SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    So if Trump gets sworn in ... NFA poll
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
So if Trump gets sworn in ... NFA poll Login/Join 
Member
Picture of kimberkid
posted
What's the chances of getting rid of some or all of the NFA?

Let's start with Suppressors and SBR/SBS

Question:
No more NFA requirement for Suppressors?

Choices:
0% to 20%
20% to 40%
40% to 60%
60% to 80%
80% to 100%

Question:
No more NFA requirement for SBR/SBS

Choices:
0% to 20%
20% to 40%
40 % to 60%
60% to 80%
80% to 100%

 


If you really want something you'll find a way ...
... if you don't you'll find an excuse.

I'm really not a "kid" anymore ... but I haven't grown up yet either Wink
 
Posts: 3871 | Registered: January 11, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
...and now here's Al
with the Weather.
Picture of guardianangel762
posted Hide Post
Now that they "fixed" the trust route once the OMG 41F clears they will sign off making supressors purchable without a stamp. This will free up a lot of people doing the background checks.

No reason to do do that for SBR's and the government gets $200 for each one sold, so why would they ever remove them from NFA?


___________________________________________________
But then of course I might be a 13 year old girl who reads alot of gun magazines, so feel free to disregard anything I post.
 
Posts: 8705 | Location: Lake Stevens, WA | Registered: March 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I run trains!
Picture of SigM4
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:

No reason to do do that for SBR's and the government gets $200 for each one sold, so why would they ever remove them from NFA?


By that same token why do it for suppressors then?

But yes I do think suppressors will come off. Would love to see SBR/SBS come off as well but I think likelihood is much lower. Heck while we're at it let's dream about repealing the Hughes Amendment.



Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view.
 
Posts: 3543 | Location: Springfield, MO...for now (Texan by birth) | Registered: April 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of kimberkid
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SigM4:

<snip>

Heck while we're at it let's dream about repealing the Hughes Amendment.

The likelyhood of getting an Ammendment repealed is nearly impossible ... IIRC, majority of house and senate and 38 states have to approve it ... The same reason the gun-grabbing democrats haven't been able to repeal the 2nd Ammendment.

But we can always dream!


If you really want something you'll find a way ...
... if you don't you'll find an excuse.

I'm really not a "kid" anymore ... but I haven't grown up yet either Wink
 
Posts: 3871 | Registered: January 11, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
...and now here's Al
with the Weather.
Picture of guardianangel762
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SigM4:
quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:

No reason to do do that for SBR's and the government gets $200 for each one sold, so why would they ever remove them from NFA?


By that same token why do it for suppressors then?

But yes I do think suppressors will come off. Would love to see SBR/SBS come off as well but I think likelihood is much lower. Heck while we're at it let's dream about repealing the Hughes Amendment.


Have you read the act? It is called "hearing protection act" the way it could get support is it removed noise down from damaging levels protecting hearing and reducing noise pollution. Part of the act reads, The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing...

SBR's do not do anything other than shorten the gun...and make it louder. I cannot see a reason to remove them other than they look sick and are handier. So how would you get people who might think civilian ownership of scary looking guns are bad, also know as senators and congress folk, to pass the law?


___________________________________________________
But then of course I might be a 13 year old girl who reads alot of gun magazines, so feel free to disregard anything I post.
 
Posts: 8705 | Location: Lake Stevens, WA | Registered: March 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Music's over turn
out the lights
Picture of David W
posted Hide Post
Although we have majority in Senate some republicans senators will not sign the bill so quite a few democratic senators will have to sign. I would love to see it happen but I am not holding my breath.


David W.

Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud. -Sophocles
 
Posts: 2387 | Location: Winston-Salem, N.C. | Registered: May 30, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:

...Have you read the act? It is called "hearing protection act" the way it could get support is it removed noise down from damaging levels protecting hearing and reducing noise pollution. Part of the act reads, The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing...


Iowa now allows suppressors after we passed our own Hearing Protection Act:

http://bearingarms.com/nra-i/2...ring-protection-act/
 
Posts: 11636 | Location: Eastern Iowa | Registered: May 21, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Storm
posted Hide Post
On suppressors, I'm pessimistically hopeful. So I voted 20%-40%. On SBRs etc. I voted 0%-20%.

The American Suppressor Association (ASA), the NRA and others (as you probably know) have been lobbying in the states and getting suppressed hunting and suppressors themselves legalized. They've done a pretty good job, having liberalized the suppressor laws in 18 states in the past 4+ years. There are only 10 states now that do not allow suppressed hunting, of which I'm sure at least one (Vermont) will legalize it within the next 1-2 years.

The hunting thing (it's associated benefits), and the subsequent increase in suppressor sales, gives a practical reason to deregulate them.




Loyalty Above All Else, Except Honor

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Posts: 3423 | Location: Colorado | Registered: December 19, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of kimberkid
posted Hide Post
Kansas repealed the state law on prohibiting Suppressors and full auto when we passed concealed carry ... oddly enough when they banned concealed carry, suppressors, SBS and full-auto in July 1986 (just after Republican President Reagan signed the E.O. banning any further production of full-auto for civilians)

... the state didn't ever ban Short Barreled Rifles!

This was something most people (including myself) weren't aware of until the ban was repealed.

Short Barreled Shotguns are still prohibited ... Go figure.


If you really want something you'll find a way ...
... if you don't you'll find an excuse.

I'm really not a "kid" anymore ... but I haven't grown up yet either Wink
 
Posts: 3871 | Registered: January 11, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Storm
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by kimberkid:
Kansas repealed the state law on prohibiting Suppressors and full auto when we passed concealed carry ... oddly enough when they banned concealed carry, suppressors, SBS and full-auto in July 1986 (just after Republican President Reagan signed the E.O. banning any further production of full-auto for civilians)


I know this is nit-picky, but in the interest of correct info...

The Federal Ban on full-auto (machine-guns) was not an Executive Order, it was the afore mentioned "Hughes Amendment" that was appended to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) in 1986. The "Hughes Amendment" was a sort of "poison pill" to that bill, which was designed to fix deficiencies and issues that were introduced by the Gun Control Act (GCA) in 1968. The "Hughes Amendment" was not a Constitutional Amendment.

ETA: There was an Executive Order in 1989 that Bush enacted, that banned the import of Assault Weapons. Which is why we can't get HK, and SIG rifles from Europe, or AKs from China, Russia etc.



Loyalty Above All Else, Except Honor

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Posts: 3423 | Location: Colorado | Registered: December 19, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of kimberkid
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Storm:
quote:
Originally posted by kimberkid:
Kansas repealed the state law on prohibiting Suppressors and full auto when we passed concealed carry ... oddly enough when they banned concealed carry, suppressors, SBS and full-auto in July 1986 (just after Republican President Reagan signed the E.O. banning any further production of full-auto for civilians)


I know this is nit-picky, but in the interest of correct info...

The Federal Ban on full-auto (machine-guns) was not an Executive Order, it was the afore mentioned "Hughes Amendment" that was appended to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) in 1986. The "Hughes Amendment" was a sort of "poison pill" to that bill, which was designed to fix deficiencies and issues that were introduced by the Gun Control Act (GCA) in 1968. The "Hughes Amendment" was not a Constitutional Amendment.

ETA: There was an Executive Order in 1989 that Bush enacted, that banned the import of Assault Weapons. Which is why we can't get HK, and SIG rifles from Europe, or AKs from China, Russia etc.


I'm aware of the EO President George HW Bush signed and I'm not referring to that and I'm not referring to the Hughes Amendment specifically ... and I mistakenly called it an EO ... I'm talking about the bill in 1986, Reagan signed called the FOPA or "Firearm Owners Protection Act". The bill provided a number of protections for gun owners ... however it also ended the private sale and ownership of any fully automatic rifles -- machine guns -- that were not already registered with the federal government on the day Reagan signed the law.

After Reagan was shot in 1981 he grew less and less of a supporter to the Second Amendment, and in May 1994 he signed a letter also signed by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter urging members of the U.S. House of Representatives to to support a pending bill banning assault weapons. They wrote, "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

This letter really never made any sense to me as he wasn't shot with an assault weapon, but a 22 revolver.

Fortunately the letter wasn't well received and then President Clinton narrowly got it passed just before congress adjourned for the holiday, and even then the only way it passed was with the 10 year sunset clause, which didn't make it to the desk of then President George W Bush ... as he said he would sign it IF the bill, making it permanent made it to his desk ... Fortunately for us, it didn't.

I'm sure you didn't need a history refresher, but there are those that have forgotten and those that are too young to know what we've been through.


If you really want something you'll find a way ...
... if you don't you'll find an excuse.

I'm really not a "kid" anymore ... but I haven't grown up yet either Wink
 
Posts: 3871 | Registered: January 11, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I run trains!
Picture of SigM4
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:

Have you read the act? It is called "hearing protection act" the way it could get support is it removed noise down from damaging levels protecting hearing and reducing noise pollution. Part of the act reads, The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing...

SBR's do not do anything other than shorten the gun...and make it louder. I cannot see a reason to remove them other than they look sick and are handier. So how would you get people who might think civilian ownership of scary looking guns are bad, also know as senators and congress folk, to pass the law?



Very familiar with the bill and what it would do. The ASA was very smart in how the bill was crafted and presented; who could argue with attempting to preserve folks' hearing? If it passes I'll have a very nice $600 tax credit.

I'm simply stating that your rationale for why SBRs won't come off

quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:
No reason to do do that for SBR's and the government gets $200 for each one sold, so why would they ever remove them from NFA?


could just as easily be applied to suppressors given that a $200 tax stamp is required of either. And yet here we are talking about that very possibility.

The $200 from each Form 1/4 really doesn't amount to much revenue for the government, some even speculate that the cost to employ and run the background checks for these total more than is taken in. In 2015 there were a combined total of 162,575 Form 1 & 4 applications, which would total $32,515,000 (data here, starts on page 13). And while that sounds like a lot of $ to most of us, that's just a drop in the bucket for the ATF/FBI.

As to your second point, the reason to remove them is because its an undue restriction on our Second Amendment freedoms. This election was a very clear statement to many in congress that the people of this country are tired of being told what they can/can't do. If something is going to happen to remove SBR/SBS from the NFA registry now is the time to do it. Don Jr. is a huge 2A proponent, enough so that I would think if a bill were introduced that was as well crafted/thought out as the HPA it might get some traction. Trump makes no secret of the fact that he looks to his family for a lot of direction. Again, now would be the time.



Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view.
 
Posts: 3543 | Location: Springfield, MO...for now (Texan by birth) | Registered: April 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
What is this "if" crap?
 
Posts: 74909 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by kimberkid:
quote:
Originally posted by SigM4:

<snip>

Heck while we're at it let's dream about repealing the Hughes Amendment.

The likelyhood of getting an Ammendment repealed is nearly impossible ... IIRC, majority of house and senate and 38 states have to approve it ... The same reason the gun-grabbing democrats haven't been able to repeal the 2nd Ammendment.

But we can always dream!

38 states have to approve it??? What are you talking about? There was no 'Amendment' to the Constitution here. Enact, repeal or replace....Just like any other law. Am I missing something? Should be no different than 'Repealing and Replacing' Obamacare!


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
 
Posts: 2665 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
We're getting a president, not Santa Claus. Everybody talks about all this stuff that Donald Trump is going to do for them the same way the liberals talked about Obama. How did that work out for them? To think that Trump will assume office and just start pounding out everything every special interest wants like a man possessed is foolhardy. I've read sites that suggest the suppressor issue could be resolved in the first hundred days...highly unlikely. People need to temper their expectations and settle in for a timetable off at least a couple years to see movement being made. Not to mention preparing to be disappointed.
 
Posts: 1683 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
There is a big difference though, the Obama supporters were talking crazy like they wouldn't have to pay their bills blah, blah.

Optimism that a bill already created will be passed through a Repub controlled Congress when Trump put his son as the head of a 2A task force who has this as one of their key issues...seems warranted. Same for national CCW reciprocity.

I confident we'll get movement, no it won't be overnight or the biggest priority.




“People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik

The world's a dangerous place, we can help! http://portlandfirearmtraining.com/
 
Posts: 2170 | Location: Oregon | Registered: October 02, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of kimberkid
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
What is this "if" crap?

Would anyone be surprised the democrats and republicans that are anti-Trump try to pull some crap to fuck things up?


If you really want something you'll find a way ...
... if you don't you'll find an excuse.

I'm really not a "kid" anymore ... but I haven't grown up yet either Wink
 
Posts: 3871 | Registered: January 11, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by kimberkid:
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
What is this "if" crap?
Would anyone be surprised the democrats and republicans that are anti-Trump try to pull some crap to fuck things up?
Yes. I, for one, would be surprised. Would you mind keeping the paranoia out of the forum?
 
Posts: 74909 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of JPD217
posted Hide Post
Ordered a Sig SRD762 yesterday, while talking to my dealer he said that he had talked to the President of ASA last week and that they expect the hearing protection bill to be on the floor for a vote by July.

Not sure how good that info is, but I sure hope it's true.



"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."

President Theodore Roosevelt

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
 
Posts: 2234 | Location: North Dakota | Registered: August 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
When the will is strong, everything is easy
Picture of celticwolf
posted Hide Post
Do you think it can get past the Chuck Schumer filibuster in the Senate?

Also do you think every Republican in the Senate will vote for it?

My answer to both is no. In the House it has a chance. The Senate has some hurdles.


"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of
avoiding reality." Ayn Rand
 
Posts: 1998 | Location: SC | Registered: April 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    So if Trump gets sworn in ... NFA poll

© SIGforum 2017