(in part from TFB)
There are some bold issues being addressed. One of which is point 5, the use of a stabilizing brace.
5. Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace:
Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgun
did not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under the
National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination as
an NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short – barreled rifle). ATF has not made an other NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.
While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push
the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a
relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms
with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with
future requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics
This could change their determination that came out back in 2015 that using a brace could constitute a redesign. As Adam Kraut had explained, misusing a product is not the same as redesigning or manufacturing.
If that got you excited wait until you see what else they got cooking.
Next up is the point about Slencers.
Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This
requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the
silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers
have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges
and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.
At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The
wide acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created
substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF
to have a significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is
now approximately 8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer
would be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of
[silencer] parts, ” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to
the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated
part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed
silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered
by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part
or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be
These two points are huge. There are other great points addressed in the White Paper and I encourage you to read it all.
The conclusion of the White Paper addresses it nicely:
There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.
There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to support
ATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence.
The future looks bright and I hope the ATF accepts these issues and solutions.
I wonder if this ‘reversal’ of some contentious regulations has anything to do with the rumor that the President, in his consolidation and streamlining of government bureaucracy, wants to eliminate the BATFE and create a division of the FBI to handle such matters? (Fast & Furious come to mind?) Are they trying to appear more ‘user friendly’ to their constituency to keep their agency and their jobs?
Naw, not possible…
NOT the Glendale store!
Of course, there’s that store in Glendale, Arizona, (in)famous for allowing straw purchasers to buy quantities of guns for them to smuggle South-of-the-Border, at the behest of the federal government.
The end-recipients were cartels, who used them to murder their own people, and some Americans, and more recently (it’s been reported) some Europeans.
I’ve heard tales of stores who sell to private citizens, pretending they don’t know they are selling to straw buyers, who ultimately sell to unknown folks this side of the border. As little attention is paid to smuggling into Mexico, it’s possible sales are to individuals (including Mexican police officers) who are simply flaunting U.S. and Mexican gun laws to try to protect themselves from the cartels! And, being the capitalists they are, the gun dealers are looking the other way, knowing if they don’t do the sale, the store up the street will!
When outlining this post, another example came to my memory. Not far from the now-defunct Royal Bookstore (as recounted in these pages), a small gun shop appeared. The ubiquitous U-shaped glass display case, containing perhaps 40 handguns, and some long guns on the wall.
With a staff of eight or nine guys, all visibly armed!
SERIOUSLY – how can they afford to pay that many clerks?
I’d stopped by to check out their wares a couple of times, and the last time found them to be closed. I then went to the nearby bookstore to see if they knew what had occurred. It seems the gun store had been a front for a bookmaking operation! This explains the large number of staff!
Hopefully, with Gunwalker (Fast & Furious) having made the front pages through the death of federal agents, legitimate gun stores have tightened up their procedures and are no longer allowing straw purchases!
Interestingly, the Glendale store remains in business! :-0
Remember GUNWALKER aka Fast & Furious, wherein the U.S. Government facilitated the illegal sale of firearms to have them smuggled across the Mexican border? The idea was they could then be tracked to the end users and arrests would be made?
And the FUBAR* result, where thousands of Mexicans were murdered, and a number of Americans also, including some federal law enforcement officers?
And the high-ranking BATFE officials played rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic with the folks involved, lest anyone actually see prison time for such heinous activity?
Remember how this is now old news?
Well, the adventure continues…
One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”
A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.
It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?
*FUBAR – for the unfamiliar, Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition (a military epithet). Some folks substitute another F-word for fouled.
No, not the story you thought…
(Although my thoughts and prayers are with the dead, wounded and their families and friends in Oregon.)
A jury has found two men guilty of murder in the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent whose death exposed the botched federal operation known as Fast and Furious.
The jury found Jesus Leonel Sanchez-Meza and Ivan Soto-Barraza guilty of all counts. Jurors had begun deliberations Wednesday afternoon, a week after the trial began in federal court in Tucson.
Sanchez-Meza, also known as Lionel Portillo-Meza, and Soto-Barraza were part of a five-man crew that planned on robbing drug smugglers when they encountered Agent Brian Terry and three others on Dec. 14, 2010.
(Reports are they will receive life in prison…)
additionally, from Fox News
The killing led to intense political rhetoric as Republicans sought to hold the Obama administration accountable over the Fast and Furious operation. They conducted a series of inquiries into how the Justice Department allowed guns to end up in the hands of criminals.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt after he refused to divulge documents for a congressional investigation into the matter. Since then, the Justice Department has focused on arresting and trying all suspects involved.
About f’n time!
Now, what about the charges against Holder et al for complicity, conspiracy and obstruction?I’m not holding my breath…
How closely have you read the 4473?
All of us have filled out the 4473 form so many times that we could pretty much recite it and fill it out blind folded. But have you actually bothered to read the stuff after you sign and date 16 and 17?
A co-worker was perusing the later section, that hardly anyone reads, and found two interesting things in the 4473 that dispel misconceptions regarding firearm sales.
First there is the misconception regarding gifting a firearm. For a long time I have heard, and mistakenly believed, that gifting a firearm is only allowed between parent and offspring or between spouses. This is completely false. Apparently you can gift a gun to anyone you want. Take a look at the screen cap of the section explaining 11a “transferee/buyer”.
Did you catch the subtle nuance between the two examples? You cannot buy a gun on BEHALF of someone. But you can buy a gun and gift it to someone. Now the recipient of the gifted firearm must not be a prohibited person. So use common sense, otherwise you will have committed a straw purchase.
The other amazing discovery is with regards to residency. Having lived in NY for a couple years as a firearms enthusiast, I look for ways to acquire guns legally using loopholes. Such as buying non NY legal guns in PA but having them shipped to my FFL in NY. Like my Glock 21 Gen4 came with three 13rd magazines. The store clerk said he can’t ship them to NY. I told him yes he can because my FFL will buy them off me or trade them for 10 rd mags. However this recently discovered rule in the 4473 opens up opportunities for a lot of people.
In the 4473, under Current Address and State of Residency, there is a section that clarifies it. It states that if you have a house in a different state and while you are vacationing there, you must use that address while you are there buying guns.
What does this mean for you and me? Well, you can buy handguns in different states and take them with you rather than ship them to another FFL in the other state. Granted you need to have a home or apt with a supporting govt document that shows your address of that other state.
So my friend who is still living in NY, has a house in PA .He could go to a PA FFL and buy any gun he wants because he is using his PA address as his current residence. He can get any handgun or AR15 that would be banned in NY and leave them in his home in PA. According to the excerpt above, that would be completely legal.
The BATFE enforcement seems to be all about nuance (except concerning Fast & Furious, of course!).
When it comes to completing this form, watch your back, Jack! (or Jane!)
Just in case you missed coverage of this on the news…
(As posted by David Hardy in his blog, with attached commentary, in full…)
Plea in murder of BP Agent Terry, with Fast & Furious gun
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 11 AUGUST 2015 07:05 PM
Another perp involved has taken a plea to 30 years’ imprisonment. Another perp also got 30 years, and the guy who bought the guns got under five years.
These are all quite lenient. The gunmen faced the death penalty, and the gun buyer could probably have, too (aiding and abetting the murder makes him guilty of murder). If prosecuted under Arizona law (and they still could be, since the offense broke both State and Federal law), they’d be very likely to get death, and at the very least to get life without parole (“natural life”). I’ve seen killers get the latter for a single murder and one not committed in the course of a plan for violent criminal acts.
Assailant in Garland, Texas, attack bought gun in 2010 under Fast and Furious operation
I wonder how many other attacks on U.S. soil are traceable to these transactions?
(Probably not too many, as difficult as it is to bring illegal stuff across the border…)
h/t The Duck
Brock Townsend shares with us:
I came across this article today, entitled Are Militias a Menace? It mainly focuses on pro-government militias during times of civil war abroad, however, there are some very important takeaways from this article. To wit:
The distinction between “gang” and “militia” — ties with the government
Unlike rebels or criminals, whose actions are necessarily illegal and opposed by the state, these groups enjoy semi-official or informal ties with the government.
Liberal use of state-backed militias (i.e., “gangs”) to abuse the populace and disabuse themselves of the blame
Their statistical findings (published here and summarized here) show that the appearance of militias is strongly correlated with violations of human rights, particularly when governments want to maximize harm to civilians while minimizing blame for the action of armed groups that are, ostensibly, “free agents.”
In other words, the SPLC can s*** it!
And don’t even get me started on the Fast & Furious government-gang thing!
Word about the ‘Net (that bastion of information factual, don’t ya know!) is that there was a specific reason for
criminal mastermind racist buffoon Attorney General Eric Holder to have recently retired.
NO, it’s not because of pending charges related to GUNWALKER, aka Fast & Furious. Or his non-pursuit of federal charges against the New Black Panther folks inhibiting (White) people from casting their votes. Or the massive Internet or cellular telephone surveillance he authorized against non-criminal U.S. citizens. Or any other of the numerous felonies with which he should be charged and convicted.
It’s because The President sees a way to leave his mark on the Nation is when a conservative member of the U.S. Supreme Court retires, he’s going to appoint Eric Holder!!!
Can you imagine? I’ve been concerned about The President appointing someone of his ilk, but THIS guy? Supreme Court appointments are for life.
Makes me pray for Leon Panetta or Bernie Sanders.
h/t Boyd & Donna
Another (how many in the Administration?) to go!
Attorney General Eric Holder will announce later today his plans to step down, FoxNews.com has confirmed.
One hopes he steps down into a courtroom preparatory to his trial, but I doubt it!