Started By
Message

ATF looking at deregulating suppressors and import restrictions on some guns

Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:20 am
Posted by sleepytime
Member since Feb 2014
3579 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:20 am
LINK

quote:

The Washington Post recently obtained an 11-page “white paper” written by the second-highest-ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that proposes 15 policy changes, including the deregulation of suppressors and firearm imports, and a clarification of the infamous “arm-brace” rule. The author, ATF Associate Deputy Director Roland Turk, published the paper “to provide the new Administration and the Bureau multiple options… to reduce or modify [firearm] regulations.” Taken as a whole, the list focuses on reducing paperwork, streamlining regulations, saving taxpayer dollars, and clarifying policies. But gun enthusiasts are most excited about several of Turk’s individual proposals. The rule change garnering the most attention calls for the redefinition of “silencers” to allow for easier access by consumers. Ultimately, Turk wants suppressors to be removed from the National Firearms Act, a 1934 law that imposed a $200 tax stamp and additional paperwork for any suppressor purchase. “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,” he says. Turk notes that suppressors are rarely used in crimes and have become popular with hunters nationwide. He also admits that the eight-month wait time to process suppressor purchases has become “widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress.” The ATF cannot remove suppressors from the NFA by itself, but, according to Turk, it can revise the definition of “silencer” to include only those parts necessary for the suppressor’s operation. This would remove the NFA requirements from many individual suppressor parts, and only require a tax stamp for those parts that make the suppressor fully operational (see the first full paragraph on page 7). Turk’s second significant change would loosen the restrictions on the importation of modern sporting rifles (MSRs) like AR-15s and AK-47s. Turk notes that these firearms are already widely available in the United States, so restricting their importation serves “questionable public safety interests” and imposes a heavy workload on the ATF. Turk proposes that the agency revisit its almost 20-year old Sporting Purpose Study to “bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today.” Modern sporting rifles are used by thousands of shooters in competitions and hunting trips every year. Admitting that MSRs are commonly used for sporting purposes could significantly decrease the import restrictions imposed under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Another proposed change to import requirements would allow old U.S. military rifles like the M1 Garand and Carbine to be reintroduced to the U.S. public. Turk notes that there are many such rifles awaiting importation, but they have been denied importation and sale rights due to unreasonable “public safety concerns” from previous administrations. Another change Turk suggests would allow a firearm user to shoulder a pistol without re-classifying that weapon as a “short barreled rifle.” The current rule states that if a user installs an arm brace or stabilizing brace on a pistol-length MSR, that pistol does not constitute a short-barreled rifle (which are regulated under the NFA). But as soon as that shooter uses the arm brace like a stock, the firearm changes classification and becomes an NFA-item. To mitigate this confusion, Turk says that the 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.” Before the pro-gun community starts counting their proverbial chickens, it’s worth noting that, according to the document, “the opinions expressed within this white paper are not those of the ATF; they are merely the ideas and opinions of this writer.” The title page states that the document was not meant to be public—it was designed as a series of suggestions for the ATF to use internally. Still, it’s encouraging to see a high-ranking ATF official recognize the concerns of the firearms community and propose real, effective solutions to many of the agency’s most ridiculous rules. Turk covers other topics as well, including FFL’s that deal exclusively at gun shows, armor piercing ammunition, a database of agency rules, and interstate firearm sales.
Posted by cgrand
HAMMOND
Member since Oct 2009
38761 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:24 am to
quote:

The ATF cannot remove suppressors from the NFA by itself, but, according to Turk, it can revise the definition of “silencer” to include only those parts necessary for the suppressor’s operation. This would remove the NFA requirements from many individual suppressor parts, and only require a tax stamp for those parts that make the suppressor fully operational


the frick does this even mean?
Posted by Carson123987
Middle Court at the Rec
Member since Jul 2011
66413 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:39 am to
For real

That makes 0 sense
Posted by Damone
FoCo
Member since Aug 2016
32733 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:45 am to
quote:

This would remove the NFA requirements from many individual suppressor parts, and only require a tax stamp for those parts that make the suppressor fully operational

So it would be fricking pointless.
Posted by 4WHLN
Drinking at the Cottage Inn
Member since Mar 2013
7581 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:48 am to
Pretty much. At least thats how I read it.
Posted by Carson123987
Middle Court at the Rec
Member since Jul 2011
66413 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:49 am to
I can't read the white paper at work, but the article writer may be botching what the guy actually said. Don't rule it out
Posted by RATeamWannabe
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2009
25946 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 11:06 am to
quote:

quote:
The ATF cannot remove suppressors from the NFA by itself, but, according to Turk, it can revise the definition of “silencer” to include only those parts necessary for the suppressor’s operation. This would remove the NFA requirements from many individual suppressor parts, and only require a tax stamp for those parts that make the suppressor fully operational


the frick does this even mean?



Just speculating, but I think this is to allow people to remedy problems like baffle strikes without having to go through the entire process all over again
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 11:07 am
Posted by Kino74
Denham springs
Member since Nov 2013
5344 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 11:50 am to
quote:

Turk notes that suppressors are rarely used in crimes and have become popular with hunters nationwide. He also admits that the eight-month wait time to process suppressor purchases has become “widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress.”


I could care less what is popular with the hunting crowd. It's that attitude which cost the rest of us gun owners both head and heartache.

quote:

The ATF cannot remove suppressors from the NFA by itself, but, according to Turk, it can revise the definition of “silencer” to include only those parts necessary for the suppressor’s operation.


So in other words it'll be like building an AR15. The lower requires an FFL while the rest can be bought and shipped home. Now which component will require the tax stamps is unknown but I'll go out on a limb and say it's the shell leaving the internals off the list.


quote:

Turk’s second significant change would loosen the restrictions on the importation of modern sporting rifles (MSRs) like AR-15s and AK-47s. Turk notes that these firearms are already widely available in the United States, so restricting their importation serves “questionable public safety interests” and imposes a heavy workload on the ATF. Turk proposes that the agency revisit its almost 20-year old Sporting Purpose Study to “bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today.”


I use to have a copy of the "study." Blatantly obvious it's purpose was to ban imported semi autos. 922r has been one of the most useless regulations ever imposed both gun and nongun regulations.

quote:

Another change Turk suggests would allow a firearm user to shoulder a pistol without re-classifying that weapon as a “short barreled rifle.”


What is it about a pistol having a stock that is so dangerous that the feds need to know where you live and have you ask them for permission to drive across state lines with is beyond silliness.

Turk may have the very best of intentions and honestly wants to improve the conditions for everyone but we need to one up this and get legislation handled. Even if he did the best possible for gun owners, the current leadership and their superiors won't always have that sentiment with exhibit A the EOs that led to the 1989 and 1998 bans.

Posted by rattlebucket
SELA
Member since Feb 2009
11441 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 12:04 pm to
Holy cut and paste batman
Posted by rattlebucket
SELA
Member since Feb 2009
11441 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

So in other words it'll be like building an AR15. The lower requires an FFL while the rest can be bought and shipped home. Now which component will require the tax stamps is unknown but I'll go out on a limb and say it's the shell leaving the internals off the list.


Not all lowers require ffl. What if you manufacturer the silencer yourself similar to your example except you drill the lower yourself and no ffl required.
Posted by PT24-7
Member since Jul 2013
4368 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 12:15 pm to
The lack of common sense behind all these laws is amazing. No one ever set out to go on a killing spree with a sig brace but the fact that if they shouldered it while murdering people they might go to jail. Good gracious that's retarded
Posted by PT24-7
Member since Jul 2013
4368 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 1:08 pm to
Btw- I went to talk to my local shop yesterday. In the middle of conversation he mentioned to me that the HPA would pass. He was at shot show and most thought it would be well before the end of the year
Posted by SportTiger1
Stonewall, LA
Member since Feb 2007
28504 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

The ATF cannot remove suppressors from the NFA by itself, but, according to Turk, it can revise the definition of “silencer” to include only those parts necessary for the suppressor’s operation. This would remove the NFA requirements from many individual suppressor parts, and only require a tax stamp for those parts that make the suppressor fully operational


So they are doing nothing.
Posted by Papercutninja
Member since Feb 2010
1543 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:38 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/29/22 at 9:50 pm
Posted by onelochevy
Slidell, LA
Member since Jan 2011
16532 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:20 pm to
Let's get the Saiga's loaded on the ships and headed this way
Posted by Kino74
Denham springs
Member since Nov 2013
5344 posts
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:42 pm to
quote:

Not all lowers require ffl.


The only AR15 lowers that don't require an FFL are the "80%" finished ones.

quote:

What if you manufacturer the silencer yourself similar to your example except you drill the lower yourself and no ffl required.


Sounds like it would still trip the NFA manufacturing regulations. You'd have to have a special tax paid to the ATF for manufacturing it yourself.
Posted by SlapahoeTribe
Tiger Nation
Member since Jul 2012
12095 posts
Posted on 2/11/17 at 1:42 am to
quote:

the HPA would pass. He was at shot show and most thought it would be well before the end of the year
I really hope that is true. My brother and I were talking and we'd both buy a couple the day it passes.

We both already have them, but the hassle of getting more has me saying "meh... I don't want to deal with all that bs AND pay another $200 to Uncle Sam 'just cuz' he says I owe it."

Last I checked the backlog is something nuts like 12 months.
Posted by NOLAGT
Over there
Member since Dec 2012
13529 posts
Posted on 2/11/17 at 7:37 am to
12 months I got 2 right before 41f so I'm hoping march or so...hope it's not till July. Glad I got 2 that should cover almost anything I have.
Posted by 03GeeTee
Oklahomastan
Member since Oct 2010
3371 posts
Posted on 2/11/17 at 7:45 am to
There's no way you are getting your cans in march if you filed right before 41F.
Posted by Crawdaddy
Slidell. The jewel of Louisiana
Member since Sep 2006
18379 posts
Posted on 2/11/17 at 8:40 am to
I would never pay the 200 stamp on top of an over priced part that has nothing but a cool factor at best. No stamp and a deal on a suppressor, maybe.

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram