Switch to full style
Current and Upcoming Legislation. Local, State and Federal.

Forum rules

Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
Post a reply

Re: ATF possibly looking to redefine large frame pistols as

Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:44 pm

leadcounsel wrote:Rather than doublding down on the complex artibrary fabricated definitions, it would be nice if they'd just go the opposite direction and disband all of the silliness.

I'd honestly propose no more legally consequential definitions and terms used only loosely to identify what the receiver is regardless as to whether it is a pistol that shoots rifle ammo or a rifle that shoots pistol ammo, etc. It's a firearm, with loose definitions as we generally use them.


Bingo. What they need to do is just remove SBR, SBS, AOW etc from the NFA. All of this silliness is because someone 90 years ago said "Short rifles need to be regulated and have a backgrond check."

Well now all firearms require a background check and in most states even private sales do as well.

So they should just say "All fire arms require background check so NFA isn't needed." but that will never happen.

Re: ATF possibly looking to redefine large frame pistols as

Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:16 am

I’m perfectly content paying a $5 AOW tax stamp, and even a $200 SBR stamp.

What I’d like to see is legitimate legislation to remove sound suppressors from the NFA, get Hollywood out of our gun laws, and not give them any reason to adjust these stamp prices for inflation.

One step at a time fellas; the same way they took them away, one step at a time.

Re: ATF possibly looking to redefine large frame pistols as

Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:36 am

zipties wrote:What I’d like to see is legitimate legislation to remove sound suppressors from the NFA, get Hollywood out of our gun laws, and not give them any reason to adjust these stamp prices for inflation.

BiNGO.

Re: ATF possibly looking to redefine large frame pistols as

Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:05 am

JesseM wrote:
leadcounsel wrote:Rather than doublding down on the complex artibrary fabricated definitions, it would be nice if they'd just go the opposite direction and disband all of the silliness.

I'd honestly propose no more legally consequential definitions and terms used only loosely to identify what the receiver is regardless as to whether it is a pistol that shoots rifle ammo or a rifle that shoots pistol ammo, etc. It's a firearm, with loose definitions as we generally use them.


Bingo. What they need to do is just remove SBR, SBS, AOW etc from the NFA. All of this silliness is because someone 90 years ago said "Short rifles need to be regulated and have a backgrond check."

Well now all firearms require a background check and in most states even private sales do as well.

So they should just say "All fire arms require background check so NFA isn't needed." but that will never happen.
Have to disagree with you here. If it must be this way then the buyer gets the background check, not the firearm. If the buyer passes the BGC, him/her/etc, walks out with the gun, just like any other retail purchase. No other records. Gov doesn't need a database of all the firearms anyone owns. Period.
I've an even better idea though. If you're not to be trusted to own a firearm then you shouldn't be walking around breathing free air. If you've done your time, full restoration of rights. Can't be trusted with all rights, remain incarcerated. Too simple and would actually work so it'll never happen.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Re: ATF possibly looking to redefine large frame pistols as

Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:10 pm

Image

Re: ATF possibly looking to redefine large frame pistols as

Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:30 pm

leadcounsel wrote:Rather than doublding down on the complex artibrary fabricated definitions, it would be nice if they'd just go the opposite direction and disband all of the silliness.

I'd honestly propose no more legally consequential definitions and terms used only loosely to identify what the receiver is regardless as to whether it is a pistol that shoots rifle ammo or a rifle that shoots pistol ammo, etc. It's a firearm, with loose definitions as we generally use them.


In a fair world, yes.

But at this point it should be obvious to everyone that the ATF, like all government agencies, is about power, not gun safety. If they can define something, they can control it. Federal agencies do not relinquish control unless they are forced to do so. Who's going to force them?
It's a power hungry bureaucracy and what's best for the rest of us is irrelevant to them.

For our part, recognizing this fact and reacting to them as such, rather than expecting logic and fairness, will help us better deal with and accept the reality that is, rather than the fantasy we want it to be.
Post a reply