“NFA Loophole” Ends July 13th

HK45c with Octane 45

Silencers in the last 5 years have gained significant popularity with what is now 42 of 50 states having them legalized for purchase. The most common pathway people are taking to buy them is with a trust. If you want to buy a silencer, you must simply submit a copy of your trust along with 2 background checks (Form 4s). The alternative is to buy a silencer as an “individual” which involves a lot more paperwork, signatures and time.

Our president, in his infinite pursuit to protect the American people, is looking to end what he is calling the “NFA Loophole.” (I didn’t know such a thing existed?…) The straw that Obama is grasping at involves the trustees that could be named on a given trust.

The way a trust works in regards to silencers is a trustor (owner of the trust), beneficiary (individual who will inherit the contents of the trust), and trustees (individuals who can legally use contents of the trust) must be named. Every trust is different, but all these titles could be bestowed on just one person or possibly many.

Obama’s fear is that a trustor who is a good, law-abiding citizen may have a group of potential criminals as trustees; allowing unsavory people access to the stigmatized tool of destruction that is a silencer (as viewed by our media). So to save the United States from this horror, after July 13th all NFA sales involving a trust will perform a background check on all the individuals named in the trust.

Some people view this as a practical way to curb crimes involving a silencer while others see it as another witch hunt disguised as taking away firearm rights.

The image below is the proposed change in the background check (Form 4) that will take affect July 13th.

Proposed Form 4 PP3

For the time being, any NFA paperwork that is dated and submitted before July 13th is applicable to our current laws for silencers. On July 13th and any time after you will be subject to the new rules for purchase.

Something that could make all of this null and void is the “Hearing Protection Act.” This bill still has not come to a vote, but it basically would remove the NFA regulation from silencers and you could buy them over-the-counter like a shotgun for duck hunting. Until July 13th rolls around we may see a huge spike in silencer sales as we await the implementation of yet another non-sense gun control measure.



Hello everyone! The outdoors, Crossfit, and anything firearm related have always been my passions. I’ve been a guest writer for Sierra Bullets, am a Smith & Wesson Armorer, reloader, and have an addiction to classic S&W and Colt revolvers. Be sure to visit TFB frequently and keep your magazines full, my friends!


Advertisement

  • Indiana Finney

    Now, I’m a Canadian, and I hate seeing wasteful programs like this with no effect on crime. However, in this situation I think it isn’t unreasonable to have background checks on trustees. Since the item is already registered in your names, background checks won’t mean you’re entered into a registry you aren’t in already.

    But that’s just me. As I said, it’s wasteful. Not necessarily more intrusive than NFA already is.

    • Big Burd

      what good is a suppressor without a firearm? Last I knew you couldn’t buy a firearm without a background check in the first place. So it’s still a witch hunt.

      • The_Automator

        Most states don’t have background checks on face to face sales.

        • Jwedel1231

          Care to recant that? Every firearm I’ve ever purchased was face-to-face with an employee and I’ve had background checks run on all of them.

          • The_Automator

            Not at all. A face to face sale is different than a sale at a dealer.

            Most states do not require background checks on private sales between individuals, which is the definition of a face to face (ftf) sale.

          • Mmmtacos

            FWIW, Automater, I believe you should avoid confusion in the future and refer to a “face to face” sale as a “private sale”, as we all tend to do. I’ve had plenty face to face purchases at gun stores with gun store employees that require me to fill out a 4473. Just friendly advice.

          • Jwedel1231

            Sorry, I was taking “face to face” to mean actually looking someone in the face, not as a synonym for “private sale”.

      • Talk to a gun store clerk they will tell you they have seen tons of firearm sales to straw buyers that passed the background check. They couldn’t legally deny the sale. In Alabama just recently a law came into effect that no phone call to the NCIS background check was required to do a gun sale at a dealer if the buyer had a pistol permit that was three years old. The problem is the police do not confiscate those cards when someone commits a crime or is arrested. Nor does this law require the ffl to contact the sheriffs office to see if the permit is valid. Gun stores in certain areas are constantly having to contact the police when the paper background check comes in from the ATF that the buyer was a convicted felon banned from having a gun. Somehow the letter from the Alabama AG and ATF that was meant to be a secret memo to the gun stores in Alabama circulated on various forums that hoodlums go to. It should be noted that the majority of these banned buyers with pistol permits were gang members.

        • Drew Coleman

          Gun stores have wide latitude to deny transferring a firearm. If they suspect a straw purchase, they are expected to deny the sale.

          • fishstyx

            Exactly, but that’s almost always because the buyer says or does something to indicate a straw purchase. I saw a guy with his wife looking at guns. He did all the handling, inspection, questions, etc while she just stood there. At the end of all this he said something like “ok, she’s buying it” and the clerk straight up asked him if he had any problem passing the check and he wouldn’t answer, so they said “have a nice day” and refused the sale.

          • Not true when it comes to blacks. The blacks who get denied will claim racism and get liberals to support them in order to sue the gunstore. The gunstore has to provide a reason that will stand up in court.

        • Dan Atwater

          I’ve denied sales that I had reason to believe were straw purchases, but only if I have something to go on besides a simple hunch. I can legally deny all the sales I want but the more you do that the more you open yourself up to being sued for discrimination.

        • AR-PRO

          What??? Your whole comment makes no sense! If an FFL sells a firearm to an individual who they believe is the “straw man” then they are committing a felony, and as a dealer you have the right to refuse a sale to anyone without reason, period. With all due respect, your comment smells of kool-aid. I have been an 07FFL/02SOT for many years and there have been a couple instances where I have told the customer to leave my store just for acting like an idiot. Selling to obvious straw purchasers, as you claim, just out of fear of being called racist and sued is total bunk. Ask any ATF agent and they’ll tell you that as a License holder you have the right to deny a sale to anyone for any reason, especially if you feel they are purchasing a firearm for a criminal.

          • No my comment makes perfect sense. For a gun shop to deny a sale it must be able to stand up in court. Knowing the guy is a dope dealer but his background check passes he gets the gun. Knowing the guy is likely a straw buyer because he bought ten guns with cash but didn’t ask for a discount also he didn’t buy any ammo, is not a reason for denying sale if once again the background check passes.

          • George Peter Anaipakos

            Too – I have been a LEO for over 40 years, part of that time as an ATF Special Agent. When anyone buys a firearm at a gun shop the FFL dealer conducts a NICC check to determine eligibility. If you don’t get a “green light” you don’t get the firearm. Having a pistol permit just means the buyer is not subject to the “waiting period” and is allowed to leave the store with his/her firearm purchase. “When you say that “…knowing the guy is likely a straw buyer…” you are (respectfully) wrong – No businessman, especially someone in an industry so heavily regulated and looked at as the gun sales industry, would jeopardize his store, inventory, income and ultimately his freedom to make a buck selling to the type of person you describe. He would be more likely to call the police and get “points” with law enforcement for doing his/her civic duty and getting this creep arrested.

          • Funny that less then one percent are actually prosecuted. Gun stores will not report those two types of people because there is nothing the law will do. There is no legal reason to deny the sale. Under recent Alabama law there is no background with the NCIS over the phone. The gun stores have had to contact law enforcement multiple times when the paper ground check said the buyer was a felon and to deny the sale. Also there is no check to determine if the pistol permit is valid. Its why a lot of gun store owners and law enforcement in Alabama are saying its going to be a disaster when some known gang member who used their invalid pistol permit to bypass the phone background check uses the gun in a mass shooting and kills an innocent person or more.

          • George Peter Anaipakos

            As a federal agent and former BATF agent I agree with your thoughts, no one would risk their livelihood to make a “quick buck” by selling to an obvious illegal buyer.

    • Harrison Jones

      If the goal is to lower the use of an object by criminals why go after an object they don’t use?

      • skusmc

        This. Is there any recorded instance of a registered silencer being used in a crime anywhere, ever?

        • mosinman

          well you also have to look at how if a criminal wanted to use a silencer he could also make one that was simple enough to last for whatever crime he planned to commit and fairly easy to build

        • Bill

          I have never, ever heard, pardon the pun, of a suppressor being used by a criminal, for criminal purposes, except in the movies. The single area in which I see even the slightest potential for an uptick in their use criminally in is poaching. Someone spotlighting deer at 0300 has an interest in being as quiet as possible, but even then they are going to duct-tape a 2-liter soda bottle to their muzzle or go the oil filter route, versus spending large dollars on a commercial can, with the possible exception of organized poaching rings and large scale professional game-law violators.

          • Just Sayin’

            Soda bottle doesn’t work well, even on a .22. Haven’t ever tried an oil filter or potato for the matter.

          • fishstyx

            Large oil filters do work. There’s a company that markets a serialized NFA compliant adapter for an oil filter as a .22 silencer. There are youtube videos of it. It apparently works fairly well. Funny think is ‘technically’ you can’t just slap on another filter when you’ve burnt up the filter media in the first one.

          • HR Pufnstuf

            But looking down the sights, it sure is hard to see the target through that big filter stuck on the end of the barrel. Pretty good for point shooting, I guess, but I don’t think you could hunt squirrels with it.

          • AR-PRO

            They don’t work that well, maybe the first 5 or 6 rounds, but as holes in the end of the filter become larger and the element burns out, it becomes a giant blast chamber. Not worth the money to register the adapter..

          • CountryBoy

            So you change the oil filter. $2-$5 at WallyWorld.

            If you have put 500-1000 rounds through it, which is typically the life of it, so what? You’re not paying $300 on up for a full can, and the filters don’t ever need to be cleaned or maintained, it’ll never carbon-weld itself together, and

        • JumpIf NotZero

          Internet reports were that Chris Dorner had a silencer. But that was California and he was a cop, so I’m not sure who would be excited about that.

          • fishstyx

            IIRC Dorner had a few NFA items because he bragged in his manifesto about how he acquired them legally.

        • Don

          Look up the murder of Ron Rutin by his wife Margaret Rutin in Vegas, the murder happen in 94′. She was charged for killing him with his own legally owned silenced .22. They found the silenced .22 in a lake and it was evidence in her court case.

          • Aardvark

            One whole case in the last 12 years? I would be willing to bet that these instances are no better per capita in socialist countries in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.

          • Don

            22 years 🙂 But I’m totally with you. I was just curious so I looked it up to see if there was a case. Hollywood makes one believe hit men use nothing but silenced weapons as tools for their craft. It would interesting to see if any of them actually used legit silencers, a stat of which will never be known I’m sure.

        • Harrison Jones

          None that I know of besides the Cop or retired cop from LA that was taken down at big bear lake in ca a couple years ago.

    • HSR47

      As someone who owns NFA-regulated items (Title II firearms) via a trust, my issue with this change is not background checks per-se, but the form those checks take.

      From where I stand, there is no reason to expand an outdated and outmoded background check system when there are better and faster ways to accomplish the same thing.

      To use my case as an example, every single “responsible person” of the trust, who would have to submit a new form accompanied by fingerprints and photographs per 41F, already has a Pennsylvania License To Carry Firearms (LTCF) issued by the sheriff of our mutual county of residence. Under federal law (the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act), these LTCF qualify as an exemption to the background check requirement for purchasing firearms from an FFL. These documents list all relevant information about the applicant, include a photograph, and are evidence that our CLEO has verified that we are who we say we are.

      In other words, there’s no reason that we should have to submit fingerprints and photographs (as if we were being booked for some criminal infraction) when we could simply submit a form along with a copy of our LTCF. The BATFE could then verify the LTCF with the County/State in question and/or use that document to run a NICS check (the same background check that FFLs use when they transfer Title I firearms — Rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc.).

      TLDR: In this case, the real objection that many people with trusts have to this change is that it forces an expansion of an outdated and outmoded system, and specifically one which we find especially unpalatable.

  • ChierDuChien

    A criminal, actual or potential, will simply MAKE their own silencer.

    Why would a criminal even get the Government involved in the first place if a criminal act is planned ?

    The stupidity of professional politicians is appalling.

    • Jwedel1231

      Wait, a criminal won’t follow laws? What madness is this? We must make laws to force the criminals to obey!

      • El Duderino

        Just make it illegal to break the law and they’ll comply by golly.

        • angrymike

          You know, I bet politicians never even thought of that, to busy fill their pockets with donor money !

      • avconsumer2

        Forcing criminals to obey… well… this calls for a whole new department. We’ll have to contract an independent agency to do a study & research acronyms.

        • Alt Jensen

          It would be the Force Unruly Criminal Compliance Department

          • ElmoS

            OH,God, Alt, now you’ve done it. Given the politicians an acronym to justify this. F U C C D, Force Unruly Criminal Compliance Department. Kinda Catchy Though.

          • carlcasino

            You could substitute compliance with Kindness?

        • CountryBoy

          That would be the “Department of Redundancy Department”, wouldn’t it?

          • ElmoS

            NAH, CountryBoy, we already got those.

        • Rodney Steward

          And 10 million $$$$!!!!

          • ElmoS

            I BILLION, million ain’t even cool anymore.

        • ElmoS

          In Ohio, the ACLU wants to reduce the severity of the penalty’s of law breakers so they wont have to spend time in jail for their crimes.

      • supergun

        Never happen.

      • G0rdon_Fr33man

        Make killing illegal! That´ll show´em!

        • ElmoS

          HAHAHAHHAHAHAWAHWAHWAHWAH

      • Rodney Steward

        We can’t even get the so called law makers to follow the law!!

        • angrymike

          Hell, one of the biggest law breakers is running for president……

          • Rodney Steward

            Yep, and if we had done half of what she’s done we’d been in prison a long time ago and never get out!

      • carlcasino

        We have the laws it’s a matter of getting the Progressives to quit shredding the Constitution and obey the laws.

    • supergun

      No,,,,they want to ban guns in America. Inch by inch.

      • Hokanut

        Exactly. It’s the “catch a whole herd of wild pig” strategy. Build the pen one wall at a time then slam the door on them.

        • supergun

          They will always assault the 2nd Amendment. We must always defend the 2nd Amendment.

      • ElmoS

        Wouldn’t the world be a better place if there were no DEMOCRATS IN IT.

        • angrymike

          DemoncRat’s, or RINOs, same way of thinking, different party !

        • supergun

          You have to have a negative in order to have a positive.

    • CountryBoy

      “The stupidity of professional politicians is appalling.”.

      It is significantly less surprising these days, but no less appalling.

    • I didn’t vote for this cuban-loving clown!

      • Hokanut

        Did you see castro work obama’s puppet arms? I wonder if he was throwing his voice too.

        • ElmoS

          DESPICABLE IN CUBA AND HE CAN’T DANCE EITHER.

    • Michel_T

      Who’s stupid?

      – The politician who comes up with futile/expensive rules and regulations
      – The people who elected such politician, and are going along with the new rules…

    • rokpaperskizzors

      Symbolism intended for their ignorant low information constituents. “Keepin’ the people safe.”

    • Outlaw

      They aren’t stupid. That’s the problem. They are smart enough to realize that the only way to end ownership is to make it too big a hassle for the average gun owner to acquire one with too many hoops to jump through. The stuff they do is stupid the reasoning behind it is very intelligently thought out and needs to be stopped by American voters. They know that no legally owned SBR’s, silencers, or even machine gun have ever been involved in criminal acts but they are smart enough to know that the average voter doesn’t. Just like they know the real statistics of crime vs. legal ownership of firearms is lower than when firearm ownership was less but their buddies at big media will never report that to average America.

    • nimbii

      so if this act is passed, can you make your own?

  • stephen

    The thing is criminals don’t take the time, effort or pay money for silencers. Remember the majority of criminals are lazy and looking for an easy score.

    If they had the money for silencer they probably wouldn’t commit a crime in the first place.

    How many meth heads have silencers?

    • PLK

      Even if they were professional super criminal masterminds, they probably wouldn’t put themselves on a national registry that clearly marks them as having access to a suppressor. A criminal with the wherewithal to form a trust and get NFA items would probably get one in a less traceable form.

  • One last parting gift to the manufacturer’s…let the price gouging begin!

  • JumpIf NotZero

    Not a loophole. Never was. Bad title.

    Calling it a loophole instead of what it actually was, following the rules, is not helping anything. Don’t repeat such nonsense in a title where most people won’t read the text.

    • Brocus

      when technically legal but not following original intent you got yourself a loophole

      • HSR47

        No, the current status quo IS the original intent.

        In the early era of labor disputes, it was fairly common for companies to own and use some pretty serious firearms to protect their interests. As such, at the time of the passage of the NFA, it was common for corporations to own firearms regulated by that act.

        There’s a reason that congress chose to treat individuals and trusts/corporations differently under the act: It was a deliberate choice.

      • nova3930

        “intent” is BS. Something is either legal or it’s not and intent has nothing to do with it.

        • fishstyx

          You seem to have little experience with actual law or you’d know that’s not the case. If it were, we wouldn’t need courts.

          • nova3930

            Excuse me for the expecting the law to be what’s actually written so everyone can understand and follow it. Dogs and cats would live together without programming in enough ambiguity to snag whoever whenever and employ an army of lawyers to fight it out i suppose.

          • fishstyx

            Seriously, take some time and just read some opinions that come out of the courts on high profile cases. Life in the real world is complex and full of nuance. It’s often the laws that seem simple and straight forward on the surface that crumble against the nuance of the real world. Billions of dollars and millions of hours are spent looking at seeming simple laws and finding creative ways to bend the language to permit something that was never intended (i.e. a “loophole”).

        • supergun

          It is, if you want to harass and put someone in jail for following the law.

        • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

          Intent has to do with what you had in your mind when committing a violation of the statute. The NFA is a complete violation of the 2nd amendment from the first letter on.

        • albaby2

          Intent of the original wording of our Constitution is often corrupted by those challenging it. The 2A is a good example of past and present intent.

        • Michel_T

          Wonder if we could get a hold of the actual “data” used to create the initial rules…

          I’ll bet you a dollar, it was all based on fear and “potential” dangers.

    • kzrkp

      that’s why it’s in quotation marks. current administration called it out as a “loophole”, absurd as that is

    • Kenneth Wetzel

      No calling Barry our president is a loop hole.

  • SirOliverHumperdink

    I’m holding out for a loudner.

    • Just Sayin’

      Just get a Mosin M44. Plenty loud.

      • SirOliverHumperdink

        Oh I have one, people at the range ask if it’s a black powder gun.

  • MrEllis

    “Then the Bid Bad Obama took all of ours guns! The end, who else has a scary story?”

    • L Cavendish

      little by little…slowly but surely…
      shall not be infringed…was put there for a reason…

      • MrEllis

        Well he is running out of time, construct a new boogie man.

        • L Cavendish

          Hillary or Bernie will try and do much more…not sure about Trump…

          • MrEllis

            Of course they will, and they’ll be the worst ever just like he was. And then when they don’t it will be the next person and the next…

  • Patrick Henry,The2nd

    As annoying as this is, the rule also removes the biggest reason to get an NFA trust- requiring CLEO sign-off. I believe that will actually make the suppressor market increase, as stubborn CLEOs who refuse to sign off even though suppressors are legal will no longer restrict the market.

    I’m extremely happen about the elimination of the CLEO sign-off, even though my CLEO would always sign-off.

    • Actually the biggest reason for a trust is to when the settlor dies his heirs named on the trust don’t have to wait four months to a year for each nfa item on the trust to be transfered nor a 200 dollar tax stamp.

      • HSR47

        That depends on how the trust is written. In most cases, the trust ends with the death of the settlor/grantor, and then the assets transfer to the beneficiary (or are sold for his/her benefit).

        One good thing that 41F does is that it makes it clear that such transfers to named heirs are tax-free.

      • ARCNA442

        NFA items can be transferred to lawful heirs tax-free on a Form 5.

        • Yet people do trusts exactly for the reason I stated. No going to court, no fees for transfer.

          • CountryBoy

            Yes, and not just for NFA items. A trust is a good idea when you don’t uh, trust those in the government!

          • HSR47

            The real benefit is that a trust has the potential to keep the guns it owns out of the probate process; Keeping them out of the public record is something that most of the involved parties are likely to appreciate.

    • HSR47

      “the rule also removes the biggest reason to get an NFA trust- requiring CLEO sign-off.”

      False.

      The biggest reason to use legal entities is that it allows for shared possession. I’m not aware of any instances in which my CLEO has refused to sign. Still, my entire Title II collection is owned via a trust, because it allows me to store and transport them in almost the exact same way as my Title I firearms.

      I am far from alone.

      • BrandonAKsALot

        It still is one of the biggest issues. There are a lot of LEO who refuse to sign them across the country. The trust route just simplifies basically everything about it and removes the irritation of having to ask for permission.

        • HSR47

          Frankly, I don’t think CLEO signoffs are anywhere near the issue that people seem to think that they are.

          Those that have an issue with a CLEO who won’t sign, or just don’t want their CLEO to know, already have/had a valid option: Buy Title II firearms via a fictitious legal entity.

          As far as the cost of establishing a fictitious legal entity goes, I don’t think it’s that big a deal: While the attorneies drafting them may charge $500+, there are plenty of companies selling NFA trusts in the $100 range. In my experience, the people who can’t afford to spend $100 on a trust, also can’t afford to spend $200 on a tax stamp. In other words, these people really aren’t in the market for Title II firearms anyway.

          Ultimately, 41F is the answer to a question that nobody was really asking, in order to “solve” a problem that never existed in the first place.

      • Ivo Shandor

        I think that depends on the situation. I live in Philly, and no CLEO is signing off on ANYTHING NFA. Just won’t happen, ever. Until this takes effect, a trust is the only way to go.

        • HSR47

          You’re right that a trust is currently the only way to go if you live in Philly. I’ve handled the paperwork for a few transfers to Philadelphia residents in the last few days through trusts.

          If you’re looking to set one up, there are plenty of good local attorneys; I’d recommend Josh Prince (and his associated attorneys), and Michael Gottlieb (Vangrossi and Recchuti law offices in Norristown).

  • Lance

    More of a reason to vote Trump this November!!!!

    • lurpy

      You mean the guy who supported a national assault weapons ban until it became politically expedient to oppose it? Yeah, definitely the guy we want fighting for gun owners…

      • Billy Jack

        Agreed. There’s no telling what that guy will do in office.

        • L Cavendish

          but there is NO doubt what Hillary and Bernie will try

  • TangledThorns

    This is why voting is important.

  • Tom – UK

    Politics?

    • Edeco

      No, I mean, for some of us just another day in the life.

  • The associated time bomb here is that there will probably be agents tasked with looking at trust items before this date, to see if they are in compliance with the new rules. So if you have loved ones on your trust, and you pass away and these are passed down… they could be getting visits from the BATFE, and they could be found in violation.

  • lr3guy

    So lets say I draft a new trust for every new Item I buy after July 13. Whats stopping me from adding names to the trust later on down the road?

    • AR-PRO

      I believe as you add names, you need to provide photos and fingerprints.

  • nova3930

    loophole – someone is doing legal $#!^ that I don’t like

  • mrsatyre

    First off, I’d LOVE to have a silencer (how cool would that be, to have a silent gun?). Instead, I must settle for a suppressor. 😉 On a more serious note, this is not “grasping at straws” to prevent that weird, elusive unicorn Gun Violence from rearing its sparkly head, but another subtle and dangerous attack on our right to self determination and safety. It is, and always has been, about control, NOT public safety. We need to collectively stop pussyfooting around the simple and unavoidable fact that we as a formerly free people, are still under attack decades after our fathers and grandfathers (and yes, sadly, even us) submitted to the very first attacks on the 2A, the very lynch-pin to protecting all of the rest of our freedoms.

  • USMC03Vet

    Implementing more background checks for background checks. Next thing you know there is going to be double secret probation.

  • Mickey R

    Post-41f here’s what you do to lessen the headache if you have several people on your trust…

    Step 1: Remove all trustees from your trust except the bare minimum (make sure none of the removed trustees retain possession of any trust property NFA items, natch…).

    Step 2: Submit Form 1 or Form 4 along with prints and photos for the remaining trustees.

    Step 3: Wait on the stamp…

    Step 4: Once the stamp is approved, add the previously-removed trustees back to the trust.

    Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary. The only drawback is that the trustees you removed won’t be able to legally possess the trust’s NFA items while the paperwork is pending.

    This is all on the up-and-up, because ATF specifically says there is no requirement to notify them of changes to the “responsible persons” on the trust post-stamp-approval.

  • Mickey R

    Ah yes, the ol’ SHM Loudener. For when you want to be “that guy” at the range… *evil grin*

    • Edeco

      First time I ever shot a firearm, there was a guy in the next (indoor) lane with an old military bolt action cut to 18 inches or so. Moist-Nugget in all likelihood, since Mosin owners are perverse like that 😛 With a shark-gill type brake.

      Fortunately t’wernt my first rodeo with bowel-shaking pressure waves, no indeed, so I was able to operate at about 95 percent tacticality anyway.

  • Jeff Smith

    This article is inching towards politics instead of news…

  • iowaclass

    The Hearing Protection Act would be a much easier sell if it would not thereafter be legal for Joe Fudd to buy a silencer at a gun store and, a year later, resell it out of the back of his Tahoe to any schlub he met through Craigslist without a felony background check.

    (Just sayin’, so try breathing through your noses, haters.)

    • Ben Pottinger

      Because a tube stuffed full of washers is right up there with grenades and RPGs. We wouldn’t want Joe fud selling those nasty washer filled pipes now would we!?

      We have some of the lowest levels of crime ever in the USA at the moment and you think we need to keep pipes with washers heavily restricted? You should watch less TV.

      • iowaclass

        Or a plastic soda bottle and Styrofoam peanuts.
        What I said was it would be easier to pass HPA if there was UBC. Don’t kill the messenger.

    • AR-PRO

      Just like all that plutonium I see on craigslist, you have to be careful who you sell it too…

  • SirOliverHumperdink

    Just what I needed, but ‘out of stock”!

    • HSR47

      I just have one of the two-chamber AAC 51T brakes on my 5.56 SBR: It makes it a hair quieter when I have a can on it, and it makes it obscenely loud without the can.

      As in, so loud that I, as the shooter, need to wear double earpro to shoot it.

  • Kirk Newsted

    I thought the new rules wouldn’t apply to any trust formed before the magic date, meaning that those people wouldn’t have to put in more paperwork every two years.

  • Salty Nuts

    The ” ending loophole” title is misleading, as if the NFA trust system is sunsetting entirely. Personally, I don’t think it’s outrageous to add background checks for the trustees.

    • Jim_Macklin

      Will they charge $200 for each background check and paperwork?

      • milesfortis

        Nope, same single $200 transfer fee for each transfer.

        • Logic Rules

          And yet each transfer could now involve processing several or more background checks each time. I’ve been told that the actual check only takes a few minutes, but even so, it seems that this would greatly increase their workload. I wonder if this will turn a several month wait into a multi-year wait and/or result in the ATF drowning in the absurd bureaucracy they created?

          • milesfortis

            It most probably will increase FBI’s workload. But the speculation is that the difference will be a matter of a few weeks, at most.
            ATF’s burden will not significantly increase.
            FBI does the fingerprint and background checks.

    • AR-PRO

      The biggest question is; how much longer will it take to get the paperwork back, a year? 2 years? It will obviously add significant time to the transfer because they are not hiring any new inspectors so get ready to hurry up and wait for that can you’ve saved up for!

  • oldman

    Why can’t the politicians get it through there heads that it is not the people following the rules and filling out the paper work are not criminals. The definition of criminal is one that does not obey the law. They build makeshift suppressors.

  • Camilo Emiliano Rosas Echeverr

    Are crimes really committed with silencers or other NFA items?
    Like, at all?

    • AR-PRO

      I believe there were only 2 instances with registered machine guns, both involved members of the law enforcement community.. Not sure about suppressors though..

      • Lots more with unregistered hence illegal machine guns. The NFA also has the penaltities for misuse of registered or illegal items.

      • Don

        Look up Ron Rutin who was murdered by his wife Margaret Rutin using his own silenced .22 back in 94′ in Vegas.

  • Uniform223
  • HSR47

    I work for an FFL in the vicinity of Philadelphia and Montgomery counties, both of which have a long history of not singing.

    Montgomery county finally started signing about 1-2 years ago, but I haven’t seen any noticeable increase in transfers to individuals who live in Montgomery county. The bulk of our Title II transfers to residents of Montgomery county are still to trusts, because of all the other benefits that trusts offer.

    We also already have plenty of customers from Philadelphia who have used trusts to purchase Title II firearms.

    Frankly, the “but trusts are an additional expense” theory is nonsense: Title II firearms are expensive, and the people who have the money to purchase them tend to also have the money to get a trust drafted. By the same token, it is my experience that those who do NOT have the money to get a trust drafted also do not have the money to buy Title II firearms.

    Stop trying to make 41F out as anything other than a disaster for the community.

    • Patrick Henry,The2nd

      “Stop trying to make 41F out as anything other than a disaster for the community.”

      Except its not. Its actually both good and bad. Sorry, but them’s the facts.

      • HSR47

        The people who have the money for Title II firearms, and couldn’t get CLEO signoffs either already have trusts, or aren’t interested in Title II firearms.

        The vast majority of the expansion of the Title II marketplace over the last 5 years has been from people using trusts.

        Every single trust-user I have spoken with about this issue has indicated to me that they do not intend to continue purchasing Title II firearms after 41F goes into effect.

        In this vein, there is a REASON that most Title II firearms have been in such seemingly short supply for the last several months: Everyone with a trust is trying to get everything they want to get submitted under the current procedures so that they never have to send BATFE fingerprints and photographs.

        A customer I spoke with on Saturday specifically objected to the requirement that he submit fingerprints and photographs: I’m paraphrasing, but he basically said “I’ve never been in trouble with the law, and I object to being treated like one in order to buy a [Title II firearm].” That same customer has already been issued a PA LTCF, so clearly his issue is not with photographs or background checks per-se, just the fingerprints and the general tone of BATFE’s proposed process.

        You can believe whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that there is a significant percentage of the population that will be pushed out of the market by 41F. 41F will have a significant negative effect on the practical size of the Title II market, which in turn will make the eventual statutory reform take at least a decade longer.

        • Patrick Henry,The2nd

          “The people who have the money for Title II firearms, and couldn’t get CLEO signoffs either already have trusts, or aren’t interested in Title II firearms.”

          Or did not have the time or money to get a trust.

          “The vast majority of the expansion of the Title II marketplace over the last 5 years has been from people using trusts.”

          You don’t know that.

          “Every single trust-user I have spoken with about this issue has indicated to me that they do not intend to continue purchasing Title II firearms after 41F goes into effect.”

          But that’s only trust users. I never said it would be good for them. However, there are plenty of people who A) went Trusts because CLEO signoff was not coming, or B) never got an NFA item because of time/money/hassle of a trust. It will be good for those people.

          “A customer I spoke with on Saturday specifically objected to the requirement that he submit fingerprints and photographs: I’m paraphrasing, but he basically said “I’ve never been in trouble with the law, and I object to being treated like one in order to buy a [Title II firearm].” That same customer has already been issued a PA LTCF, so clearly his issue is not with photographs or background checks per-se, just the fingerprints and the general tone of BATFE’s proposed process.”

          Welcome to those of use who didn’t go the trust route. I don’t like it either, and that is a benefit of trusts. Again, I never said it would be good for those people. However, they still CAN get more NFA Items, whereas those people who cannot or would not get a trust because their CLEO wouldn’t sign off couldn’t before but can now. So yes, in the end its a net win overall. MORE people can get NFA items than can before, and BOTH have an interest in eliminating the NFA requirements all together.

          “You can believe whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that there is a significant percentage of the population that will be pushed out of the market by 41F. 41F will have a significant negative effect on the practical size of the Title II market, which in turn will make the eventual statutory reform take at least a decade longer.”

          No, there will not be a significant percentage pushed out. They will make the choice to either continue to buy or not, and I’m guessing they will come around to just purchasing and dealing with it because they want more NFA items, and the rest of us have been dealing with it just fine.

          However, there WILL be a significant percentage of people who could not or would not get NFA items due to CLEO signoff issues, and that WILL expand the market. The people who are hurt by this already have NFA items, so they will remain within the pool of interested buyers (even if not immediately). But it will increase by those who will now be interested in NFA items because they don’t have to get a sign off or form a trust. More people, means more votes to eliminate the NFA all together (starting with removing suppressors, SBR and SBS from them).

          Overall its a net good thing, even if it does hurt some members of the community for the short term- and really its not that bad of a hurt. Plenty of people don’t go the trust route, so they are just joining us in the pain.

          • Billy Jack

            In my state you have to take a pic and submit fingerprints for a CCL so doing the same for a NFA item shouldn’t be a big deal. Since it has been shown that almost no crimes at all have been committed with suppressors I don’t see why this change was needed. I’m guessing it was to give both sides something they wanted but it just looks stupid.

          • HSR47

            “Or did not have the time or money to get a trust.”

            Numerous entities have been advertising “$99 gun trusts” for years. If an individual can’t afford to spend $100 on a trust, then how can they afford to spend $200 on a tax stamp, and another $500+ on a Title II firearm?

            As far as time goes, getting a trust takes less time than driving around to get passport photographs, fingerprints, and a CLEO signoff.

            In short, this argument is invalid.

            “You don’t know that [the vast majority of the expansion of the market has been through trusts/corps].”

            Actually, I do: If you read the public statements by BATFE about the sudden and massive expansion in the use of fictitious legal entities, and compare it with the sudden and and related increase in the number of registered devices (which the BATFE publishes annually), there is a very strong correlation: The massive increase in the number of registered devices, especially of firearm mufflers, matches up extremely well with the number of submissions by fictitious legal entities.

            “But that’s only trust users. I never said it would be good for them. However, there are plenty of people who A) went Trusts because CLEO signoff was not coming, or B) never got an NFA item because of time/money/hassle of a trust. It will be good for those people.”

            I have a number of submissions under my belt; The amount of time I have saved by not having to constantly get fingerprinted and photographed is significant. This time savings adds up significantly; At this point the amount of money and time I would have needed to spend to get fingerprinted and photographed, and to have my Sheriff sign the forms for every item I have would have cost me far more than the ~$600-700 that the trust cost. For a less expensive trust, the break even point would have been at about 2 submissions.

            “Welcome to those of use who didn’t go the trust route. I don’t like it either, and that is a benefit of trusts.”

            In other words, your argument is “just shut up and get your fingerprints/photograph taken, just like all the individuals have to.” That argument is semantically equal to “I’m too lazy/cheap to get a trust, so you should have to do anything that they make me do…” In other words, it’s an invalid argument.

            “No, there will not be a significant percentage pushed out.”

            I’ve just told you precisely how it is pushing ME out of the market, and how it is pushing my customers out of the market. There is a REASON that the binder of outgoing transfers I have to deal with at work is literally overflowing: Many of my customers have trusts, and they are trying to get what they can before 41F pushes THEM out of the market too.

            Not everyone has a living situation that gives them an acceptable degree of liability without a trust. Everyone who is on my trust is there for a reason: To shield us all from the potential liability of an illegal transfer. Of the four trustees, myself and another are both enthusiasts, and we’ve both been fingerprinted/photographed for various government permits/approvals/background checks. Another trustee would likely be willing to submit fingerprints and photographs, but there’s one who is STRONGLY opposed to submitting fingerprints: In that trustee’s own words “I don’t want my fingerprints on file somewhere; I’ve never been fingerprinted in my life, I don’t want to start now.” That particular trustee is over 60, and held an MA FID for over a decade until moving out of MA around 1990. In other words, none of us are criminals, yet you would have us treated as such just because the government currently treats you as such, purely because you are too cheap/lazy to get a trust.

            “However, there WILL be a significant percentage of people who could not or would not get NFA items due to CLEO signoff issues”

            Again, I doubt it strongly: As I asserted above, the people who can’t get CLEO signoffs today generally already have trusts or can’t afford to buy Title II firearms anyway. In other words, 41F is going to significantly reduce the number of transfers to fictitious legal entities, while not noticeably increasing the number of transfers to individuals. The increase in the latter will be nowhere near the scale required to offset the loss in the former.

            “Overall its a net good thing”

            False. The sky is falling, and it will take most of the market with it unless we are able to stop the implementation of the rule by either judicial or legislative intercession.

          • Patrick Henry,The2nd

            “Numerous entities have been advertising “$99 gun trusts” for years. If an individual can’t afford to spend $100 on a trust, then how can they afford to spend $200 on a tax stamp, and another $500+ on a Title II firearm?

            As far as time goes, getting a trust takes less time than driving around to get passport photographs, fingerprints, and a CLEO signoff.

            In short, this argument is invalid.”

            You can’t make that judgement for other people. Just because they will spend $800 on an NFA item doesn’t mean that they will want to spend another $100 or $200 or whatever for a trust, and all the hassles that involves.

            In short, this argument is valid, and your counterargument is invalid.

            “I have a number of submissions under my belt; The amount of time I have saved by not having to constantly get fingerprinted and photographed is significant. This time savings adds up significantly; At this point the amount of money and time I would have needed to spend to get fingerprinted and photographed, and to have my Sheriff sign the forms for every item I have would have cost me far more than the ~$600-700 that the trust cost. For a less expensive trust, the break even point would have been at about 2 submissions.”

            Again, that’s you. You can’t make that judgement for other people. I found the hassle of setting up a gun trust for a couple of NFA items not worth it, primarily because I did it all at once. And wait, didn’t you just say that it was $99 for a trust, and now you are saying $600?

            “Welcome to those of use who didn’t go the trust route. I don’t like it either, and that is a benefit of trusts.”

            In other words, your argument is “just shut up and get your fingerprints/photograph taken, just like all the individuals have to.” That argument is semantically equal to “I’m too lazy/cheap to get a trust, so you should have to do anything that they make me do…” In other words, it’s an invalid argument.

            No its a “this is what we’ve been dealing with for awhile, and its not as bad as you make it out to be. In other words, a valid argument.

            “I’ve just told you precisely how it is pushing ME out of the market, and how it is pushing my customers out of the market. There is a REASON that the binder of outgoing transfers I have to deal with at work is literally overflowing: Many of my customers have trusts, and they are trying to get what they can before 41F pushes THEM out of the market too.”

            Again that’s YOU. I have two friends and myself that A) don’t want to go the trust route because its a hassle and more money, and B) haven’t taken the time to go get the paperwork signed because of that hassle. We are waiting for 41F because then we don’t have to get it signed. And that’s just three people in a place where we CAN get it signed. There are plenty of those who can’t get it signed via the trust route.

            I’m sure you have a lot of people who own trusts who are trying to get in before it takes affect. And you know what I say to you and others who say they’ll be pushed out of the market? You are wrong- you and others will just keep getting NFA items after you get over your anger.

            And now we have plenty of people who COULDN’T get anything signed without a trust who won’t have to go through either hassle. It WILL expand the NFA market, and that’s a GOOD THING.

            “Not everyone has a living situation that gives them an acceptable degree of liability without a trust. Everyone who is on my trust is there for a reason: To shield us all from the potential liability of an illegal transfer. Of the four trustees, myself and another are both enthusiasts, and we’ve both been fingerprinted/photographed for various government permits/approvals/background checks. Another trustee would likely be willing to submit fingerprints and photographs, but there’s one who is STRONGLY opposed to submitting fingerprints: In that trustee’s own words “I don’t want my fingerprints on file somewhere; I’ve never been fingerprinted in my life, I don’t want to start now.” That particular trustee is over 60, and held an MA FID for over a decade until moving out of MA around 1990. In other words, none of us are criminals, yet you would have us treated as such just because the government currently treats you as such, purely because you are too cheap/lazy to get a trust.”

            I’m know there are good reasons for trusts, and you’ll still be able to maintain the liability. I know it sucks for those who are strongly opposed to submitting fingerprints. I definitely sympathize with them. I never said it would be good for them or that part of it is actually a good thing. Its not, its bad. I don’t want you to be treated like criminals because I don’t want to be treated that way either. I hate it too! However overall, it will expand the NFA market, and that will in the long run make it easier to remove classes from the NFA.

            I also don’t appreciate the insults. It has nothing to do with being “cheap or lazy”. I made a cost and time decision, and I came up with a different answer than you. You are worried about yourself and what you will have to do. I’m worried about the NFA long term. I want suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs removed from the NFA. I know 41F will hurt some people. I freely acknowledge that. But long term, its a good thing.

            Its like removing a tumor. Sure you don’t want surgery because it’ll hurt. But long term its good for the health of the body.

            “Again, I doubt it strongly: As I asserted above, the people who can’t get CLEO signoffs today generally already have trusts or can’t afford to buy Title II firearms anyway. In other words, 41F is going to significantly reduce the number of transfers to fictitious legal entities, while not noticeably increasing the number of transfers to individuals. The increase in the latter will be nowhere near the scale required to offset the loss in the former.”

            You don’t know that. Again, its an additional cost and an additional time commitment to get a trust. Some people had spending more than they have to. Some people hate lawyers. 41F will significantly reduce for now the transfers to fictitious legal entities FOR NOW. It will come back up again. And I believe 41F WILL noticeably increasing the number of transfers to individuals. I think you vastly overestimate how much trust will be impacted and vastly underestimate how much individual sales will increase.

            “Oh I don’t have to get a CLEO sign-off OR get a trust!?! SOLD!”

            “False. The sky is falling, and it will take most of the market with it unless we are able to stop the implementation of the rule by either judicial or legislative intercession.”

            False, the sky is not falling, and overall it is a good thing. It will increase the market and hopefully we won’t be able to stop the implementation of the rule, and instead concentrate our efforts at remove classes from the NFA altogether.

        • SheepDog114

          HSR47- You are exactly right… I fall into the group with your customer’s thought process. I have a trust. My CLEO will not and has never signed off. I live in SC and have a CCW. The state of SC has my prints for my CCW and also because I was a LEO for 5 years. The less times I have to submit them the better especially to the Federal Gov. (i.e. ATF). I am not a criminal and do not wish to be treated as such. So what have I done about… I have four Form 1’s applications and two Form 4’s that I have paid and submitted for in the last 5 days, all for suppressors. My reason is exactly the reason you spoke of… Once these all get approved and come back, I will never be back for an NFA item…Unless the rules change. I have talked with some of my friends and they are thinking the same way. What I would like to see happen… Treat, at least the suppressors and SBR’s, as any other firearm with a simple background check. In SC, with my CCW, it takes me about 10 minutes to walk in, fill out the paperwork, and pick up my item. As a former LEO and many friends who still are… We are not worried about the good citizens exercising their rights…. We ARE worried about the criminals who get these items by illegal means. And they will get them regardless of what laws are in place. I personally have never understood why suppressors fall into the NFA category. As a LEO, I never worried about a suppressor killing me… If someone wanted to take my life, suppressor or no suppressor wouldn’t make much difference. I
          With all that said… I hope we will see a change on the classification of some NFA items because I believe there is a large group who feel my sentiment. Once we get our stuff through before July then we will not back in the NFA market. I would likely say if this happens overall then the market will respond by increases in prices due to less people in the market. Hopefully this will spur on the manufacturer’s lobbyists and place pressure on the government to make corrections.

  • Logic Rules

    If a trust had twenty people in it, does this mean that the ATF has to process twenty separate background checks each time the trust purchases an item???

    Aren’t these background checks very time and labor intensive (the supposed reason it takes several months to process them)? If so, couldn’t this new practice increase the ATF’s work load many times over? On the bad side, that might turn the several month backlog into a couple year backlog in they couldn’t implement some efficiencies.

    I wonder if people might be tempted to intentionally create larger trusts and buy items one at a time in order to let the ATF drown in the absurdity they created. Hmmmmm…something to think about.

    • Its the same background check the NCIS does. The reason for the long time is that there are only like 12 people processing those forms.

      • Logic Rules

        So the actual background check only takes a minute or two (as it should), but it takes a long time before they even get to a form to start processing it.

        Even if each check only took an average of one minute to perform, wouldn’t the requirement to perform several or dozens of checks of additional checks for each trust purchase greatly increase their workload?

        • AR-PRO

          You would think that a five minute background check would complete the process, but unfortunately the paperwork goes through a few different checks by different people so as to avoid any mistakes. therein lies the 6 month wait.

          • Which is due to them having so few people work in that dept. Used to be it took weeks but the NRA decided to flood that dept with tons of duplicate transfer forms causing a huge backlog.

          • Logic Rules

            Thanks for the info gentlemen, but I’m still hoping to get an answer to the following question.

            Would this new requirement to process several or more background checks for each purchase result a greatly increased workload?????

          • milesfortis

            For the FBI, yes.
            They’re the ones doing the fingerprint scans and background checks

  • Billy Jack

    And yet no executive mandates on hot dog shapes or swimming pools fences. It’s like they aren’t really worried about people being in danger.

  • john396

    In ANY other instance ear damaging noise is a SAFETY issue! Plenty of laws exist to restrict noise, except for guns. Too many politicians have watched too many spy movies, the same as too many politicians watched too many motorcycle movies in the 1950’s, so they made switchblades illegal.
    Voters need to put in some smarter people in office that don’t believe everything they see in the movies!!

  • supergun

    Silencers would help many people that have hearing loss. It will help prevent more loss, and also protect those with good hearing. If the government is so interesting in protecting the people they will do away with this Unconstitutional Regulation.

  • ScoobyDoo

    +1 for the folks that their CLEO would not sign off on NFA items.
    I have a CLEO and County Prosecutor that both sign off with out problems, but went with a custom trust for two reasons. One, so others in my family can have legal access to the gun safe and possess my NFA items. Two, so I can pass them on to my children without extra paperwork.
    It will put a damper on how I purchase NFA items in the future. Our CLEO only does finger prints on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2-4 by appointment and of course there is a fee. So now we add the costs of the finger printing and the passport photos per trustee to the stamp and the cost of that can starts to add up. I don’t care about the $$ as much as the PITA process of getting every trustee in to the CLEO during their time frame to jump thru the extra hoops.
    One dealer I know is working on getting setup to take the finger prints and photos on site so you can take care of those when yo do your Form 4.

  • Sn SM

    “The ” ending loophole” title is misleading, as if the NFA trust system
    is sunsetting entirely. Personally, I don’t think it’s outrageous to add
    background checks for the trustees.”

    For a person who believes in freedom ignorant comments like this are especially frightening. Pay attention here…you the legal citizen….are ASKING GOVERNMENT PERMISSION…to exercise a Constitutional Right. The NIC’s system was the mother
    of all slippery slopes as it has fatally habituated so ,many folks here to asking Daddy
    Gov for permission.Tell me gentle citizen…do you call the State Police when you want
    to go to church on Sunday? Do you call 911 to ask permission to buy a newspaper?
    The gentleman who sadly observed that Title II folks would toss their fellow gun
    owners under the government bus in a heartbeat was painfully correct…

  • AlDeLarge

    I’d been thinking about making a trust with my brother and sister, and maybe parents so we could share items and have no inheritance problems. The new rules changed that. I ended up creating a trust with my brother as trustee, who lives in the same town. My sister does not live within 300 miles, and is the beneficiary.

    We’re trying to get some forms in (2 so far) before the deadline, but after that we’ll both have to do all the fingerprinting and photo background stuff every time we get something but 2 in the same town is much better than 3-5 spread out all over half of Texas. And at least the two most interested in Title II firearms can share. Don’t get me wrong, my sister is interested, just not as much since her husband already has some, and we don’t have any, … yet.

  • Leadsled

    Doesn’t the CLEO signoff disappear also? That benefits more people….. No need for a Trust to runaround the CLEOs that refused to sign.

    A Trust as a legal protection would be advisable for anyone with multiple NFA items. IMHO.

  • Eric Blatter

    What is macabrely entertaining is that many of the European country’s that the liberal politicians hold up as an example have no laws controlling mufflers and allow their purchase “over-the counter.” Here in America the use of a muffler by a criminal is so rare as to be virtually non-existent and its main use is by Hollywood in violent movies. Oh right! The movies and liberal actors and directors are the best source for information on criminal statistics.

  • Dustin Ellermann

    A trust is a living document, is there any reason why you could not remove the “responsible persons” from the trust before a transfer, then conveniently add them after the transfer?

    • Word is any change requires the trust to be sent to the ATF so removing and adding people is pointless.

  • Steve_7

    The person who creates a trust is usually called the “grantor”. You can use the word trustor but it’s less common because it can be used in other contexts.

    • Don

      Actually, on my trust paperwork I am called the “Settlor”…. Just saying…

      • Steve_7

        The settlor is usually the person who gets the stuff from the trust, the grantor is usually the person who creates the trust, which is often the same person. Either one can be a “trustor” which is why it’s not used that much because it is non-specific. Also called a “transferor” because that can be the person who either puts things into a trust or takes them out.

  • Ken

    So, how many crimes are there that involve a suppressor? This is another one of those “let’s ban it even though it accounts for less than half a percent of gun crimes in America” BS scams.

    • Navy Davy

      Ken – you said “half a percent” of crimes, I think it is way less, around
      .01000001 to .000000001 percent.

      • Ken

        Yeah, I know, I was just trying to make a point 😉

        BTW, in anti-gun France you can stroll into a general store and pickup a suppressor for under $30USD. It won’t be super high quality like some of the brands we have here, but it will still be a good suppressor.

        • Don

          But remember… Sensationalizing something is exactly what gun owners accuse anti-gunners of doing all the time. Don’t fall into their hands and start playing their game…

  • tenmillimeter

    if anything, the new rules make things easier as the local LEO permission step is no longer there…which was the thing creating the need for the trust in the first place.

  • Peter Jameson

    Stand together…They are coming.

  • Navy Davy

    Must be a ton of criminals who create a legal trust through a lawyer and then the trust gets filed with the various government(s). Then of course get a suppressor/silencer through the trust and commit crimes with it and their gun(s). I cannot recall ever reading/hearing/seeing in the media of such at all so it must not be very common at all. Gees. The lawyers must then be cleared of any trouble as well. No media about that either in my lifetime. What are our legislators doing with their time anyway? Do they get a gold star on their record by just passing any old law?

  • Navy Davy

    California not only bans suppressors outright, CA bans even any threaded barrel!

  • BLH557

    Please stop using the out-dated term, “Silencer”… PLEASE!

    BTW, the number of suppressors used in crimes as far as I can see remains at ZERO…

    • Don

      For your info, “silencer” and “suppressor” are both still the most common terms used. Just because you don’t like how one sounds or you think the “out-dated” term as you call it, is incorrectly used doesn’t mean a hill of beans to 90% of the folks out there. So get over it and quit complaining.

      Go research Ron Rutin who was murdered by his wife Margaret Rutin using his own legal SILENCED .22 back in 94′ in Vegas.

      • BLH557

        Suppressor is the correct term. I don’t care what Hollywood says. So…

        Really somebody was killed in 1994 using a suppressor? My dad told me about a Chinese Major who killed a Monk with a peach can lid… does that place peach can lids on the NFA list?

        Can you give me a breakdown on the percentage of suppressors in circulation vs the number of crimes committed??????

        Your argument is silly.

    • milesfortis

      Also, the term ‘silencer’ is the word used in the federal and several state statues to describe the gadget.
      While we know they don’t do that, precision in dealing with UncleFed, and his terms are necessary.

      • BLH557

        That’s because we have allowed them to create the misnomer narrative and continue it on. WE need to direct the narrative and not them. Using outdated terms just feeds into that.

        When we identify our adversary (ATF) we can direct the action and hopefully steer the narrative toward the more logical and salient points and not the “silencer” (read criminal) dialogue. Whether they like it or not.

  • Steven Hickman

    What are the 8 states that you will no be able to buy ?

  • Hokanut

    When was the last time a suppressor was used in a crime? Where I live in Ca our local range is within earshot of homes. I bet they would appreciate the wholesale use of suppressors. But then less people would complain about noise and the range would stand a better chance of staying open…sack-ramento can’t have that.

  • smartacus

    …and in Obozo’s world; computer viruses are right there in Windows Task Manager as Virus.exe

  • MIstwalker

    It’s remarkably silly that silencers have any kind of restrictions at all. In most places in Europe, where gun control laws are far more restrictive, silencers are considered a basic safety accessory. In many places, it’s considered rude to shoot without one.

    The law seems to

    • Its not holllywood. Gangsters using them as well as poachers were the reason many states had outlawed the use or possession of silencers before the NFA came about. Also in Europe most countries actually don’t allow silencers if you have a gun license. Its either one or the other not both. In the countries that do to have a silencer you have to a gun license. Either of those without the license means jail.Also in those countries the silencer quality is crap compared to US ones. Hence why most law enforcement in countries around the world gets their silencers along with their militaries the same silencers that are sold to US civilians.

      • MIstwalker

        Horseshit. They were never commonly used in crimes. A quick look online shows that the majority of Europe that allows firearms, allows their use, as well. Most require a license, yes, but it’s often the same license you use to buy a gun. Nearly all European countries do require you to have a license to own a firearm, if firearms are legal.

        • Wrong. Look up laws on silencers. You will find that in the US the majority of them came about before the NFA did.

          The Dillinger-Nelson gang was notorious for using silencers as were other criminal gangs of the 1920s and early 1930s.

  • MIstwalker

    Oh, come on now. The law regarding silencers is silly, but he wasn’t born in Kenya. The fact that so many gun owners are propping up this absolutely ridiculous birther nonsense is why people aren’t taking us seriously. Unless Obama is a time traveler who went back and time and edited the Hawaiian newspapers to add his birth announcement, he was born in the U.S.

  • Steven Hickman

    I guess it’s back to the plastic bottle filled with foam chunks or rags.

  • themonkey69

    Just how “crimes involving a silencer” are there in the US every year? I’m no expert, but i would say around zero.

    • Legally bought ones or illegal ones? Legally bought ones just a few. Very strict penalties for straw buying them as well as using them in crimes.

  • JoeF

    The problem is it wasn’t the elected crooks making these changes. It’s the appointed ones.

  • ElmoS

    This trust thing is just another way to harass people. Why can’t these people just allow us to have a background check as we do now and submit it to the NICS 4473 form. I know hundreds of shooters who have several sound suppressors and they wouldn’t think of using them in a crime. Its for sound suppress not killing people. The average one costs around 900.00 dollars up to thousands and these trusts around 600.00 dollars and the tax stamp 200.00 dollars, i could build a new rifle for that and put a flash suppressor on it. The Stupidity of our politicians is mind numbing.

  • ElmoS

    Eric GUN RUNNER HOLDER should be in prison for that mess.

  • angrymike

    I am so sick and tired of that Traitor dismantling our God given rights, please let the next 10 months fly by ! If we have to deal with him any longer I think the whole country will revolt, as in a second revolution, only this time it’ll be a foreigner that’s tried to destroy our country !
    Oh, and let’s hope the ppl are wise enough not to elect another foreigner as President, no Canadians either !
    Sorry about the political post, I’m just sick as hell of Zero’s bull*hit !

  • carlcasino

    I have been witness to 13 Presidents and I thought Carter ( X Submariner) was a disgrace to the service and a really progressive failure as a POTUS, but ‘Obammie has him beat in Spades, Pun Intended.

  • Jamie Clemons

    And exactly how many crimes per year are committed with a silencer?

  • MANG

    What’s the problem with requiring due diligence on all the beneficiaries of a trust? I favor this generally for all kinds of entities, corporations, LLC’s, whatever. Your bank and broker have to do it. Would you really have a beneficiary on your firearms-related trust who can’t pass a background check? What kind of *sshole would do that anyway?

  • GrumpyOleMan

    OBozo should have to have a permit to waste the air he breathes. Never seen anyone as stupid as he is. Well, Cruz maybe close. Obama said there are 57 states and Cruz said he was born in the 51st which is Canada I guess. I wonder how Canadians feel about that?

  • marcus johannes

    One more way for the corrupt , Lawless Criminal Marxist / Muslim Obama Regime to keep track of who has what and what they have