Sign the petition: remove suppressors from NFA

[daveW]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-suppressors-nfa-regulated-item/wVgXbqP8

[Lowpower]

Are you sure that's not some crackpot website designed to illicit information?

[daveW]

Are you sure that's not some crackpot website designed to illicit information?

I don't know anything about the website-asked for my name, email, and zip code.

Be careful, I suppose??. Edited July 14, 2014 by daveW

[Oh Shoot]

Are you sure that's not some crackpot website designed to illicit information?

 

Is your information illicit? 

 

It's the White House website, that you pay for,  so I agree one shouldn't give it much credence overall. ;)

 

- OS

Edited July 14, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

Are you sure that's not some crackpot website designed to illicit information?

 

It was designed to give "the people" a way to request things from the government.  One of the things the current administration put into place as a PR thing mostly.  At first, you only needed 5,000 signatures to equate an official response from the the appropriate government agency.  Then it increased to 25,000, and finally 100,000 once they started having to comment on some absolutely stupid things. 

 

It will probably leave a cookie on your computer, who knows, maybe from the NSA.  It will also result in zero happening on changing NFA items...no matter how many signatures you get.

[Mike.357]

the .gov doesn't care what we think or want.

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Mike.357" post="1168412" timestamp="1405347187"]the .gov doesn't care what we think or want.[/quote] This times infinity! These white house petition are simply a propaganda tool for obama to wave around to show support for idea he agrees with and to ignore otherwise. The only petition that matters is your vote on election day

[MacGyver]

As much as I'd love to see this happen, as I see it, you're asking the government to cut a revenue stream.

 

Republican or Democrat doesn't matter in that regard.  There's no way they're giving up the money.

[Dolomite_supafly]

It is all coded in Federal Regulations, not ATF policy, so it would take a lot more than just a petition. Heck if the President himself wanted to remove anything from the NFA system he could not do it. Even if the ATF wanted to do away with NFA registration they could not because it is Federal law and that requires legislation to change. Changing the Federal Regulations would require the full support of both houses, as well as the President, to make it happen and that will NEVER happen. You can't get both houses, and the President, to agree on something as serious as a budget. That alone makes me think they would never come together on something small like this.

I am glad they have not raised prices to current inflation since 1934. I did the math once and it would be close to $10K rather than $200.

Personally ownership of inanimate objects should not be regulated at all. What should be regulated is the person owning the item. That is if I can legally own a single shot 22 I should be able to legally own a 50 BMG machine gun in the same manner. If I want to own a tank, hand grenades or a fighter jet I should be able to if I can own a 22 and if I can afford it.

As far as who should be regulated it should NOT be broken down by felonies and misdemeanors. It should be broken down by violent offenders regardless to whether the crime is a misdemeanor or felony. If a person has been convicted of committing a non violent felony they should not be barred from owning a firearm but if a person is convicted of a violent crime, even if it is a misdemeanor, they should not be allowed to own a firearm. The reason is those who have a propensity for violence also have self control issues. Even if the person were sentenced to several decades in jail for a non violent crime they should be able to own a firearm once they have completed all of their sentence including probation. But if a person was convicted and sentenced to a day in jail for a violent crime. even if it is a misdemeanor, they should not be allowed to own a firearm.

As far as the mentally ill it should also be about violence. If someone with a mental defect has never shown a propensity for violence, on or off medication, they should be allowed to own a firearm. Those that have been violent, even if it is currently controlled by medication, should never be allowed to own a firearm until they can live medication free without being violent. And what medication a person may have taken in the past should not be preclude ownership, only actual actions should determine it. There are a lot of people who have been committed for evaluations that will not be allowed to own a firearm even though they were never violent. Imagine loosing a child or a loved one, a lot of people would require some sort of medication or possibly counselling to come to terms with it but were not violent and those imdividuals should not be prevented from owning a firearm.

Now those who are banned from firearm ownership should have a means to restore their ability to own a firearm. It will not be quick or easy but it will be possible. And the first criteria should be living as a model citizen for at least a decade after they have completed their sentence.

And finally, illegal drug use. The use of illegal drugs should not keep you from owning a firearm unless those drugs are making you violent. Even today there are people getting denied on the background checks because they have been prescribed medical marijuana and then try to buy a firearm. The reason is because marijuana is an illegal drug according to the federal government so when a person, who is using medical marijuana, answers "NO" to the question asking if they are an unlawful user of marijuana they are lying on the form. Until the federal laws are changed any person using marijuana, even for medical reasons, is breaking federal law and that requires a person to answer "YES" to that question. I personally think any and all drugs should be legal so long as it does not affect anyone else. What I ingest in my own home should be my business and no one else's.

[btq96r]

As much as I'd love to see this happen, as I see it, you're asking the government to cut a revenue stream.

 

Republican or Democrat doesn't matter in that regard.  There's no way they're giving up the money.

 

The FAQ on the NFA site said that in 2013 they had to process 163,691 applications.  At $200 a pop, that comes out to $32.7 million dollars in revenue. 

 

Concur that there is no way any administration- from either party- is going to give up that money

[Jamie Jackson]

Dolomite;

 

That is some of the most sane, lucid, and comm sense statements I have seen, heard, or read in some time. Thank you.

 

I honestly believe what you wrote reflects the intent of our founding fathers.

 

Social Engineering has bastardized that intent imho.

 

Each State could go a long way towards getting us back to where we belong through exercise of the 10th amendment and nullification...

if the States weren't so pitifully addicted to our tax dollars that flow out of Washington that is.

[TrickyNicky]

It is all coded in Federal Regulations, not ATF policy, so it would take a lot more than just a petition. Heck if the President himself wanted to remove anything from the NFA system he could not do it. Even if the ATF wanted to do away with NFA registration they could not because it is Federal law and that requires legislation to change. Changing the Federal Regulations would require the full support of both houses, as well as the President, to make it happen and that will NEVER happen. You can't get both houses, and the President, to agree on something as serious as a budget. That alone makes me think they would never come together on something small like this.
I am glad they have not raised prices to current inflation since 1934. I did the math once and it would be close to $10K rather than $200.
Personally ownership of inanimate objects should not be regulated at all. What should be regulated is the person owning the item. That is if I can legally own a single shot 22 I should be able to legally own a 50 BMG machine gun in the same manner. If I want to own a tank, hand grenades or a fighter jet I should be able to if I can own a 22 and if I can afford it.
As far as who should be regulated it should NOT be broken down by felonies and misdemeanors. It should be broken down by violent offenders regardless to whether the crime is a misdemeanor or felony. If a person has been convicted of committing a non violent felony they should not be barred from owning a firearm but if a person is convicted of a violent crime, even if it is a misdemeanor, they should not be allowed to own a firearm. The reason is those who have a propensity for violence also have self control issues. Even if the person were sentenced to several decades in jail for a non violent crime they should be able to own a firearm once they have completed all of their sentence including probation. But if a person was convicted and sentenced to a day in jail for a violent crime. even if it is a misdemeanor, they should not be allowed to own a firearm.
As far as the mentally ill it should also be about violence. If someone with a mental defect has never shown a propensity for violence, on or off medication, they should be allowed to own a firearm. Those that have been violent, even if it is currently controlled by medication, should never be allowed to own a firearm until they can live medication free without being violent. And what medication a person may have taken in the past should not be preclude ownership, only actual actions should determine it. There are a lot of people who have been committed for evaluations that will not be allowed to own a firearm even though they were never violent. Imagine loosing a child or a loved one, a lot of people would require some sort of medication or possibly counselling to come to terms with it but were not violent and those imdividuals should not be prevented from owning a firearm.
Now those who are banned from firearm ownership should have a means to restore their ability to own a firearm. It will not be quick or easy but it will be possible. And the first criteria should be living as a model citizen for at least a decade after they have completed their sentence.
And finally, illegal drug use. The use of illegal drugs should not keep you from owning a firearm unless those drugs are making you violent. Even today there are people getting denied on the background checks because they have been prescribed medical marijuana and then try to buy a firearm. The reason is because marijuana is an illegal drug according to the federal government so when a person, who is using medical marijuana, answers "NO" to the question asking if they are an unlawful user of marijuana they are lying on the form. Until the federal laws are changed any person using marijuana, even for medical reasons, is breaking federal law and that requires a person to answer "YES" to that question. I personally think any and all drugs should be legal so long as it does not affect anyone else. What I ingest in my own home should be my business and no one else's.

\Drops mic and ends thread./

[tnhawk]

I don't believe the petition will make any difference.  The number of signatures on it will not accomplish anything useful.

[ProfEngr]

:stir: :stir: :stir:

 

Show me where the exception clause is written in the 2A.

[battleop]

The FAQ on the NFA site said that in 2013 they had to process 163,691 applications.  At $200 a pop, that comes out to $32.7 million dollars in revenue. 

 

Concur that there is no way any administration- from either party- is going to give up that money

 

 

As much as I would like to save the $200 it's not the $200 that I have a problem with.  It's the almost 12 month waiting period.  If they are worried about the revenue they can take them out of the NFA but still keep a $200 tax on them.   

[btq96r]

As much as I would like to save the $200 it's not the $200 that I have a problem with.  It's the almost 12 month waiting period.  If they are worried about the revenue they can take them out of the NFA but still keep a $200 tax on them.   

 

I'm of the opposite mind with that. 

 

Slapping an tax specifically created for firearms is a helluva infringement (of the "shall not be" variety) to me.  $200 isn't much of a problem today- especially if you can afford to put together a good SBR- but in 1934 that amount would be $3,550 today when you adjust for inflation.  The difference between a 16" rifle and <16" one isn't affordable with that extra cost for many, and it represents a deterrent even if someone has the money on hand.  It was absolutely meant to use the commerce clause to dissuade ownership when it was adopted.

 

At least with the processing time, I can see why there is a delay and blame incompetent management instead of a legislative end run to limit rights.  There are only so many applications a person can sort through in a workday and do it properly.   When I see that number of 163,691 they processed in 2013 , I can absolutely understand how their relatively small office can get swamped and bogged down.

 

There are what, around 15 examiners to handle all those requests?  That's over 45 packets a day each examiner had to process (based on a 48 week year, and 5 days a week on the job to try and account for vacations and holidays).  For the staff they have on hand, they are moving at a respectable pace.

 

Should they use the funding that comes from those applications to hire more workers to reduce the wait time?  Of course.  That seems to be what is happening based on their email back in April, but we all know they could hire more and get it down to say, 30 days.  ATF could even contract positions out to HR firms as temp work to clear the backlog and deal with any spikes in applications.  That would lessen the burden on the civil service system and give you a nice pool to collect resumes from if a .gov slot opens up. The money is there to handle it, when they collect the tax up front you can make it a pay as you go system, but that's a bureaucratic limitation more than a political move in my eyes.

 

The $200 tax was intended to be a limitation on owning NFA weapons, so I'm much more irate with that on principle.

Edited July 17, 2014 by btq96r

[Clod Stomper]

And for some, $200 is still a lot of dough.  Especially as a tax for something that is required on a car, but restricted on a firearm.  I lost $200 cash (Just misplaced it. No idea where it is) late last year and it bugs me to this day. (Yes, I'm a bit OCD.)  That's at least a couple weeks worth of groceries for our family.

 

If I'm not mistaken (I often am these days), Dolomite did an inflation calculation in another thread in this thread and came up with a much higher number for a NFA stamp.  And I will admit  3550 does seem a bit low for '34-'14 inflation.  (Haven't done the calc myself.)

 

Edited to add:  Found several calculators online and they all say that $200 in '34 would equal plus or minus $3500 these days.  I still think that sounds low, but I'm not that smart.  Barely sentient if the truth be told.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Clod Stomper