Bill introduced to exponentially expand the NFA

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlexanderA

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
10,571
Location
Virginia
A bill has been introduced by a Florida congressman to bring all semiautomatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines under the NFA.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1263/titles?r=13&s=1

Few details. This isn't going anywhere. Sen. Feinstein proposed something like this in 2013 (after Sandy Hook) but relented when it became obvious the plan was unworkable.

Still, this is worth studying (when and if details are released) for two reasons: first, it provides a window into the thinking of the antigunners, regarding an "assault weapons ban." Clearly, they are worried about issues such as grandfathering, confiscation, and the compensation that would go along with that. Bringing the banned items under the NFA would neatly solve all these problems for them.

Secondly, the pro-gun side might stand to gain something in this process. Adding multiple millions of guns to the NFA registry would change it completely. For one thing, it would have to be automated and streamlined. And if semiautos are treated as machine guns, there would be no legal difference between them. That would have some interesting implications. In addition, in amending the NFA, things like suppressors and short-barreled weapons could easily be removed since those provisions would be redundant.
 
Last edited:
entropy said:
So, you're alright with paying a $200 tax on your out-of-the-box 10/22?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I'm not OK with this plan at all.

The earliest this could get any real traction would be 2021, after the 2020 election.

We need to start thinking now about how to respond to this, if and when it gets close to becoming a reality.

If history is any guide, initial registration under the NFA would be free. Thereafter, prices of semiautomatics would skyrocket, especially if there was a moratorium on further production (like a Hughes Amendment for semiautomatics). Needless to say, there would be the mother of all buying panics. Speculators would profit handsomely.

On the other hand, if semiautomatics were lumped in with machine guns and not made into their own NFA category, that would imply an opening of the MG registry and current prices of machine guns would fall.

These are all things to think about and plan for.

(Actually, an NFA expansion along these lines would not be as bad as an outright ban a la bump stocks, which is also being talked about.)
 
Fine Figure of a Man said:
At best, you are foolishly optimistic.
Click to expand...
I am being neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I'm simply trying to game this thing out. I think we all know that eventually there may be another AWB in this country, and that the courts cannot be relied upon to void it. So it may come down to making the best of a bad situation, or perhaps turning some aspects of it to our advantage. The question is, what exact form would this take? And can we steer this in a direction that would be the least damaging to us? It would be wise to think about all this now, especially in regard to our own personal buying and ownership decisions. For example, I've never been a fan of gun trusts. But if transfers of semiautomatics became subject to a year-long NFA approval process, it might be smart to put each such gun into its own trust, so that the trust interest could be transferred instead of the gun itself. Lots of lawyers will be kept busy with workarounds such as this.
 
748 said:
All rifles only used in around 500 murders per year.
Banning them is pointless, it's not about public safety it's about control.
Click to expand...
You are preaching to the choir. The point is, what do we do when it happens?
 
AlexanderA said:
Secondly, the pro-gun side might stand to gain something in this process. Adding multiple millions of guns to the NFA registry would change it completely. For one thing, it would have to be automated and streamlined.
Click to expand...
:rofl:
Since 1934 the NFA approval process has been exactly the same.....lots of paper shuffling and human oversight. Despite more than a tenfold increase in NFA forms in less than a decade, ATF has received very little funding to increase their ability to expedite their task. They ask, Congress looks the other way.
While "Eforms" has allowed some "streamlining" it is woefully chock full of problems and it took ATF years to seemingly get it right. (and still not ready for Form 4's)
Thinking that the process would change isn't based on reality.


And if semiautos are treated as machine guns, there would be no legal difference between them.
Click to expand...
Simply being classified as a firearm under the NFA doesn't change the legal definition of "semi auto" any more than the definition of "machine gun". While the transfer of those firearms would be nearly identical, the "legal difference" is no different than machine gun vs silencer......and there are most certainly differences in their transfer, possession, ability to travel interstate, etc.


….. in amending the NFA, things like suppressors and short-barreled weapons could easily be removed since those provisions would be redundant.
Click to expand...
o_O
Ain't.Gonna.Happen.
 
This a lot. ATF generally, NFA branch specifically, has been woefully underfunded. Saw the stats the other day, but they have the same headcount as in some insane timeframe like 1978. Which is nuts when you think of just population growth.

(Related: the contractors doing our paperwork is a workaround. They spend some of their budget on people, when not allowed to "hire people.")

NRA, and others, have fought against any other streamlining. It is illegal to use the same computerized, automatic processes that immigration, air travel, and many other fed licensing needs for background checks. Every time that you ask why something logical two devices you submitted the same day are separate approvals: laws that NRA supported.

Ostensibly, this is all to avoid the "registration" bugaboo. But on the worst days, it's not hard to read the actions as trying to make sure it is hard to get NFA certification, to assure that any scheme for "full background checks" is a non-starter to us all as we see that it takes forever (I am over a YEAR on a form 4 suppressor!) for the USG to do anything, and then occasionally yell Ruby Ridge! and Waco! to add additional fear.



Yeah, adding all self-loading guns to the NFA is dumb, but if we were ALL being rational, something like that could be workable. If we want to do stuff like be sure to keep guns away from the metally ill, terrorists, et al we need some way to do checks, better than NCIC it seems.

And, we need to get some other stuff codified nationwide around what mental health judgements mean, to get them reported so background checks are of any actual value, and THAT also has huge civil liberties implications, were it to happen.
 
dogtown tom said:
Since 1934 the NFA approval process has been exactly the same.....lots of paper shuffling and human oversight. Despite more than a tenfold increase in NFA forms in less than a decade, ATF has received very little funding to increase their ability to expedite their task. They ask, Congress looks the other way.
While "Eforms" has allowed some "streamlining" it is woefully chock full of problems and it took ATF years to seemingly get it right. (and still not ready for Form 4's)
Thinking that the process would change isn't based on reality.
Click to expand...
If millions of new guns were added to the NFA registry, it could not possibly be "business as usual." Either the ATF would have to be expanded so that it rivaled the size of the IRS, or the Form 4 process would have to be made something like what the Form 4473 / NICS process is today. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a year's delay in processing, it would be an indefinite delay (as in "never"). The gun-banners may be clever in turning a "bug" into a "feature" but they are not that ham-handed. Sen. Feinstein realized this and that's why she backed off this proposal in 2013. New players will have to learn that lesson as well.
dogtown tom said:
Simply being classified as a firearm under the NFA doesn't change the legal definition of "semi auto" any more than the definition of "machine gun". While the transfer of those firearms would be nearly identical, the "legal difference" is no different than machine gun vs silencer......and there are most certainly differences in their transfer, possession, ability to travel interstate, etc.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm waiting to see the legislative language. If they are lazy they will just change the definition of machine guns to include semiautomatics with removable magazines. We just don't know at this point whether they intend to create a separate category.
 
AlexanderA said:
On the other hand, if semiautomatics were lumped in with machine guns and not made into their own NFA category, that would imply an opening of the MG registry and current prices of machine guns would fall.
Click to expand...

I see the logic. However our foes seldom use logic. Or respond to same.

Our foes would gladly make all semis Title 2, and would be equally happy that the Registry be closed, too. This is an ultimate aim of the antis--shut down arms manufacture entirely.
 
CapnMac said:
Our foes would gladly make all semis Title 2, and would be equally happy that the Registry be closed, too. This is an ultimate aim of the antis--shut down arms manufacture entirely.
Click to expand...
That would be a scenario in which semiautomatics would be made a separate category within the NFA (which is what dogtown tom suggested would happen). In that case, a separate Hughes-like termination date could apply to semiautomatics. The result would be a buying panic of epic proportions, accompanied and followed by skyrocketing prices. (Same thing that we saw with machine guns, except greatly compressed in time.) Under that logic, everyone should be buying as many semiautomatic rifles and stripped lowers as they can afford right now while prices are at all-time lows.

Once again, the antis are actually promoting the sale of the guns that they want to ban. Ironic, isn't it? This is why it's stupid for them to reveal their plans so far ahead of time. At this level of stupidity, it's not so far-fetched to think that they might simply redefine machine guns (rather than set up a separate NFA category) and inadvertently end up opening the registry. (When your enemy is making a mistake, the last thing you want to do is correct him.)
 
Sistema1927 said:
How defeatist. The time to act is now, to make sure that something like this isn't enacted.
Click to expand...
It's no coincidence that every single Democrat running for president is in favor of some type of AWB. They wouldn't all be doing this unless their internal polling showed that this was a winning issue for them. I'm afraid that we just don't have the numbers on our side. We might be able to stall for a while (maybe by keeping control of the Senate) but the ultimate result is almost inevitable. This is not defeatism, but realism.

Don't worry; it won't be enacted this year. But it's on the horizon. Be prepared accordingly.
 
Fine Figure of a Man said:
What did their internal polling show them before the last presidential election?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The liberals have become so deluded they don't even know what fact or truth is these days. They want so much to believe in their garbage that they lie to themselves daily.

I truly believe that they have moved so far to the left, to the point of outright socialism, and the voters who have been asleep in the past are beginning to wake up to the reality that the Democrats are planning a future that in no way resembles America.

Don't lose hope, keep your powder dry, and keep in the good fight for freedom.
 
We are well on the same page.

My only quibble is that, if antis had enough power base to push through such a thing through both houses, and getting it signed on a President's desk, that, they'd opt for the most draconian implementation they could. Which would be to expand Title 2 to include all self-loading weapons without regard to how many rounds they fire per trigger pull, and thus to require them to be Registered, which would not be possible, so that they'd all be contraband on enaction. They'd make sure of it. They would use as much of the existing "machine" as they could to make it as harsh as they could.

They are still burning over how the Fed AWB was functionally toothless, and they will be committed to never make that mistake again.

AlexanderA said:
Under that logic, everyone should be buying as many semiautomatic rifles and stripped lowers as they can afford right now while prices are at all-time lows.
Click to expand...
Which could be short-lived if, even under a Title 2a, the Registry were still closed. It would be called the "grandfathering loophole" and would be slammed shut as much as possible. "...Ladies and Gentlemen, America, turn them in..."

(When your enemy is making a mistake, the last thing you want to do is correct him.)
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Which is where "we" have the advantage. Our side has spent the last half century learning to be factual, to be accurate, to push the buttons in the correct order to get the result we want, not the one ordained by our lords and masters. They will leave gaping holes in through their own hubris and excess. And, we, we few, will do our best to wriggle through them.
 
CapnMac said:
Which could be short-lived if, even under a Title 2a, the Registry were still closed. It would be called the "grandfathering loophole" and would be slammed shut as much as possible. "...Ladies and Gentlemen, America, turn them in..."
Click to expand...
I'm old enough to vividly remember the 1968 MG amnesty (I was 23 at the time). The gun shop talk among the oldsters was that they would not register their WW2 bringbacks, because that would just be a prelude to confiscation. Well, we've seen how that turned out. The MG's that were registered then are worth fortunes, while the ones the old geezers did not register are now worthless contraband. (Not that they care, of course, because they're long since dead.)
 
The text of the proposed bill has now been posted:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...e6yR6l79w0sowNdkmDM4-V50m1eVZobLhyTC_rLM24HTA

It's very brief.
1. It adds a new category (9) to 26 U.S.C. section 5845(a) -- semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that can accept detachable feeding devices (regardless of capacity).
2. Owners would have 120 days after enactment to register the guns with ATF.
3. It authorizes additional funding for the ATF to carry out the Act.
4.It says nothing about the ammunition feeding devices themselves.
5. It says nothing about semiautomatic handguns.
6. Presumably, initial registration would be free.
7. Nothing in the bill about a Hughes-like termination date for semiautomatics. They would be treated like silencers and SBR's -- you would need a stamp for purchases.
8. It makes no other changes to the NFA.

This is obviously a bare-bones placeholder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Bill introduced to raise NFA transfer tax
Replies
21
Views
2K
adcoch1
adcoch1
LiveLife
  • Locked
Fact check: Would new House/Senate bills BAN assault weapons? - Verdict: CONFIRMED!
Replies
14
Views
1K
Kleanbore
K
ol' scratch
  • Locked
Feinstein makes her plan public. The bill will be introduced Jan. 3
Replies
4
Views
643
Al Thompson
A
barnbwt
  • Locked
So What Does the ATF Think of the NFRTR (NFA Registry)?
Replies
3
Views
737
barnbwt
barnbwt
S
  • Locked
Even the liberal media gets it
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
runes
R
Back
Top