PDA

View Full Version : The ASA meeting with the ATF & Congress


Javi
07-10-2012, 8:33 PM
"On June 20th and 21st, the American Silencer Association sent six delegates to Martinsburg, West Virginia and Washington, DC to meet with the ATF and various Congressmen about your suppressor rights."


Very interesting video I wanted to share with you guys. Don't know how much of it does with California but assumed some people would be interested in watching:

mWWV-Dnu9aY

Bobula
07-10-2012, 8:36 PM
Tag

freonr22
07-10-2012, 8:59 PM
excellent video

Javi
07-10-2012, 9:01 PM
excellent video

Absolutely! Had to favorite it. Can't believe how backed up with forms they are, holy cow.

Intimid8tor
07-10-2012, 9:05 PM
Just saw that over on arfcom. Wait times are improving. A just had a form 3 complete from one SOT to my SOT in about 4 weeks. Process times are now down to about 5 months from pending from a high of over 6 months. The trend line is good and I hope to see it continue.

These guys are on my donation list for the work they are doing.

Merovign
07-10-2012, 11:26 PM
I'm impressed. They seem to have a very positive attitude and are taking productive action.

It's easy, especially when you're personally affected by regulations and backlogs and inefficiency, to be discouraged.

Good to see, and I wish them luck and success, even though I'm not directly affected.

Ubermcoupe
07-10-2012, 11:33 PM
Cool. Thanks for posting OP!

m03
07-11-2012, 8:05 AM
Semi-related, but with so many SBR forms going into the NFA branch every month the past few years, as well as shorter carbine configurations in use worldwide, I wonder if it could be argued that SBRs are now in common use and therefore protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Javi
07-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Semi-related, but with so many SBR forms going into the NFA branch every month the past few years, as well as shorter carbine configurations in use worldwide, I wonder if it could be argued that SBRs are now in common use and therefore protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I hope they realize how stupid the NFA deal really is at this current time! At the very least take sound suppressors and sbr's off. I don't really see them giving up 'full-auto' anytime soon.

m03
07-11-2012, 10:41 AM
I hope they realize how stupid the NFA deal really is at this current time! At the very least take sound suppressors and sbr's off. I don't really see them giving up 'full-auto' anytime soon.

I imagine suppressor restrictions will eventually be the responsibility of the States if this continues.

I think the SBR definition will slowly be revised *if* we have enough people pushing for it. The minimum barrel length has been amended a couple of times since the NFA was passed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Background), so I don't see why it couldn't be revised to something like a 12" or shorter barrel and 24" or shorter OAL. The NFA branch workload would probably be cut in half if this was done.

I could see what constitutes AOWs being changed so that the whole foregrip-pistol nonsense goes away. I'm sure they'd like to keep pen-guns, cane-guns, and the like regulated in some fashion, so the AOW definition is here to stay.

Gray Peterson
07-11-2012, 10:47 AM
The biggest issue involving NFA wait times is the fact that all of the taxes put into general treasury and then doled out back to NFA branch by Congress.

It would make more sense to put them into a revolving processing line item where they keep the funds inside of NFA Branch subject to audit, of course. That way they can do temp hires and permanent hires. This is similar to how Florida and many other license to carry statewide agencies do it (self sustainment funding)

ptoguy2002
07-11-2012, 11:02 AM
I think the SBR definition will slowly be revised *if* we have enough people pushing for it. The minimum barrel length has been amended a couple of times since the NFA was passed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Background), so I don't see why it couldn't be revised to something like a 12" or shorter barrel and 24" or shorter OAL. The NFA branch workload would probably be cut in half if this was done.

I could see what constitutes AOWs being changed so that the whole foregrip-pistol nonsense goes away. I'm sure they'd like to keep pen-guns, cane-guns, and the like regulated in some fashion, so the AOW definition is here to stay.

Firearms technology is to the point today where the whole SBR and foregrip AOW thing just needs to go away. With quick change barrels, rifle cal pistols, swappable uppers, same rails on pistols as are on rifles, these SBR and AOW definitions are hopelessly obsolete.

As for that video, it is great.

mag360
07-11-2012, 11:52 AM
Woo hoo! They will hopefully get lots of support from gunnies!

Dantedamean
07-11-2012, 12:03 PM
Wow, that is a very well done video. I would like to see a full documentary on how outdated and obsolete the NFA system is. After watching this I am finally convinced people are able to make a good documentary showing firearms in a positive light. I would like to see one similar to bigger, stronger, faster.

nicki
07-11-2012, 12:22 PM
I thought this video was very well done and the thing that hit me was the NFA fees.

If the ATF was allowed to keep the fees to process the applications, the application process could be streamlined.

Seems to me that agencies who are collecting money for services they provide should be able to keep the fees they collect to service their customers.

This crap of fees going into the general fund is not only a problem with the ATF, but I am sure with other government regulatory agencies as well.

If the ATF was allowed to keep the funds collected for the NFA arms, that branch would of the ATF would become a lot more efficient in processing applications.

Here we have a tax collecting agency where the customers are not only volunteering, but begging to pay the tax.

Potentially these guys could change the culture inside the ATF from being one that is hostile to gun rights to one that views NFA applicants as customers.

Here is a spin for you. If the Feds are collecting taxes on NFA arms, then the Federal government has a compelling government interest due to tax collecting and when states restrict NFA arms, they are interfering with federal tax collections.

Although the chances are slim, this could lead to not only repeal of the Hughes amendment, but possibly federal preemption on registered NFA arms.

Nicki

Javi
07-11-2012, 9:26 PM
[QUOTE=ptoguy2002;8910450]Firearms technology is to the point today where the whole SBR and foregrip AOW thing just needs to go away. With quick change barrels, rifle cal pistols, swappable uppers, same rails on pistols as are on rifles, these SBR and AOW definitions are hopelessly obsolete.

As for that video, it is great.

Right on :) If they don't get rid of it, I agree with m03 mentioning a compromise of a 12" barrel would be decent. I'd love to have a 14.5" m4 carbine without the need to weld. Eh, I'd probably get it cut to 12.1" or something haha. God, I wish we could have the choice to get NFA items here..Especially silencers! God forbid I want to save my hearing

Wow, that is a very well done video. I would like to see a full documentary on how outdated and obsolete the NFA system is. After watching this I am finally convinced people are able to make a good documentary showing firearms in a positive light. I would like to see one similar to bigger, stronger, faster.
That'd be great! There should be one made for CA's asinine gun laws while they're at it.

Javi
07-11-2012, 9:34 PM
I thought this video was very well done and the thing that hit me was the NFA fees.

If the ATF was allowed to keep the fees to process the applications, the application process could be streamlined.

Seems to me that agencies who are collecting money for services they provide should be able to keep the fees they collect to service their customers.

This crap of fees going into the general fund is not only a problem with the ATF, but I am sure with other government regulatory agencies as well.

If the ATF was allowed to keep the funds collected for the NFA arms, that branch would of the ATF would become a lot more efficient in processing applications.

Here we have a tax collecting agency where the customers are not only volunteering, but begging to pay the tax.

Potentially these guys could change the culture inside the ATF from being one that is hostile to gun rights to one that views NFA applicants as customers.

Here is a spin for you. If the Feds are collecting taxes on NFA arms, then the Federal government has a compelling government interest due to tax collecting and when states restrict NFA arms, they are interfering with federal tax collections.

Although the chances are slim, this could lead to not only repeal of the Hughes amendment, but possibly federal preemption on registered NFA arms.

Nicki

Great post, Nicki :)

Uxi
07-12-2012, 7:12 AM
Always thought it was gay how suppressors were regulated. Course, the entire NFA is retarded, but that's neither here nor there.

One would think California would want to mandate these instead of banning them.

12voltguy
07-12-2012, 8:05 AM
Firearms technology is to the point today where the whole SBR and foregrip AOW thing just needs to go away. With quick change barrels, rifle cal pistols, swappable uppers, same rails on pistols as are on rifles, these SBR and AOW definitions are hopelessly obsolete.

As for that video, it is great.

THAT ISN'T EVEN IT
THE ONLY REASON SBR WAS added to NFA in 34 was org they were banning pistols, & knew people would cut down rifles to be pistol like in size.
they knew they could not ban pistols so took that out & just didn't take our SBR........so it's in there.
it's like a misstake they never fixed:rolleyes::mad: