nfa process shouldn't require a proctological exam!

[kimbershot]

you heard me! if it's legal and you're legal, why all the baloney and 6month wait to get "approved". for all you arm chair commando's who are gonna tell me that that's the way it is--heck if the gov. can determine you tax status, flight status, background check, etc within seconds--why the hassle. reality--it's to stall and delay.

i have been a pistol permit holder for over 40 years in one state. i just recently received 2 more pistol permits (new residence state and non resident state). i had to go through background checks, fbi checks, checks for getting checks, yadda, yadda. i have 2 nfa form 4 tax stamps for silencers--so i've been to the mountain and i know the drill.

i recently sent along a form 1 and trust for a sbr build--another 200.00 and 6 months???? all that should be required is an acknowledgement the item is legal in my state (duh--that's a tough one--like the atf doesn't know). am i legal--gee 3 states and your own previous paperwork might give you a hint. is my trust legal--as long as it meets state specific guidelines which are published--you don't need the pride of authorship from a lawyer--you don't need .50cent words--you could effectively write it on toilet paper. are you as grantor legal, is the trustee legal? is the beneficiary legal? those are the issues.

 

[Flyincedar]

So, I'm guessing this is just a rant, because you don't like the process?

 

[kimbershot]

it's not a rant cause i don;t like the process, it's that the process is redundant, outdated and designed to intimidate when under the constitution and as a legal u.s. citizen, we and you should not be subject to this procedure.

 

[Rail Driver]

I agree with the OP. The Bill of Rights says:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

EVERY SINGLE gun control law on the books (other than those laws that PROTECT firearms rights and do not infringe upon, limit, or restrict those rights) is an unconstitutional law, infringes on our rights, and should rightly be stricken from the books.

Now just try to get an oppressive, traitorous, tyrannical, greedy, power hungry government to agree to that. There's only ONE way they'd do it, and that's from the business end of a rifle in the hands of a true patriot.

(the previous statement is MY OPINION ONLY. It is not implied to be the opinion of THR.org or anybody else, and I do not represent any interests but my own in making the above statements).

 

[medalguy]

I also agree with the OP. I own a number of NFA items, and have since before the 1968 amnesty. Once I have gone through the process once, it should be as simple as doing an instant background check for a 4473 to determine that nothing has changed since my last purchase, and I should be good to go. There's absolutely no reason to have to wait as long as we do.

Take too long to process paperwork? Hire a few more examiners. It's not like they won't generate enough revenue withe the increased stamp sales to pay their salaries.

 

[Girodin]

am i legal--gee 3 states and your own previous paperwork might give you a hint.

I don't defend the process. However, the conduct a background check. You submit much of the same stuff you do for other FBI background checks. I've had more than one for employment reasons. Just because your last background check came up clean doesn't mean this one will. Things change over time and that is why they redo it each time.

Now we could argue that there is really no good argument to have a more extensive background check than to buy a firearm.

As to the idea there can be NO gun control law. The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . (emphasis added)

Do we read that to mean the government can not make a law prohibiting me from ritualistically killing people (perhaps you, your wife, your kids, etc)? Just food for thought.

 

[AlexanderA]

The backlog is because there are just too many applications, relative to the staffing at ATF. Most of the delay is due to the application just sitting in someone's in-box. If you want to decrease the delay, increase the funding for ATF, and earmark it for the NFA Branch.

But then, the philosophy in most of the gun world seems to be to starve the ATF of money. You reap what you sow.

It would also help if suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs were removed from the NFA entirely. These constitute the bulk of the applications, but don't represent an identifiable problem, crime-wise. (Neither do MG's, but let's not go there.)

 

[kimbershot]

the nfa real skinny.

the only reason that nfa exists is because the cops were outgunned by the bad guys. a faction tried to destroy the 2nd amendment and to placate, "gun control" was instituted via making the cost of ownership unaffordable for a "class of weapons" that were available to the average guy. how many average guys could pay a 200.00 tax on a 25.00 tommy gun back in the 1930's?

in the world of instant background checks, i can fill out a 4473 and walk out with a handgun within 10 minutes. if i can own a handgun and that's what it takes as a precursor to purchase a "nfa" weapon, as long as the transaction is legal in your state, what is the batf bringing to the table other than being an obstacle?

 

[Rail Driver]

As to the idea there can be NO gun control law. The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Do we read that to mean the government can not make a law prohibiting me from ritualistically killing people (perhaps you, your wife, your kids, etc)? Just food for thought.

That's like comparing apples to oranges, and completely not the issue.
Your right to swing your fist (or your religious sacrificial knife) ends where my nose begins. So long as YOUR rights do not infringe upon MY rights, you're free to do as you wish.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional. Murder qualifies as a compelling interest to prevent the practice of that religion.

I didn't say NO gun control law. I said no gun control law that infringes, limits, or restricts the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. There's a difference between gun control laws and laws that criminalize violent actions or behavior. That's where you are confused. There's no purpose to controlling or restricting the TOOLS because the ACTIONS will occur whether the tool exists or not. It's not difficult to understand.

 

[Girodin]

That's like comparing apples to oranges, and completely not the issue.

Its not really at all. It is asking if we give litteraly interpretation to the absolute language in the bill of rights. If you prefer we can say free speech instead of free exercise. It might be more analogous in some ways. The fact is there is a LONG history of recognizing those rights are not absolute despite the absolute language in the first amendment. The second is likely to be treated the same.

I'm not getting into what level scrutiny we should use and what regulations would survive. Don't read more into my argument than is there. Rather it is pointing out that merely quoting the seemingly absolute language on an amendment is not going to win the day. If it does then why not with the first?

 

[Rail Driver]

Its not really at all. It is asking if we give litteraly interpretation to the absolute language in the bill of rights. If you prefer we can say free speech instead of free exercise. It might be more analogous in some ways. The fact is there is a LONG history of recognizing those rights are not absolute despite the absolute language in the first amendment. The second is likely to be treated the same.

I'm not getting into what level scrutiny we should use and what regulations would survive. Don't read more into my argument than is there. Rather it is pointing out that merely quoting the seemingly absolute language on an amendment is not going to win the day. If it does then why not with the first?

Again - I'm not speaking in absolutes, and I'm sticking to the same kind of interpretation for the 2nd as the 1st. Your rights stop when they cause harm to others - I wish it was easier for you to see, but trying to explain it to someone that doesn't want to hear it is like telling a brick wall to get out of your way - pointless.

 

[Tommygunn]

......the only reason that nfa exists is because the cops were outgunned by the bad guys. a faction tried to destroy the 2nd amendment and to placate, "gun control" was instituted via making the cost of ownership unaffordable for a "class of weapons" that were available to the average guy. how many average guys could pay a 200.00 tax on a 25.00 tommy gun back in the 1930's?

Sorry but the Thompson SMG never went for $25 dollars. The $200 tax basically doubled the price. The Thompson retailed at $180.00 for the version without the Cutts Compensator and $200.00 for the Cutts equiped version.
The Thompson, AKA "Tommy Gun" was not a commercial success. Back then very few people could afford one and most people who wanted guns either had them or wanted simpler inexpensive guns like Winchesters or .22s or 12 gauge shotties. It was WW2 that made the Thompson a "success."

 

[kimbershot]

hey, i am entitled to poetic license

if the atf can stick it to me with a 200.00 tax, 6+ month wait, then i can make a "statement" and my statement is--the process is redundant, obsolete, time consuming, costly, doesn't accomplish much other than to produce government jobs.

as stated, i have pistol permits in 3 states, 2 nfa items, had a series 7 securities license plus a transfer of that license. each time i did a "license", i did finger prints. my finger prints did not change in 61 years, my background/instant check did not change in a purchase of a handgun. if i am legal, i am legal. so a tommy gun didn't cost 25.00--is one now worth 15-50K? it's not about the price, it's about the process! so don't be so damn picky.

 

[Girodin]

There's a difference between gun control laws and laws that criminalize violent actions or behavior. That's where you are confused. There's no purpose to controlling or restricting the TOOLS because the ACTIONS will occur whether the tool exists or not. It's not difficult to understand.

I understand your argument. I understand the first and second amendments better than the average person I'd wager. I have dealt with both professionally. I have written briefs and argued cases with respect to both. I have also done some amount of scholarship with respect to the first.

I read you as doing a bit of a rail split here. Perhaps it is my fault for delving into an area where a lot can be said and being brief and likely less than clear. There are two issues I see. The first is whether the absolute language of the the first amendment (religion or speech) and/or the second amendment should be taken as such. The only point I argued is that they are not read that way, and will not be, by the courts. That is just the way it is. Nor do I personally believe that they should be.

The next issue is that if they are not as absolute as they seem then where do we draw the line. There is a lot of room to propose ways to do so. However, I personally am most interested in how it is going to happen in the real world we live in. Generally with "fundamental rights", such as free exercise or speech the court asks if there is a compelling government interest and if the government action is the least restrictive means, the strict scrutiny test. As you have noted it is essentially balancing those rights against the rights or interests of others. You said "I'm sticking to the same kind of interpretation for the 2nd as the 1st." I'd personally be wary of that. With respect to speech, there are many many many examples of where we have not used strict scrutiny and allow the government to abridge the freedom of the speech and of people to peaceably assemble on a much lower showing. The same is actually true of free exercise (see smith v. employment division). Restrictions in both these realms are not always based on a clear direct harm to others.

If I read you correctly, you are in essence arguing that with respect to the second there is no legitimate restriction on hardware, what you called tools. Rather it is only constitutional to restrict how they might be used. In short, they cannot restrict in any way one's ability to buy, posses, or otherwise bear arms provided that the action does not lead to direct harm to others (the classic fist/nose analogy). This seems to me to contradict your other statement "I'm sticking to the same kind of interpretation for the 2nd as the 1st." However, it is what you seem to have argued for.

Are you asserting that any form of background check to purchase a gun is unconstitutional?

Is it unconstitutional to restrict any class of people from possessing weapons?

Is it unconstitutional to restrict weapons from being carried into any government owned/operated areas?

Is there any constitutional limit to the type of "arms" that one can own?

These are all "tools" restrictions not action restrictions. I think there is a very compelling legal argument that laws under each could meet even strict scrutiny.

I think it is almost certainly true that any number of laws that fall into the above would be upheld. I do not think the direct harm test you propose is likely to win the day or even ought to. There are going to be other things that are likely to be found to be compelling interests that are short of direct harm. Sometimes the potential for harm is so high we will hedge. Of course where that line is open to discussion.

I do think as a matter of policy that most gun control laws are pure follow and demonstrably ineffective. I do think there are a number of laws on the books that fail to pass constitutional scrutiny as I would interpret the second within existing frameworks or even if I had a blank slate to start from.

Feel free to disagree and even to tell me why I am up in the night. However, I would appreciate if you didn't try to talk down to me and simply be dismissive as if I have no clue what I'm talking about, have given no thought to the issues, or am incapable of understanding. Thanks.

 

[crazy-mp]

There is a easy way around the 6 month wait time, heck there is even a way around the Hughes amendment, and its so easy you can do it today.

Get a 07 manufacturers license, pay the SOT, and build your own suppressors and machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shot guns and AOW's. No waiting you can mess around with guns all day and, it would be a business expense. Then you can add every tom dick and harry as a "employee" on your license that way everybody can have machine guns and silencers, without paperwork,

or better yet

You can get a type 10 FFL, then you can build your own hand grenades, rocket launchers, and mines.

Then you can go to gun shows and meet self proclaimed gun experts who will tell you silencers are illegal, your 12.5 inch shot gun is illegal and even try to get ATF agents who have a booth there to come over and bust you. (Speaking from experience on this one)

 

[kimbershot]

hey crazy--the easier way would be not to have your chain pulled by the government in the first place.

 

[jmorris]

I'll further your rant. If they haven't come to get the 50 other items you have had approved, all you should need is a head nod.

I think it's the first tax on the middle class that should be removed. Now when is the next gun friendly President going to be elected, who knows...

 

[Tommygunn]

hey, i am entitled to poetic license
.....if the atf can stick it to me with a 200.00 tax, 6+ month wait, then i can make a "statement" and my statement is--the process is redundant, obsolete, time consuming, costly, doesn't accomplish much other than to produce government jobs.

I would have added "unconstitutional," myself.

 

[GoingQuiet]

There's nothing proctological about it. It's not unlike the same process you went through so you can carry your 1911 around on your belt.

The only difference is 30,000 people are in line ahead of you and you don't like that.

 

[kimbershot]

30,000 people in line in front of me? how many of those 30k have been through the process and how many times. databases are kept on just about every aspect of your life. i am 61 years old, been licensed to carry for 40 yrs. in one state, just got 2 more lic., i am white, i have blue eyes, 5'10" weigh 195 lbs. same fingers yielding the same prints, same answers on all my paper work except for the only 2 things have changed--my address and my hair color. if you can be picked out of a line with 300+ million people who live in this country and be on a no fly list, you can press a button on a computer to update your data on a nfa application. what the hell else is there to "investigate"--either the transaction is legal in your state or it isn't.

any reasonable, logical thinker can surmise that a backlog of 30k applications can be broken down into a workflow that works. the process is broken--is it on purpose of just plan government speak (crap). do you really have to spoon it up to figure it out.

 

[crazy-mp]

Your concealed carry permits are issued on state levels, NFA laws are on Federal levels, not even the same sports event much less the same ball park.

There are 10 examiners who are responsible for 2-9 states depending on what examiner, the ATF is processing more applications in a month than they were getting a few years ago in an entire year, the suppressor industry has grown around 30 percent in the past 3 years alone, name one other industry that has grown double digits in the past 10 years.

Every year more and more states are allowing suppressors or other NFA items to be owned by citizens.

In some way I do agree with you I have even said that the ATF needs to implement a system where you only have to do a background check every 3-5 years like in the military when you have a secret clearance. Apply for your suppressor and for the next 3-5 years they just add on your new item, then if you don't buy anything for a couple years another check.

 

[justice06rr]

I very much agree with the OP.

Your concealed carry permits are issued on state levels, NFA laws are on Federal levels, not even the same sports event much less the same ball park.

You do have to consider that getting a background check for your concealed license and for buying any firearm is also on the National level, hence the "NCIS" check when you get one. So its kinda on the same ballpark of being in the Federal/National level, but just a different type of device.

What the goverment wants is to highly regulate and limit the availability of suppressors, SBR's, etc. so that not every firearm enthusiast would go through the hassle of getting one just like you would buy a shotgun/AR at your local Walmart and take it home the same day.

I have these same frustations because I have looked seriously at buying a suppressor and doing a SBR AR15, but the process and cost is just astounding. Sure it can be done but takes lots of time and money as we all know.

My (useless) suggestion is to maybe increase the tax stamp to $250 or even $300 to allow the ATF to hire more staff and reduce the backlog, and also reduce the wait times to maybe 1week-1month. Yes that sounds amazing but I highly doubt they will streamline the process like that. I mean with the current technology in computers today, why can't they? It takes maybe 10mins for the NCIS check, so a week or even a month is plenty! I wouldn't mind paying the $300 if they process the stamp in a month or less.

but I know i'm dreaming here...

 

[Telekinesis]

The only difference is 30,000 people are in line ahead of you and you don't like that.

The ATF is processing more applications in a month than they were getting a few years ago in an entire year, the suppressor industry has grown around 30 percent in the past 3 years alone

Going Quiet and crazy-mp: I agree with you both, but I think you're a little low on your numbers.

In the past five years (2006-2011, last year for which we have data) the amount of revenue from transfer taxes has increased nearly 150%. The total number of transfers (including F1-5, and F9s) has jumped from 405,000 in 2006 to over 1,135,000 in 2011. When you add the fact that the ATF has been under a hiring freeze for the past few years, it's pretty easy to understand why it takes 6 moths to get a single stamp processed. (And trust me, I'm right with you there too. I have 2 suppressors and a SBR waiting on stamps...)

Crazy, the number of FFL 07s has more than doubled from 2,400 (in 2006) to 5,400 (in 2011) and by a rough estimate, we have nearly 2300 new SOTs (including all FFL types) so I would say that your 30% growth estimate is probably close, but on the conservative side. (that 2300 number has a lot of statistical issues, but like I said, it's a very rough estimate.)

And just as an aside, if anyone is thinking about getting a FFL, the ATF processed nearly 20,000 applications last year, and only denied 22 of them

kimbershot: I definitely know how you feel, but you have to remember that this process was and is codified in a mix of law and federal regulation and isn't easily changed. Just look at how long it has taken us to get the ATF to look into getting rid of the CLEO sign off and that STILL hasn't been implemented yet! A drastic change like you're suggesting would be an excellent improvement, but has almost no chance of ever happening. I think we would have an easier time of getting suppressors off the NFA than completely changing the NFA approval process.

Disclaimer: All of this data is public and available in various publications found on the BATFE website.

 

[crazy-mp]

My number on industry growth came from Small Arms review Jan 12 issue and application numbers came from the NFATCA.

The only problem with looking at all the F1-5 is that includes transfers to law enforcement agencies and some of those form 5 transfers are from people who die and the item transfers to another person.

Take Illinois for example, they have not yet started allowing SBR's in that state, but in 2011 there were over 1200 already in the state and the do not allow destructive devices and there are over 83,000 those charts account for all items possessed by individuals AND government agencies.

Even here in Missouri it list 58 manufacturers for tax year 2011, but that also includes companies like Boeing who have the license solely for military contracts and weapons development, do you think you can go to their office in St. Louis and get a gun transferred?

On a side note I do agree with the original poster, yes the wait time sucks out loud, heck it even cost me business, but if the guy who six months ago would have bought the suppressor then when he started talking to me guess what he would be taking it home today instead of still "thinking about it." You gotta get in line some time, better sooner than later.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

the only reason that nfa exists is because the cops were outgunned by the bad guys.

I wouldn't call thousands of WWI vets not receiving pay for their service bad guys.