Printable View
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...with-new-bill/
A few paragraphs in...
Raise the $200 tax to $500
Raise the $5 to $100
Then index to inflation.
Thoughts? I think this might be a good time to educate Congress and opens a door to discussing an overhaul or repeal of the NFA.
That's the very definition of Catch 22. You'd be surprised at how many CongressCritters are unaware of NFA and that a civilian can own a machine gun. I really do not expect this bill to get very far...
I agree, but I could see this getting tucked away in Dianne Feinstein's drawer like her AWB until the Dems control it all again. I also think that it will not pass if connected with a tax on title 1 guns and ammo. But the NFA tax could be passed as a stand alone amendment to an omnibus bill. It is worth watching.
The increase does not make it out of reach, but for guys like me that can not afford transferable machineguns, but can buy suppressors it is a little worrisome.
I thought about this more, and I think there would be a negative consequence to this tax if it passed. With such low prosecution rates for people possessing illegal SBR's or SBS's, I could see more people playing legal roulette and not registering them when they make one. Much of NFA law is followed on volunteer compliance.
Add to that the fact that while there are some crimes committed with registered NFA weapons, the incidence is breathtakingly low. Selling this as a crime solving measure would be nigh impossible.
This is what happens when people keep bitching to congress critters about the current state of NFA waits. This is also the sort of bill that gets congress critters aware of NFA.
Hopefully this doesn't pass, or otherwise make things worse for us!
What do we do when wait times reach 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? Suffer in silence and hope that one day bureaucrats in alabaster clad buildings with marble pillars outside are benevolent enough to let us exercise our Constitutional rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by sillycon
Not saying anything to those who represent us allows the people who want to shut down the NFA and close the registries do so by administrative fiat by making the waits so long you and your children will be long dead before your paperwork even hits "pending".
What is the answer then?
There are people who to this day get stamps handled routinely in less than 6 months using internal ATF channels (and I don't mean back room deals). Additionally, the situation you refer to is one of the reasons why support of organizations like NFATCA or ASA are so important.
Also, there is a distinction between contacting a senator with a sympathetic ear and "letter writing" (which is really what I was referring to above). Letter writing has rarely served anyone well; let alone those involved in the world of NFA.
There is a vast difference in contacting Ted Nugent (were he a senator or congressman) for help on NFA related issues and contacting Bloomberg (were he a senator or congressman) for the same.
Unfortunately for us, most representatives are not likely sympathetic to private ownership of machine guns and/or Howitzers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillycon
Thanks for the clarification. I completely agree. Here in Texas we are VERY NFA friendly and both our Senators and Governor are big supporters of the 2nd amendment and as far as I can gather from talking with their staff, very pro-NFA (machine guns and silencers, etc).
the bottom of the state suffers from a case of democrat law enforcement officials who will not for any reason sign off on NFA forms
Tad,
I am sorry to hear that. But I do know there are a few rogue blue counties in the great sea of red. I have no doubt their decision not to sign is based on ignorance, politics or both.
The bottom line should be that if a state is NFA friendly and the person submitting the application is not a prohibited person, the Sheriff should be required to sign if they will not remove the requirement.
A Sheriff not signing forms in a legal jurisdiction for a law abiding citizen is equivalent, in my mind, to a Constitutional violation of the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
The trust system has been great, it works for thousands of us down here in the 956 where as I said leo/cleo etc have all come out umpteen times and said you won't have that in my jurisdiction, or I will never sign those papers please quit asking...so then along comes NFATCA and craps the bed....just kinda blown away by the whole deal
Folks think that *we* offered up everyone in trusts and corps. They do not even take the time to read the part that says "for persons who are responsible for directing the management and policies of the entity..." Not *everyone*. *Everyone* is what the White House wanted.
The simple fact of the matter is that a background check can be avoided via a trust or corp. Box 22 of the 4473 very clearly says "No NICS check was required because the transfer involved only National Firearm Act firearm(s)." When trusts or corps apply for NFA making or transfer, there are no fingerprints or photos submitted and no background checks. Some dealers DO run a NICS check, but it is not required. The government WILL shore up this gap. Their first shot was telling us that they wanted the entity purchase ability gone. We countered with the narrow view. The White House wants scorched Earth.
Yes. It looks like we threw folks under the bus. And there will be folks who will *never* see us as anything but evil traitors. It concerns me that there have already been numerous death threats. I'd appreciate if others would express calm voices, but I am not holding my breath.
We will continue to fight this and we are enlisting outside resources to help. Any help you can offer is appreciated.
Well Jeff, when everything out there reads that nfatca approached atf with a concern and petition it certainly does paint YOU in a traitorous light, so who is lying? did the ATF approach nfatca first or did nfatca petition the atf? I think that is a pretty simple question to answer. because if the ATF is lying, then the world needs to know and i will do my very best to make sure this is blasted across media outlet I can get it on!!
Then why can't a NICS check be used in the trust route? That should seem sufficient for background check purposes. The fact ATF wants prints, CLEO and pics is simply an end around to eliminate the majority of NFA applications. Plain and simple.
Further more all trust pending are being backed up for clearance until this garbage is enacted and then they will be returned asking for CLEO etc. People that were being told approval would be in 30-90 days are now being told 9 months from second pending. What ever that is. Many that went initially pending 3 -13 will not be approved until sometime in 2014 but by that time this will be in effect and the majority of those abandoned due to the new requirements.
ddnc,
Is this a fact that all trusts have been put on hold? Is this confirmed? Did someone call the NFA branch about it?
Nothing is on hold at this time. The White House has floated a draft NPRM. It is not the law of the land. ATF wanted to get rid of trust/corp ownership. They said it was because prohibited persons are getting weapons without BG checks. We wanted to have an open exchange regarding what to do about it. The invitation was not accepted. We offered a very narrow definition of what that change would look like via petition. Still no discussion. Last week the administration took our definition and blew it up to cover everyone in their draft NPRM.
We did not ask for what the White House rolled out.
Please reread the post above. No NICS check required for NFA Transfers. That is because it is presumed that a background check is done. And it IS for individuals. Current legislation/regulation requires the background check (not NICS) for individuals. There is no such requirement for trusts/corps. That is the crux of the issue.
Then perhaps a background check on the Grantor/Trustor would be a somewhat reasonable compromise. Theoretically, it would then be the responsibility of the Grantor/Trustor to ensure that the individual trustees where eligible to possess NFA items. Failure to do so would mean his backside was on the line. A background check on each of the trustees is in my opinion beyond ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
I am still not thoroughly convinced that there is a problem with ineligible persons obtaining NFA weapons through trusts. I think this is another government solution in search of a problem. As I have said before, the government has done a horrible job of punishing those who lie on Form 4473. What makes them think that another law is going do anything more than what has been done so far?
@renegade... You are espousing what we put in our petition, a background check "for persons who are responsible for directing the management and policies of the entity..." Not *everyone*. The bare minimum so that there was at least one check done. And that was offered in lieu of eliminating the trusts/corps completely.
There are actually many cases winding through prosecution where prohibited persons got weapons via trust/corp purchase with no background check. It is nigh impossible to break out the cases through PACER or TRAC because it is a general charge with no specific modifier for "he bought a can through a trust," etc. I'm trying to lay my hands on good numbers. Sadly, the fact that there were enough folks who did exploit the process made some sort of action by the Fed inevitable.
I agree that government is woefully inept at enforcing the laws they have and that adding even more is rarely a good solution. With that said, if we (NFATCA) do nothing, there will be more regulation without ANY checks. And if we attempt to provide those checks we will get excoriated for fraternizing with the enemy. To the point where we receive death threats. And I am not kidding.
Because folks really do not understand how the process works, they assume that we threw them under the bus. It's hard to change that mind set. While we build the counter attack, we need voices of reason on the various boards to counter the tin foil hat crowd and we need cash. When it's time, we will need lots of folks actually loudly protesting the NPRM if it gets published through official channels instead of just whining that NFATCA did them wrong. We also need folks to fund the effort. That is going to be difficult at this point.
The screaming masses want nothing short of working to ban Hughes and the NFA. That is certainly a noble goal. We've actually looked at what it would take to mount such a legislative campaign... during an administration that was receptive. Tens of millions of dollars. We are hard pressed to get a couple hundred folks to pony up $50 a piece. So, for now, we fight the things that we can afford to fight. EVERYONE told us that they wanted the CLEO signature gone and we have been waging that fight for nearly a decade. Hardly anyone kicked in a few bucks to wage the fight. Yet we still did it. We got further than anyone ever had and had ATF/DOJ sign off until the White House took a giant dump on the process. Somehow, that is our fault. Newtown gave the WH all the bully pulpit they needed to screw things up. And for the record, we got the ball rolling in the Bush administration. It's hard to just pull up stakes and say "Never Mind... we'll wait until a gun guy is in the WH." You cannot start and stop and start the process. You have to be in it for the long haul.
I figured that you had something of the like in your proposal. It seems like a reasonable balance to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
This is news to me. I would never have thought that the average crook would waste money setting up a trust and then wait several months just to be able to have a papered NFA item.Quote:
There are actually many cases winding through prosecution where prohibited persons got weapons via trust/corp purchase with no background check. It is nigh impossible to break out the cases through PACER or TRAC because it is a general charge with no specific modifier for "he bought a can through a trust," etc. I'm trying to lay my hands on good numbers. Sadly, the fact that there were enough folks who did exploit the process made some sort of action by the Fed inevitable.
The current administration is the lousiest we've had since Nixon. They have had ample opportunity to address the problem of gun violence in this country but have failed to do so. I'm beginning to think that the status quo actually like gun violence. It gives them a platform to stand on with the average uninformed American.Quote:
I agree that government is woefully inept at enforcing the laws they have and that adding even more is rarely a good solution. With that said, if we (NFATCA) do nothing, there will be more regulation without ANY checks. And if we attempt to provide those checks we will get excoriated for fraternizing with the enemy. To the point where we receive death threats. And I am not kidding.
It is unfortunate that the NFATCA got screwed by the powers that be in this particular scenario. It is also unfortunate that so called gun owners are resorting to emotional outbursts of rage instead of calm logical analysis. This is the kind of garbage that we are to expect from the "other side" - not ourselves.
It seems like the NFATCA is going to need some major support from the major gun rights organizations in order to get things done in this political climate. The members of such organizations will need to put pressure on these orgs, especially the NRA. Congress also needs to get off their backside and fulfill their constitutional duties. The ATF has been running rampant for too long and is in major need of an overhaul.Quote:
The screaming masses want nothing short of working to ban Hughes and the NFA. That is certainly a noble goal. We've actually looked at what it would take to mount such a legislative campaign... during an administration that was receptive. Tens of millions of dollars. We are hard pressed to get a couple hundred folks to pony up $50 a piece. So, for now, we fight the things that we can afford to fight. EVERYONE told us that they wanted the CLEO signature gone and we have been waging that fight for nearly a decade. Hardly anyone kicked in a few bucks to wage the fight. Yet we still did it. We got further than anyone ever had and had ATF/DOJ sign off until the White House took a giant dump on the process. Somehow, that is our fault. Newtown gave the WH all the bully pulpit they needed to screw things up. And for the record, we got the ball rolling in the Bush administration. It's hard to just pull up stakes and say "Never Mind... we'll wait until a gun guy is in the WH." You cannot start and stop and start the process. You have to be in it for the long haul.
To quote a Clint Eastwood movie... We shall endeavor to persevere...
Not on hold per se but backed up like I said. I have several sent in Jan. 2013 that went pending Mar. 2013 and spoke with the examiner 60 days ago. At that time she said they would be approved in 30-60 days. To reconfirm I called today and was told these went pending July 2013?? and would be an additional 90 days. I said that these went pending in March not July and the examiner told me they would be approved sometime this week -60 days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by jason8844
The response was "we have had to revise everything in light of new changes" So what has changed in 60 days?? This kind of ambiguity from a Federal agency translates into- if you do not have a stamp in hand when this is enacted, you won't get it. (you are fooling yourself if you think this isn't going down).
I foresee these being returned/rejected stating the need for CLEO sign off, etc. This also solves their "backlog" problem because the majority will be simply be rejected in lieu of the new requirement and those same majority will most likely be abandoned. Problem solved. most convenient.
There is no current CLEO sign off requirement for trusts. It has not gone through rule making at this time. There is a huge backlog and ATF's Counsel Office *did* increase the check list items on trusts because so many folks were submitting just plain bad trusts. Ones that were cut and pastes from the webs, not properly constituted or funded, etc. So many folks doing it on the cheap...
I understand there is no sign off on trusts now but that is the intention. Mine was prepared and drawn by an NFA attorney and is 40 pages. It runs concurrent with real estate/property trusts so these and title 1 and title 2 firearms as well as millions of dollars in collateral are retained in my family. I currently hold 25 stamps and have never had an issue until 2.5 months ago when I received an error letter asking to remove the trustees names (2 individuals) from box 3b. That was never an issue on the previous 23.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
I do agree that a legal instrument as such should be drawn up by an attorney and not by an online document. I think it further confirms the legitimacy of said document and like I said for me, this is not some mickey-mouse one time, I just want a sawed off shotgun thing. It is a substantial multifactorial investment entity.
I do not have a horse in this race. I have done all my Form 1s and form 4s as an individual, and my local sheriff will sign off on the forms with no problem. However, I do feel invested in this because I believe that NFA weapons should be available to everybody without a hassle, and I know I may not always live in a jurisdiction where the sheriff will sign.
Ddnc,
I know this may not make you feel any better, but I submitted a form4 as an individual back in March. It did not go pending until May. So the backlog between the cashing of the check and the date it goes pending is about the same for everybody regardless if it is a trust or an individual. I personally think the huge backlog is due to a bunch of people running out and buying NFA weapons during the gun crunch of this year.
I feel your pain on the wait times, I currently have two stamps in pending and I am mailing out two more this week.
Again, it boils down to Hussein Osama's leadership and the drones he places to head these agencies. It's not only the ATF,,it's all across the board.
I thought I remembered hearing Osama state the he wanted to have a heavily armed civilian force, as well armed as the professional US Armed Forces.
I guess he now knows the current civilian gun owners would defend the Constitution and against invading armies, not his dictatorship.
I wonder when we'll start hearing about his third term push, you know we now have a mob rule democracy government, not a rule of law republic government.
It's coming,
Darryl
I used to have a C&R Trust many years back, it was later dissolved by the ATF, saying it was issued in error. As a precaution I reregistered my trust guns to my personal C&R license
even though the ATF had stated the were legit, but shouldn't have been mailed directly to my home????
I didn't want to leave a vague loophole so I reregistered them. Who can trust these guys and future administrations from reckless unlawful acts??
-Darryl
Darryl,
I am always amazed how a nation of free men like us will happily vote away our natural born rights to citizens and extend benefits and rights to non-citizens. What kind if nation does this and remains free and prosperous?
For example, I was reading an NRA-ILA update today about the California legislature advancing anti-gun bills but also advancing bill to give welfare and drivers licenses to illegals.
There is a fundamental problem with our nation and more than half the population has no issues with it. They are blind to the politicians selling them down the river to give away their progeny's future to illegals so the ruling elite gain temporary power, fame and fortune.
As Reagan said "We have a rondevu with destiny". I personally believe that day is fast approaching.
It most likely will not be an issue to get a CLEO as I live in a non metropolitan town in Texas and it is a very,very conservative community. The reason for a trust for me is to retain this property to my heirs and Jason although I am right down the road west from you last year it was 90 days from mailing to stamp receipt. Like clockwork.
I read this quote today and it reminded me of our NFA quandary and who is to blame.
"Debating gun control with progressive liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. Eventually the pigeon will crap all over the board, knock over all the pieces, then strut around like they've accomplished something."