Repeal the NFA.... needs more support.

[TOU]

+1

[Drift]

+1...But remember it's never just "repeal". It always morphs into "repeal and replace".

[TomSawyerNW]

Done

[Retro]

Done

[csmwhjones]

Done

[Red Dawn]

IMG_3305.PNGGot it signed and passed along

[Texas]

Reading an article regarding experimental aircraft regulations in "sport Aviation" this morning got me thinking.....Rolling back regulations that may be needed to keep stupid things from happening isn't always a good thing....Just imagine what the press would do when some a**hole shots down an airliner using a M2.....I'd be happy if suppressors and SBR's got delisted as well as an end to the 1986 ban on new full auto manufacture. The last thing we need is to get so much rope that we hang ourselves.

You bring up an interesting point of view, which would be similar to if the maximum speed limit is 85 miles an hour, cars should not be made to go faster than that. There are a number of M2s in the civilian marketplace, and we have not seen this incident occur to date. The last person murdered with a legal machinegun was in 1936 by an Oklahoma policeman. There have been a number of murders since then with an automatic weapon -- but an illegal one. Today with the CAD/CAM software and CNC machines we have, making of illegal weapons is not a problem. When someone commits an illegal act with a weapon, THAT person needs to be severely punished, we do not need to have rights taken away to prevent that ACT.

[Josh]

Repealing NFA wouldn't make post 86 machine guns legal. The Hughes Amendment is part of the GCA, not the NFA.

[biodsl]

Good news on suppressors over at the Firearmblog. If this is accurate, it appears there's internal support at ATF to remove suppressors from the NFA. From the white paper:

.

Read more here.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/06/breaking-atf-white-paper-leaked/

[terrywick4]

Good news on suppressors over at the Firearmblog. If this is accurate, it appears there's internal support at ATF to remove suppressors from the NFA. From the white paper:

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.

Read more here.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-paper-leaked/

I talked with a knowledgeable vendor of silencers this last weekend and he doubts that it will go thru. As of now there is only 52 of the 60% of the needed votes to pass. More pressure on congressmen is needed.

[mdewitt71]

The white paper means nothing.......
Would love to see it happen but, I am realist and know it is much more than writing a paper and wishing for idiots to do the "right" thing.

[Josh]

The white paper means nothing.......

I wouldn't say it means nothing. The second in command at ATF supports the HPA, that means something. Of course it doesn't change anything as far as the law is concerned. But when executive orders get issued and challenged, having the ATF's Chief Operations Officer supporting those orders in writing helps. When the HPA comes up for debate in committee and on the floor, this helps.

[Texas]

It is a third of the way to the goal