon. Pictures of civilians in camo and rising out of swamps, ready to "kill" in an instant. In the 80's, it was argued that the word the anti's loved to use "assault" weapon, could only be found in military manuals, and that the "anti's" were mistakenly and intentionally calling anything they deemed to be so, an assault weapon. So, I think we sort of hung ourselves with our own ropes on that count. Point being, that in the senario that we have another massive weapons ban, those implementing it will have no problem persuading the non-shooting public that nearly anything that holds more than one round, that these "dangerous military grade weapons" are good for nothing but killing other "innocent" people. Oh yeah, and they'll rehash the "it's for the children" crap again also. So SBR, mid-length, target barrel, suppressor, no suppresor, etc..etc...whatever the anti's deem to be, is uneccessary, and has no sporting/hunting or any other use but to kill, and hoards of wild eye "assault gun owners" are just foaming at the mouth to kill, and kill some more. Happened once, and could definetly happen again, regardless of the plan to ban them, be it confiscation, ban on ammo, or whatever they dream up. NFA or not, it's just splitting hairs, as far as the goonies are concerned.

FT

[Cameron]

You say, "NFA why?" I say, "NFA why not?"

[rob_s]

Not sure who you're responding too, but an "assault weapons ban" will be an AWB, at the discretion of the person with the power to rule by decree, e.g. executive ban. Years ago, I remember a lot of the gun writer's basically chastising the gun owner world against referring to their weapons as "assault" weapons. Actually during the Clinton administration, there was quite a bit of fighting over the wording of what constituted an "assault" weapon. Years later, all you see on the cover of any gun magazine is the latest "assault weapon" system. That, and bold headlines bragging about "sniper" rifles that easily reach out 1500 - 2000 yards or more. Pictures show weapons with umpteen sighting systems, "silencers", and al the other "tacticoolness" someone can hang off their weapon. Pictures of civilians in camo and rising out of swamps, ready to "kill" in an instant. In the 80's, it was argued that the word the anti's loved to use "assault" weapon, could only be found in military manuals, and that the "anti's" were mistakenly and intentionally calling anything they deemed to be so, an assault weapon. So, I think we sort of hung ourselves with our own ropes on that count. Point being, that in the senario that we have another massive weapons ban, those implementing it will have no problem persuading the non-shooting public that nearly anything that holds more than one round, that these "dangerous military grade weapons" are good for nothing but killing other "innocent" people. Oh yeah, and they'll rehash the "it's for the children" crap again also. So SBR, mid-length, target barrel, suppressor, no suppresor, etc..etc...whatever the anti's deem to be, is uneccessary, and has no sporting/hunting or any other use but to kill, and hoards of wild eye "assault gun owners" are just foaming at the mouth to kill, and kill some more. Happened once, and could definetly happen again, regardless of the plan to ban them, be it confiscation, ban on ammo, or whatever they dream up. NFA or not, it's just splitting hairs, as far as the goonies are concerned.

FT

I have no idea what all this rambling is supposed to mean..