http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...rcing-ammo-oh/Consider reclassifying silencers as non-NFA items, revising the definition of “silencer”.
The ATF seems to enjoy a lot of latitude in it's rulemaking process. Outside of the EPA, I can't think of any other agency besides the ATF whose rules and recommendations are tantamount to law.
The Deputy ATF director is suggesting silencers become non-NFA items, as we know. Could the ATF issue a ruling or just stop enforcing the NFA on silencers and make them de factoTitle I arms?
Or is the only route the HPA?
Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
-Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
Brown v. United States, 1921
...against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.
Join Florida Carry
Yeah it's not that easy
Retired Electronics Technician Chief Petty Officer USN 26 years
High School Baseball Umpire
River City Umpires
Reminds me of how the Brady Campaign lobbied and got the ATF to add the "Street Sweeper" to the destructive devices list at the behest of the Treasury Secretary (Bentson). Was not a law but the used and convinced the ATF that this shotgun "had no sporting value". Yet target practice is concidered a shooting sport. The Brady Campaign beat the dead horse until the Street Sweeper along with the USAS being over a 1" bore and of no "sporting use" could be added to Destructive Devices catergory with the ATF. If you ask me, the ATF needs to be abolished due to the fact that they can actually create policy that has the same effect as law. No government entity should be able to do this without a vote in Congress.
"The Striker and Streetsweeper were declared*destructive devices*under theNational Firearms Act*with no sporting purpose by Treasury Secretary*Lloyd Bentsen*in 1994 and their transfer and ownership is regulated by the*Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives*(ATF)."
LIBERTY 0R DEATH, PATRIOT, VETERAN, HARLEY RIDER, FLORIDA CARRY INC. MEMBER!
SPECIAL WARFARE TEAMS ROCK, WHO'S NEXT?
. LOCK UP YOUR VEHICLES OR LOSE YOUR GUNS!
Who do they think they are, Loretta Lynch?
All lives matter! Speak softly but carry a big stick!
Call your Local D.A.V. for help with Veterans Claims. Start here: http://www.dav.org/veterans/find-your-local-office/
A brand new Veterans help web site: http://www.veterans.gov
This is my site to help Vets: http://vietnamveteranhelp.yolasite.com/
And this one for Florida Benefits: http://dma.myflorida.com/state-florida-fact-sheet/
Seems like with an arbitrary ruling, binary triggers, slam fire stocks, bump fire, etc. could all disappear in a heartbeat.
Sent from my Jitterbug using YezImZhitinYou
When facts and beliefs collide, beliefs always win
Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, GOA, NRA Endowment Life
FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-S-PPITH
Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-Present
Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org
“The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
"Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are commuting violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell
"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
-- Herbert Spencer
However that being said, I'd rather suppressors come off the NFA via legislation than an ATF ruling. The ATF could rule suppressors are 'OK' as Title I firearms, and then when the next guy comes in, they could reverse course.
Silencers can't come off because it is a law (the NFA) rather than a ruling. The law would have to be modified to remove them from the NFA.
I didn't wait. Got mine before 41F, Submitted at the end of June. They are currently approving form 4s submitted in late May.
I'm currently waiting to buy any others. With the current ATF backlog, I expect the HPA to go to a vote before a submitted form 4 gets approved.
To speak without thinking is to shoot without aiming.
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.”
Haven't actually read that law. I wonder exactly how a "suppressor" is defined. If the definition is at all vague, could they interpret the definition in some alternate way so that many of the devices now available are no longer considered a "suppressor" under the law?
For example, in Florida an "ordinary pocket knife" is not considered a weapon. But that term is only very vaguely defined. So if the state's Attorney General decided that he is going to interpret "ordinary pocket knife" to be any knife, of any sort, that can be carried in a pocket... Voila! The law hasn't changed, but what can be carried around most certainly has.
Last edited by Denverd0n; 02-16-2017 at 11:42 AM.