BREAKING: ATF White Paper Leaked

Just in the last hour someone leaked an ATF White Paper regarding changes to be potentially made in the ATF.

Washington Post posted the file. Read-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations <—– Click that to open the document.

For those not familiar with a White Paper, click here for the Wikipedia definition. To sum up it is a summary of issues and proposals to amend or address such issues.

There are some bold issues being addressed. One of which is point 5, the use of a stabilizing brace.

5.  Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace:
Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgun
did not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under the
National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination as
an NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short – barreled rifle). ATF has not made an other NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.
While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push
the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a
relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms
with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with
future requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics
.

This could change their determination that came out back in 2015 that using a brace could constitute a redesign. As Adam Kraut had explained, misusing a product is not the same as redesigning or manufacturing.

If that got you excited wait until you see what else they got cooking.

Next up is the point about Slencers.

Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This
requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the
silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers
have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges
and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.
At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The
wide acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created
substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF
to have a significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is
now approximately 8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer
would be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of
[silencer] parts, ” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to
the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated
part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed
silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered
by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part
or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be
useful.

These two points are huge. There are other great points addressed in the White Paper and I encourage you to read it all.

The conclusion of the White Paper addresses it nicely:

There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.
There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to support
ATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence.
The future looks bright and I hope the ATF accepts these issues and solutions.




Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • PK

    That’s a very surprising read. I wonder about the authenticity.

    • JASON B

      Authentic. Spoke with a well-known industry lawyer who consulted on the White Paper. We happened to be emailing today when this article broke. he assured me it was authentic and he consulted on it.

      • nova3930

        It sure reads like a legit gov’t doc. I wonder how much is influenced by the 2 for 1 EO that was issued for regulations.

        • NB

          It doesn’t though. Vague references throughout and the language just seems off. This formatting is also odd, especially the signature block at the end. Whoever wrote it did a great job.

          • nova3930

            It reads like one’s I’ve seen and helped write in DoD. White papers are significantly less formal than typical because they’re not official positions, they’re basis for discussion between two segments of the gov’t.

          • NB

            My experience is also in the Dod and what leads me to question it’s authenticity. It could just be on the extraordinarily informal end. Perhaps I’m wrong.

          • nova3930

            Yeah I read you. I’m not going to sit here and tell you I’ve seen a lot like this, but I’ve seen some, and helped write some. Mostly division to division type stuff. All depends on the target audience I suppose….

          • mad dog

            Inter office memo’s

          • Keiichi

            That’s some very subjective concern… anything concrete you can point to?

          • NB

            Absolutely subjective… Hopefully I’m wrong.

        • mad dog

          Patriotic Americans embedded in the government know we are going to need this stuff for the war that’s coming. stock up as soon as you can.

          • Bill

            Yeah, panic buying! Armagunnun! Hillary didn’t get elected, so panic now!

          • mad dog

            You liberals the ones we’ll be facing off with… and I hope and pray it happens…
            we got men, lots and lots of men, you got sissys, gays and communists…
            you are all dead, you just don’t know it yet

            there’s no sissy time outs in combat and we’re not taking prisoners..

          • Bill

            Bring it.

    • Tom Currie

      I’m pretty sure that there have always been a few sane people buried inside BATFE, unfortunately most of them have long been moved out of the firearms sections and none of them have ever had any chance of reaching management positions.

  • Swarf

    And it had eff all to do with President Blood Orange.

    • Moonman46

      So which one are you? lol..keep in mind that you weren’t supposed to read that :0 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f52c9505e74baa1b65004f79435cf19f6e2d03af8818ac89b818e393062a2c21.jpg

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Can someone remove this idiot?

        • BlackZyklon

          You want him banned and deported?

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            No, since he probably is not even an American based on his very vocal support for scumbag Vladimir Putin.
            I still have not heard a non-delusional explanation for why Trump seems to be so far up Putins a-s or why Putin fought so hard to help Trump win.
            The only rational explanation is that Putin has serious dirt on Donnie.

            Im sure a Nazi such as yourself isnt interested in such things.lol

          • mad dog

            let me guess, MSM or CNN is where you got that, cant you liberal pervert commies think for yourself…

          • SP mclaughlin

            Firearms not……

        • mad dog

          must be one them brats hunh ?..cartoon about libs who cry and you post crying, ha ha ha ….

    • Don Ward

      Wrong. It has everything to do with who is in the White House.

      • Evan Morris

        Look at the date.. This was compiled and written before Lord Trump took over.

        • billyoblivion

          “Lord” Trump? Oh hayzeus.

          If that date was 8 November 2016 I *might* give you something, but it was the day before the inauguration and the writing wasn’t “on the wall” any more, but printed, stacked and ready for binding. The HPA (IIRC) had already been introduced and Things Were In Motion.

          Now, it might not have had *all that much* to do with Trump as much as it had to do with why Trump got elected–a modest change in the attitudes and positions of the electorate.

          • Amplified Heat

            Yeah, it’s not like his fans call him “God Emperor” or anything, lol. If this is an early draft, it’s possible it was written since the election. It’s equally if not more possible the ATF has seen the writing on the wall for a while, and was waiting for a favorable administration to help them relieve the pressure before the dam breaks, the NFA is repealed outright or struck down, and their agency ceases to exist.

          • billyoblivion

            You mean the kwisatz haderach?

            I doubt the BATF has “seen the writing on the wall” because H> was >< that close to winning, and it would have been a totally different attitude over there.

  • Moonman46

    Just like how conservative groups were willingly targeted by IRS for unlawful harassment, the ATF and by nature, all Alphabet soup agencies will resist deregulation due to one simple fact, they exist to feed themselves.

    • dootdootbeep

      Pretty sure that’s not accurate and I’m not sure what it has to do with conservative groups and the IRS but whatever. This was written before Trump took office. The agency saw that they were inundated with silencer requests, added staff to cope but it still wasn’t enough. Now, they are recommending removing silencers from the NFA to reduce their workload to manageable levels, which in turn will reduce costs. This is how the government can work.

      • mad dog

        It’s like the Schools, if it gets too expensive teaching kids, you stop teaching them…and just pass them even though they’re stupider than all fk.

        • dootdootbeep

          It’s not like that at all but whatever dude.

          • mad dog

            yes it is, if it gets too expensive to enforce regulations, they don’t fire people, they quit enforcing the regulations..

      • Moonman46

        pretty sure they were just wanting to somehow limit how many silencers they were actually approving

        context matters pal

      • RSG

        Issued the day he took office. No one is certain of when it was written, but most likely after the election.

    • mad dog

      they are all tax collectors in 1 form or another under the Federal Reserve, they are not part of the US Government..

      • dootdootbeep

        What does that even mean? How are they not part of the US government?

        • Amplified Heat

          I think he believes the Fed is a branch of the US government…or something

          • mad dog

            cant you read, I mean it’s right there 2 inches away in black and white.
            they are not part of the federal government, the Federal Reserve is a chartered private for profit bank, we pay tax to, (income tax) for using their fiat dollars as legal tender.
            Income tax does not fund the government.
            Ronald Regan in his inauguration speech even said so.
            damn, that’s 30 year old knowledge, what’s wrong with you people..?

          • Amplified Heat

            Treasury receives taxes, being the treasury and all. The Fed sells bonds to the treasury, who gives them dollars. Incestuous circle jerk perhaps, bug the Fed is not government and have nothing to do with taxes, only interest rates.

  • Jeff Smith

    In other news, Silencer Co just rehired their workforce in what could be called the shortest work furlough of all time.

  • AC97

    Tutorial on how to “redesign” your gun:

    www(DOT)youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=znEesQP8FGg

  • JASON B

    Given what the ATF is saying and recommending here, there is no longer an argument against the HPA that can stand. None. I was largely confident the HPA will pass despite what many are saying. Now I know it will. Even faster than I thought. I give it just over 200 days from introduction to pass. Yes I know how hard it is for Bills to make it out of committee! Yes I know Bills go to the Senate to die! Yes I know a few Dems will have to vote for the HPA in the Senate. Give it 200 days.

    • Malthrak

      We can hope, but just because all common sense is against something doesnt mean it will come to pass. Look at Marijuana, no study in decades has ever found it to be more harmful than smoking or drinking, usually less so, with many real medicinal benefits for certain kinds, and broad public support for decriminalization, and that’s going nowhere federally because its continued criminization feeds too many local coffers and federal careers.

      • JASON B

        That’s a Left issue. You can’t have everything. Jeff Sessions won;t decrimilaize weed, but he will support the HPA. Had the Dems won the WH, you would have had Federal Weed, but no HPA.

        • Malthrak

          Sad, but both should be issues that get looked at, they shouldnt be partisan in the way they are. Im hoping things change on all counts, just not expecting for anything on either count.

    • nova3930

      Keep in mind this is just one person within ATF, albeit a pretty highly placed one. White papers aren’t official policy…

      • JASON B

        Sure, but he will testify on the necessity of the HPA. Certainly strong enough testimony to get a couple of Dem Senators to vote yes.

    • Amplified Heat

      Yup; congress will drag its feet all day long when it’s only what the people want. But when the regulators want something? “Yes sir, Mr. Bureau Chief, sir!”

  • Rock or Something

    I like to get my hands on some “Slencers”. So silent you don’t even hear the “i”.

  • Ebby123

    Holy sh*t… its really happening. A particle of common sense has bestowed itself onto the ATF.

    ..this letter sounds almost… logical.
    I very much approve.

    • AC97

      The ATF is actually making sense for once?

      What fresh hell is this?

      Now can we have them admit that SBR and SBS laws are asinine as well?

      • Keiichi

        “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”

      • KestrelBike

        LOL “fresh hell”
        Indeed. I’m thinking they’re trying to play nice and not look like a dept full of useless thugs.

        • frankspeak

          that’s enforcement..[who’d lock up their own mother!]..regulatory people are usually pretty good joes…..

      • JASON B

        Pretty sure they just did with their discussion of the Arm Brace.

        • mad dog

          they cant regulate anything not in the firearm design..
          despite what they say.
          it’s color of law, an administrative regulation, not actual law.
          The ATF is not part of the legislative branch and thus can not make law and demand we follow them

          • MIstwalker

            Except that people routinely go to federal prison for violating ATF regulations. Simple fact is, congress gives them the power to make binding regulations that do indeed apply to us. Those powers fall within a limited scope, but it would take a court case, lawyers, and giant piles of money to discover if this particular rule falls in or out of that scope. And, if you’re wrong, you’re going to end up in federal prison with a bunch of guys who haven’t seen a woman in years.

          • Kafir1911

            And those kinds of regulations and their over production under the last holder of the Oval Office is something that President Trump is working to cut. MAGA.

          • MIstwalker

            Obama made no real moves on gun control, aside from a couple executive orders that amounted to absolutely nothing. They were there to look like he was doing something to placate democrats after Sandy Hook and the like.

            Trump is an incompetent man-baby. He’s done nothing of value so far, and has made no appreciable moves towards doing anything for shooters, and I doubt very much that he will.

            We’ve had some wins lately, but they’ve been court cases and ATF letters, and that’s where the wins will continue, not with some orange haired thin-skinned whiner who can’t take that SNL mocks him without crying about it like a four year old on twitter once a week.

          • Ebby123

            The Supreme court nomination alone shows that statement false.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            GEE….he’s been in office, what? Two weeks? Odumba was there for 8 years and became the best firearms sales man in the history of the country.

          • suomunon

            “done nothing of value”, Good grief! Today is the 18th day he has been President. What do you demand, a parting of the waters? He is busy getting his Cabinet in place and knocking down the pillars of Obama’s tyranny. What would consitute something of value to satisfy you?

          • Norm Glitz

            You really haven’t been paying much attention, have you.

          • bmrtoyo

            Mistwalker: well maybe its his yellow hair ,but the wall street surge is a great initial news story for once, unlike what it did under youre man obi wan a choomie .

          • retrocon

            But, it needs to be codified in law, or the next liberal POTUS will just unfix what Trump fixes.

          • Colonel K

            You make a salient point. The Presidents’ nominee to the SCOTUS has opined in the past that he does not believe judges should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law when determining the validity of its regulations. Just as our nation suffers from judges who make law from the bench by their specious legal rulings, we are burdened by government bureaucracies whose primary purpose appears to be the creation of more rules and regulations, unfettered by their foundation in the actual law they are charged to enforce. I once suggested to a state legislator that we could greatly reduce the number of rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats and eliminate their ability to interpret the laws if he would introduce a bill requiring all rules and regulations of any agency be written by the legislature, or at least approved by their recorded vote after a full reading and debate of those rules before the general assembly, followed by an endorsement or veto from the governor. This would have the salutary effect of either tying up the legislature for years trying to wade through thousands of pages of rules, or greatly simplifying those rules. Either way it would be a win-win for the public.

          • mad dog

            for what ?, I have no need for a full auto machine gun, it’s a waste of ammo. After the first shot you are up and to the left.., you are just spraying lead at nothing..it may look and sound cool, but it does nothing.., I subscribe to the 1 shot 1 kill method.
            I like to lay in wait for my victim, take my 1 shot / kill and scoot. Move on to another location. And wait for another one. Killing and not being killed is an art.
            My father trained me for combat very well.
            also, I build my own long guns and since there’s no serial numbers, it’s not a firearm and it’s exempt from ATF regulations.
            I carry an 1865 colt 45 ball and cap , it has no cartridge and thus is not a fire arm under ATF regulations and is exempt.
            but I do have a CCW and carry a kimber arms 45 from time to time..
            also I knew about the up and coming regulations to document gun sales in the mid 90’s and bought everything I needed in 94 off the books for penny’s on the dollar.
            I don’t rely on idiots…I know all this myself..

          • cawpin

            Simply not having a serial number doesn’t make it “not a firearm.”

          • Mingo
          • Kivaari

            A home made firearm must be built within the ATF rules. You can not lawfully make a machine gun, smooth bore pistol, short barreled rifle or shotgun. Just like making a grenade is illegal.

          • Ebby123

            Please keep your backwards and limited view of freedom to yourself.
            If you find yourself saying “I have no use for X, therefore it should be illegal for everyone else” you need to just exit the conversation immediately.

            Please come back when you learn what the word “Freedom” means.

          • AC97

            What are you smoking? He’s just stating the laws. If you didn’t have terrible reading comprehension, you would’ve noticed that he never said the words “should be illegal.”

            Hell, he didn’t even express a lack of desire for the items listed, you’re reading into something that doesn’t exist.

          • Ebby123

            That was directed at Mad dog, not sure why it came across at Kivaari

          • AC97

            Oh, well forgive me Ebby, but you replied to Kivaari by mistake it seems.

            Nevermind then. *shrugs*

          • Ebby123

            No worries. My mistake.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            It doesn’t matter if you “need” one or not. There are lots of things that we don’t “need”. The point is that if I WANT one I should be able to BUY one as long as I’m not doing damage to someone else in their life, liberty or property.

          • Kivaari

            Using “need” while discussing guns is like swearing in church.

          • Mirkwood Mage

            Man, the bearded tactickle dwarves are going to flip out on you. I’ve never shot a cap and ball pistol.

          • Norm Glitz

            It’s kind of fun. Dirty, but fun. You’ll rapidly find another reason to call it “black powder”.

          • Nonya Bidness

            What’s an “1865 Colt”?

          • Kivaari

            Probably an 1860 Army .44. I never saw an 1865 in .45.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Sure, fats.
            I bet you’ve taken down quite a few radical moose lamb kebab sandwiches. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/efe6f2ad6e8ca5ca171e25dfec39e7ed26d2212280d59b287550a83348591c96.jpg

          • retrocon

            This why congress needs to pull back on regulators. Need to change the regulatory rules…

            If a regulation has an impact greater than XX million dollars on the economy, or a direct effect on any constitutionally protected individual right, it must be approved by congress and the president.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            True…BUT…they do.

        • Wow!

          (EDIT) Jason B, this comment is not directed to you BTW.

          Every time I read TFB I am reminded of how many crazy liberals are “in our ranks” as gun owners who would support the tyranny of a lawless government. To this day, I will never do any transfer, gunsmithing, or weapon or accessory sale to anyone who identifies as part of the liberal agenda. At the very least, I will not be the one who arms America’s enemies.

          • Mr. Privilege

            You are a patriot. Never deal with libtards when it can be avoided.

      • Amplified Heat

        Wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve always made sense…internally. This is a *leaked* memo, i.e. not in accordance with whatever BS line they have to toe for an administration. Maybe it was directed by Trump’s Gun Superfriends Council, maybe it was being kept in a vest pocket by this official all along in the event a cooperative president came to power.

        • darrell_b8

          More likely they are trying to get ‘a life line’ for the ‘swamp draining’ that is sure to come.

          • M40

            Absolutely. They see a president who is looking at across the board cuts and who has spoken about eliminating entire agencies. Now they’re making arguments for their own survival.
            Let’s hope they simply go away. Heck, they were supposed to go away after prohibition ended. Tacking tobacco and firearms into their title was an excuse to keep them employed.

          • Kivaari

            The revenuers have been around 200 years. We even had the Whiskey Rebellion over taxes on booze. Alcohol and tobacco were taxed long before guns.

          • M40

            While those things were taxed, it didn’t require a militaristic goon squad. That came about during prohibition. When prohibition ended, the government found themselves with thousands of federal agents that served no purpose. So rather than hand out pink slips, they simply made up a new purpose for them.
            The lesson here is that the federal government will never downsize of it’s own free will.

      • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

        For sure. Actually the whole NFA is asinine.

        • M40

          While I tend to agree, I will also play devil’s advocate. The most common plaintiff in the courts is “the people”.

          The police show up at your trailer and find you cooking up 20 pounds of crystal meth. Can you claim there’s no victim and demand to be released?

          • Richief

            No, the police will say “tell it to the judge” Then the court should advertise the hearings and trial and solicit testimony from any and all agrieved by the plaintiffs actions, if no one shows harm done either by past or current offenses, the judge or jury should dismiss. If the perp has been dealin drugs to the kiddies at school and parents etc., identify him as nfg, then hangem high.
            This would alleviate folks rewarded felony convictions, for growing smoke in their backyard that only gets used by themselves and friends/family.

          • M40

            And let’s say there’s a parolee driving with no license, registration or insurance… going the wrong way down the highway… at 120MPH… out of his mind on crack.

            Somehow, the police manage to pull him over, and NOBODY gets hurt… no property damage at all.

            Is it your contention that he should go free because there are no victims?

          • Vizzini

            Those are state laws. Under 10th amendment, states have the right to enumerate their powers in their own Constitutions. So if the state’s Constitution has authorized power for things like traffic laws, then that would be the controlling document.

          • Wow!

            No crime is victimless. At the bare minimum, breaking a law undermines the authority of it which opens the door for contradictory and authoritarian law (like gun control) or ways for criminals to get away with crime. Weed is not a right. If you want to change the law, change it in the FEDERAL level. If states change the law that doesn’t change anything since the higher Federal law still outlaws it and that means they can still be charged

            Every drug dealer and user needs to be thrown in institutions and reformed or locked up anyways. Some call it recreation, but I have personally seen how drug use (not just trade) leads to a lot of damage in society, even if recreational, because sooner or later they do something they thought they would never do. It is well known that no one can self medicate since you cannot diagnose your own mental health like a third party professional who knows what he is looking for can.

          • Vizzini

            You’re absolutely right. Let’s prohibit alcohol. What could go wrong?

          • Wow!

            Why stop murderers and rapists? By your logic they are going to keep doing their crime so why should we waste time stopping them?

            We keep forgetting that gun ownership IS NOT A CRIME. Gun ownership is a RIGHT. Narcotics are not a right and can be restricted. Did making alcohol legal stop the criminal syndicates? No! It was the work of a series of coordinated law enforcement raids that brought an end to the era of prohibition gangsters. A free country is based on the foundation of individual responsibility. Narcotics inhibit the perception of that responsibility. A good guy with a gun may stop a bad guy with a gun, but I never saw a drug addict stop another drug addict. A big reason the founding fathers didn’t make narcotics a right, even though prohibition was a looming topic at the time.

          • Vizzini

            You have no understanding of the ninth amendment or the structure of the Constitution. View like yours are precisely why many of the founding fathers opposed having a Bill of Rights. They correctly surmised that people like you would exalt enumerated rights at the expense of unenumerated ones, thus turning the design of the Constitution — a few limited government powers amidst a sea of individual rights — on its head.

          • Wow!

            Sorry the Constitution doesn’t agree with you.

            “The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            The hierarchy is Constitution, Federal, State, Individual as stated in the “supremacy clause”. When state is allowed to violate federal (which is in turn violating the Constitution), then we get lawlessness like gun control or sanctuary cities where states think they can pick and choose what laws they follow. If you want to follow the Constitution, you have to follow ALL of it. Not pick and choose what you see is fit.

          • Vizzini

            I;m not misunderstanding anything. The federal government’s powers are few, defined, and limited by the Constitution. The federal government has no power to criminalize drugs.

          • Wow!

            At the very least, we agree that a federal law under compliance of the Constitution is supreme to a State law:

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            What you claim is that the Federal government is restricted by the Constitution to restrict drugs.

            Section 8 is clear: “The Congress shall have Power … and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”

            It is obvious that Congress does indeed have the power to restrict narcotics as the CSA was legally established as law following the process outlined in the Constitution. The question now is that you must point to where in the Constitutional law that narcotics are a Constitutional right. Without this right, there is nothing that overrides the Federal authority. For example, the right to bear and carry arms is a Constitutional right, which is why the federal government is actually breaking the law by restricting. In contrast, the right to drive is not a Constitutional right, hence why we must get a licence (and again, the laws for requiring a licence is backed by the federal laws established under the first line of Section 8 for general welfare.

          • Vizzini

            The general welfare clause is not a blanket grant for Congress to pass whatever laws it wants. Congress’s lawmaking powers are restricted to those aspects of the general welfare that are defined specifically in section 8, subsequent to that clause. Drug enforcement is not one of those enumerated powers.

          • jcitizen

            I have read them at least twice many years ago. They bear reading for the rest of one’s life, as they are valuable to the original meaning the founding fathers put into the production of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There can be no doubt as to what they meant once you read them. However, it seams today’s generation has lost the meaning and manner of elocution used in antique language, and tend to pull their meanng out of a hat, without regard to researching our origins. When Shakespeare was popular in the acting troops, people were reintroduced to our original language and understanding was handed to the next generation. I really wonder if that will ever be the case again.

            Thank you Wow! and Vizzuni for your contributions here, it has been very interesting! Oh but if lawmakers if this day could pack as much meaning in fewer words as the founding fathers could!!!

          • Wow!

            Your comment is not showing up so I reposted in brackets:
            [The general welfare clause is not a blanket right for Congress to pass whatever laws it wants. Congresses lawmaking powers are restrictioned to those aspects of the general welfare that are defined specifically in section 8, subsequent to that clause. Drug enforcement is not one of those enumerated powers.]

            You claimed in the last comment that Congress was specifically restricted by the Constitution to be prohibited from restricting narcotics. This is not true. Your stance here is that congress can only do what is Clause 1 of Section 8 and following.This is also not true. The beginning of section 8 is not simply there to fill space, it specifically establishes (among the general welfare quote and previous quote) the fact that Federal laws must have the same word of law applied to the entire country ” but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” IF the first part of Section 8 did not hold any legal power, Federal government could hold double standards holding one state above the law and another state below it. This cannot happen. Section 8 in it’s entirety as with the rest of the Constitution ALL holds legal weight. Again, this is a case of following the entire law, not picking and choosing what to follow.

            You claim that using Section 8 is being used as a unrestricted blanket argument when applied to drug enforcement. For this to be true, you must provide irrefutable proof that drugs do not cause ANY harm to the public and that the all the votes of the congress for the act were in a deliberate attempt to violate the Constitution. After all, your claim is now attacking the intentions of the congress that voted on the act, that not only can narcotics not cause harm to society, but that Congress was aware of this fact but made the law for whatever reason, but not for the reasons as allowed by the Constitution.

            Until this proof is provided, the fact remains that the Constitution does not actually prohibit drug enforcement in the same way it does not prohibit driving licences, and that the federal law established by congress is in fact the law of the land and supreme to the state’s assertion to be higher than the Constitution.

          • Vizzini

            Your interpretation is fallacious. I refer you to James Madison’s Federalist 41 where he addresses explicitly the misinterpretation you are making. That’s probably why my post went into moderation, because i added a link and excerpt from that paper.

            www(dot)constitution(dot)org(slash)fed(slash)federa41(dot)htm

            If you assert that it is untrue “congress can only do what is in Clause 1 of Section 8 and following, you are arguing against Madison himself.

            He explicitly states that the enumerated powers that follow are a restriction on the scope of “general welfare.”

          • Wow!

            James Madison was not the only founding father, and many parts of the Constitution were debated between them. Regardless, I don’t follow what someone thinks it should or shouldn’t have been, I only follow what WAS written. If they never intended general welfare to be a reason, they would not have explicitly wrote it down and especially not put it in the same sentence as an important constraint that Federal Law must be applied uniformly. Again, this is a case of not selecting what you want to follow, but following the whole Constitution by the letter. If people think the founders were wrong, then an amendment should be made. Until then, the law is as written.

            Narcotics are not a constitutional right. Right to bear arms is.

          • Vizzini

            Madison explains why the general welfare clause is there and its relation to the rest of the text. Did you even read the paper?

          • Wow!

            Madison gives the example in warfare that the power to not only defend but to attack and gather resources are necessary. These are the only case where the congresses legislative ability is near limitless (given it does not violate the other aspects of the Constitution).

            It does NOT mean that general welfare is not a reason to legislate, but that it has higher scrutiny than other quantified powers. Even Madison notes, why even include the notion of “general welfare” if enumerated powers are absolute and vice versa? The purpose of the enumerated powers are to “to explain and qualify [General welfare clause] by a recital of particulars”. He says it would not make sense if the enumerated powers did not “explain nor qualify the general meaning”. Note that it does not remove general welfare, but to point out specific situations where the congress has most complete authority.

            Again, if general welfare was not a reason, why include it in the first place? If general welfare is not a reason to legislate, then similarly the ability to tax is not possible by congress as taxation is not stated in the enumerated rights if you are to assume that the first line holds no legal weight.

            If the argument is that the enumerated powers are the checks, it isn’t even like the enumerated powers can’t be abused either. Madison says the congresses ability to tax could be “A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances…”

            That is because the enumerated powers are not the check. The Executive and Judicial branch are. The enumerated powers are a clarification to the first line, not a substitution for it.

            Again, you cannot pick and choose what you want to follow. General welfare clause cannot exist without the enumerated powers AND vice versa.

          • Vizzini

            You have an unparalleled ability to get things backwards.

            Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

            Above, Madison presents the objections of those who say that the general welfare clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” He immediately calls this a “misconstruction” and explains why:

            Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.

            Above, he says that it is the enumeration of powers that prevents the general welfare clause from being an unlimited grant of power, but even without enumeration of powers, he thinks that it would have been a very strange way to describe an authority to regulate in all possible cases.

            But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

            “Qualify” in this usage means to restrict. By saying that the enumerated powers “qualify” the more general statement, he means that they restrict the function of the general statement to the particular items listed. Congress can levy taxes and act in the general welfare in the areas specified by the enumerated powers.

            That reading, which Madison is clearly explaining, is the only way to make sense of the ninth and tenth amendments. If Congress has unlimited power to legislate except where expressly forbidden, then what rights do the people retain under the ninth amendment that are not to be “denied or disparaged?”

            When he tenth amendment speaks of powers delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, it is speaking of a particular, enumerated set of powers, otherwise there are no powers left to reserve to the States or the People.

            It is not saying that the Congress gets to legislate whatever powers it deems necessary for the general welfare and the states and people are left with the scraps. The Constitution would never have been ratified if that was understood to be the meaning at the time.

            If you can’t get that, I don’t know what else to say. This is basic, mainstream understanding of constitutional construction.

          • Wow!

            Never did I say congress had an unlimited power to legislate. They have an ALMOST unlimited power on topics covered by their enumerated powers EXCEPT for those restrictions outlined elsewhere in the Constitution. In addition, the enumerated powers are a clarification of the general welfare and taxation. It does not eliminate that phrase as I explained earlier, if you do that, then congress would not have the ablity to tax.

            And again, even you say “Qualify” means to restrict. It does not mean to eliminated. A law has higher scrutiny when it covers general welfare that is without a definite limit as outlined in the enumerated powers. General welfare is still written in the Constitution just as taxation is. Which is why I keep saying you can’t ignore one part of the Constitution because it isn’t meshing with your argument.

            Congress does actually get to legislate for the general welfare and the people get what is left. That is clearly stated in the 10th amendment (we already went through this). The people are entitled to the rights outlined in the Constitution and to the benefit of the check and balances of the three branches. Again, the enumerated powers are NOT the checks and balances. The THREE BRANCHES are the check and balance. Why is it so important to vote? Because getting the right people in office DOES make a difference and truly is the check of power. I even gave the same example Madison gave, what stops Congress from making any old law using taxation as an excuse? Surely taxation is defined int he enumerated powers, yet even the enumerated powers can be abused as written. They are not the check. Executive and Judicial branch are, (and the armed population of course).

            Jcitizen also brought up the point that drug enforcement falls under taxation. I wanted to avoid this argument because I am certain you would just claim it to be an overreach of the original words, but you are making that claim regardless.

            Again, weapons are a Constitutional Right, narcotics are not.

          • Vizzini

            All I can say is, thank God you’re not on the Supreme Court. There is adequate scholarship to support my point of view to be found all over. If James Madison himself isn’t sufficient for you, perhaps try reading some work by Randy Barnett or Andrew Napolitano.

          • Wow!

            The Constitution says what it says without any need for reinterpretation to omit lines that were written down for a reason. I would rather have a clear minded and armed population than one made passive by the government via narcotics. If you think differently, change the law by voting, don’t reinterpret it because others don’t agree. That is how we get gun control.

          • jcitizen

            Even narcotics are legal if you – wait for it – pay the tax. Of course no law enforcement arm of the government would give a a tax stamp on a parcel of drugs unless you had a good reason to make, hold, or transport them.

          • Wow!

            Yes, but our discussion is on wither or not the CSA is legal at all. Recreational marijuana for example is illegal, but states are asserting that they have authority to oppose federal law just as they have established gun control to oppose the Constitution.

            Vizzini’s point is that it is not legal, the last point being on if the first line of Section 8 has legal weight. My point of view that restriction of narcotics is legal regardless of the states since federal trumps state. The difference being that weapons are a Constitutional right that “shall not be infringed” while narcotics are not.

          • jcitizen

            Yes, I know what you mean – many seem to think driving a car is a God given right, but it is only a privilege – no way is it a Constitutional right.

            It seems in what I’ve read over the years that if a legal question is not covered by the Bill of Rights, then the Commerce Clause usually covers the rest. So if a product would otherwise be legal in ordinary commerce, but is determined to be worthy of regulating, or outright banned; then affixing a tax to it with attending documents can cover almost everything else. Every time i read about an arrest for drugs, the news item always says “possession of drugs without a tax stamp” So I assume many of such laws literally have the tax mention in the violation terms.

          • Vizzini

            Prior to the progressive era when commerce clause jurisprudence was corrupted beyond repair, it was understood that the commerce clause was much more limited — meant to regulate actual trade and transport activities, not an excuse to delve into every aspect of human life.

            Consider Congress understood that to ban alcohol nationally would require a Constitutional amendment that the commerce clause was insufficient justification for a blanket criminalization of a popular substance and the subsequent war on citizens necessary to enforce it.

            The Harrison Act of 1914 was arguably unconstitutional in the parts where it restricted consumption and domestic production. Congress had the right to ban importation and interstate transport under the commerce clause, but under jurisprudence at the time had no power to regulate intrastate production, sale and consumption. But public opinion then, like now, runs so anti-drug that the Act wasn’t challenged on those grounds. It was successfully challenged relating to doctors prescribing opiates to addicts as the court ruled that Congress has no power to regulate medical practice (imagine that, in these days of FDA tyranny!).

            Originally, the commerce clause simply meant that Congress could lay tariffs on commerce, regulate imports and exports and either prevent states from laying tariffs and barriers to trade or regulate the degree they did so.

            It was not a grant to allow Congress to regulate all facets of every single thing that crosses state lines. And now even crossing state lines is not necessary as in the FDR-era Wickard decision, part of the commerce clause corruption, the courts ruled that goods don’t even have to be intended for sale, no less for interstate sale to come under the aegis of the commerce clause. One of the most pernicious unconsitutional decisions ever.

          • Cymond

            “Why stop murderers and rapists? By your logic they are going to keep doing their crime so why should we waste time stopping them?”

            Nice strawman.

          • Wow!

            Its not a straw man when enforcing narcotics and murders/rapists are covered by the LAW. The subject matter is literally the same thing. You can’t pick and choose which laws you want to follow. Want to change things? Change the LAW.

          • retrocon

            No, there is no explicitly protected constitutional right to keep and bear meth.

          • Vizzini

            Ninth Amendment.

            Rights don’t have to be explicitly protected: government powers are explicitly limited.

            There is no Constitutional power granted to the federal government that justifies locking people up for drug use/possession/sale. The Commerce Clause would justify the application of tariffs. That’s all.

          • retrocon

            I agree, except I did say explicitly… that meant enumerated.

            So my statement is 100% correct. The 10th and 9th amendments will battle occasionally, but neither are the business of the Feds.

            The second amendment is a politically specific amendment based on preventing the tyranny of previous governments, just as most of the BoR.

        • Wow!

          “No victim, no crime” is a stupid argument that holds no basis in law. Don’t fall for the libertarian and liberal propaganda that implies that gun ownership is illegal and so if we want to support guns, we have to support other lawlessness like marijuana, BLM, etc.

          SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED Is our defense. We are on the side of the law but we have politicians who are criminals. Our action then is not how to comply with criminals, but how not to be caught by them. Stay up to date on legislation, talk to other people (do not be afraid to voice your opinion), vote, and above all else, do not comply (but of course keep that secret. You can do all of the above but if you do not do the last part, you aren’t doing anything against illegal gun control.

        • E Wolfe

          “Mala in se” refers to acts that are bad all by themselves, such as violent crimes. The term “mala prohibita” refers to acts that are illegal even though they may not be actually evil, such as public indecency. … Acts that are “mala prohibita” aren’t always necessarily wrong, but through legislative act they’ve been criminalized, usually by public or a puritanical busy-bodys demand.

        • frankspeak

          restrictions on mg’s will probably stay..although it’s nice to say goodbye to the CLEO…restrictions on AOW’s seem pointless

      • frankspeak

        like most govt agencies..they’d like to cut their workload….

    • mad dog

      I’m gonna stock up as soon as they sign the paper, we’re gonna need them for the patriotic moral right wing / left wing commy pervert nuts war that’s coming..
      you will need one if you want to go out hunting, before it’s open warfare house to house.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        lol
        Right “urban commando”.
        Like your fat a-s could run from one house to the next.
        Maybe if the next house had some hot dogs on the grill.
        #makeamericacakeagain

        • mad dog

          I’m fit as a fiddle, 3 tour combat vet, Ohio militia since the day I got out.
          I’m not a sissy coward lard like you and your family/friends.
          My grandfather was combat infantry and fought in ww1 and ww2 , my dad was combat infantry for 40 years korea and nam., 4 tours and I was combat infantry 3 tours. Panama, Grenada and the gulf war.
          and I love combat, I get to blow the heads off dipchits like you, cant wait, hope it starts soon.
          you wont survive..
          The first kill is the hardest, 2nd ,3rd and so on is nothing..
          I’m past my first…, I killed several men who tried to kill me.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Does it ever dawn on you rednecks who post memes about isis all day how you’re literally just the hillybilly version of it, dreaming of running around murdering trans or gay people for not being like you

          • mad dog

            does it ever occur to you sissy gay liberals we don’t give a damn what you think ?

          • MIstwalker

            Everyone’s a commando on the internet, eh? The way you’re ranting about murdering people you disagree with politically, you belong in a prison cell or a psychiatric hospital. If you actually try to carry out what you’re threatening, you’re pretty likely to end up in one of those, or dead in a hail of police bullets, before you can do much harm.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Don’t worry, his redneck a-s doesn’t have the balls to do anything.
            He probably locks his doors at redlights with panhandlers.
            Lol
            All talk.

          • mad dog

            I want a war to kill off you sissy gay cowards, how’s that a threat..
            I didn’t say I’ll start it, I just plan on joining in when it starts and I will.
            I really do hope it happens.., I loved combat, was never so alive in my life except when men were trying to kill me and I got them first.., I’m addicted to it now.
            I wanna do it again.

          • Ebby123

            Ok, now you crossed the line. STFU mad dog, you do not represent us.

          • retrocon

            All the comments on which you guys are commenting have been deleted. Too bad. But, from this comment, I am betting on troll. I’ve been seeing a lot of anti-gun types trying to make our communities look like crazy inbred rednecks to get hosting sites or discussion threads shut down, or give progressives fodder for MSNBC discussions.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Nah, mad dog’s sincere lack of humor is a sign of the True Believer™; they are out there. He meant everything he said, at least insofar as he wanted them to be true.

          • Ebby123

            Much like a rabid animal, that type are past hope.

          • Ebby123

            They Mods must have just deleted them. As of about 2hrs ago he was still posting… what a disgusting human being.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Right, I personally know people like him and they werent “planted” to make me look bad.

          • Ebby123

            Yeeeah that’s not what he, or anyone else here said. Read it again.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Uh…
            “I love combat, I get to blow the heads off dipchits like you, cant wait, hope it starts soon.
            you wont survive..”

          • Ebby123

            OK. He said it.
            As I keep reading I’m finding more and more of this professional Troll’s bull. You were right.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            I dont think hes trolling, dude.

            He is a genuine redneck, racist nut bag and I cant figure out why he hasnt been banned.

          • AC97

            Well, now all of his comments are gone, so I believe that “n” word comment of his did him in with the mods.

          • Ebby123

            Wow… I mean… just wow.
            This is what happens when you listen to Alex Jones.

            INFOWARS – Not even once. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c29d702c2e3a2fdb8b1d73f6c1368d85bf2dcc89627fcca6bff7a99b07a64ee7.jpg

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            I think the election was an “all clear” for the crazies to come out in the open.

          • AC97

            Left and right alike.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Thats true, to a certain extent, but hate crimes have spiked since the election. So have protestors but they have been mainly non-violent.
            Last weekend someone sprayed swastikas all over Rice University for gods sake.

          • Mr. Privilege

            Yes the rise in FAKE “hate crimes” committed by butthurt leftists has been quite troubling.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Are you going to play innocent snowflake or do you have the balls to just come out and say how much you hate black people and gays?

          • Mr. Privilege

            I hate black people and gays if they are leftist lunatics. I hate them just as much as I hate the garden variety leftist lunatic. They are all leftist lunatics in my book and receive equal amounts of well deserved hatred and scorn.

            Fake “Hate Crimes” are a problem that needs to be addressed. Were it not for her habitual reporting of hate crime hoaxes, Rachel Dolezal would still be living her life as a little known NAACP chapter head and fake black person.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            lol
            Thanks for letting us know how stupid you are early in…..komrade.
            #f-uckrussia

          • Mr. Privilege

            Looks like some Russian Hackers got a hold of your device. Your comment doesn’t make much sense, but it appears to be randomly bot-posting talking points written by David Brock from Media Matters. You might want to check your anti-virus software to ensure you have not been infected.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            lol
            Tell us more about your thoughts on minorities and gays.

          • Mr. Privilege

            Sorry cuck, the days of you forcing folks to do your virtue signaling dance are over. Better find a new tactic because that one is played out. I’m only trying to help out here.

          • bmrtoyo

            notorious: yes the paid soros protestors fake hate crimes are indeed quite scary

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Blow me
            I’m a Texan

          • Ebby123

            That is being suggested by literally NO ONE HERE BUT YOU. Please leave the virtue-signaling red-herrings at home.

            No matter how hard you try, you cannot make us into the monsters you need us to be to justify your own horrible behavior towards us.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            This is like how nazis say “we’re not nazis, we’re just white nationalists!” nowadays and can’t even own up to what they are. “You’re horrible behavior toward us, people who want to purge from society anyone who doesn’t fit our standards” lmfao. You make yourselves into monsters plenty fine on your own, but good job sticking up for this whack job ranting about the “pervy” left. I’m sure he has a real nuanced understanding of anything non-heteronormative.

          • Ebby123

            Lol. No, not even close. We’re all pretty boring middle-class people here. 9-5 working, tax paying, mostly A-political people who just want to be left alone to raise our families. There is no “purge” desired except to purge our throats from the left-driven agenda that’s been forcefully rammed down it for the better part of a decade.

            We want. to be left. Alone.
            Unmolested. Unharrased. Not being called names like “heteronormative” because we didn’t buy into the new pop-psychology fantasy that the SJW fringe are trying to force on us.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            “pop-psychology fantasy” like what, that trans people exist? lmao. “just want to be left alone” so for example is that what telling “tranny” jokes and then crying about how you get called out for being awful is, just wanting to be left alone? free to express your garbage opinions into a vacuum where nobody is allowed to respond for all eternity? otherwise not sure how you think “sjws” are bothering you if your so apolitical and minding your own business. unless this is just typical “kidsnowadays” obsolete old man complaining.

          • Ebby123

            Pop-psychology fantasy like 42 genders. Gender is a physical characteristic, not an emotional state.

            Who was telling tranny jokes here? It certainly wasn’t me. You seem to be tilting against the windmill.

            You, a rude, derisive and condescending SJW, are actively bothering me. You have made baseless accusations about my beliefs because I dared to disagree with the way you were talking to people. You attacked my character because I disagreed with the way you were treating people.

            PS. For the record I’m a Jewish pro-LGBT libertarian. I didn’t vote for Trump, but this kind of “Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist sexist homophobic etc” is exactly why you lost the election.

            Keep it up if you want to keep losing.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Projecting your white male heteronormativity status quo onto the world is “normal” having to hear anything outside that is “pushing an agenda” and “bothering you” funny how that works out for you isn’t it?

            “I disagreed with the way you were treating people.” LMFAO you came in to stand up for an inforwars whackjob ranting about hunting down the “pervy left” to murder with guns. Because you right wingers love clinging onto predatory people or institutions that love punching down and trying to frame it as if your some noble freedom fighters for doing it. I’m guessing you think nazis pushing for ethnic cleansing is them just having a “difference of opinion” as well.

            “why you lost the election” oh yeah I was really rooting for hillary. lol it’s like your boring obtuse privileged white guy personality who thinks obama was some radical muslim socialist black panther comes straight off an assembly line. what’s funny is the election went the way it did exactly because there are no actual leftist options to vote for. a black guy with the name hussein pulled in record numbers of voters right after the bush years, because people were naively hoping he was actually going to be putney swope. meanwhile trump, the embodiment of capitalism and the white male id barely pulled mitt romney numbers. boring self-absorbed white guy sociopaths born into comfort who think their beliefs and experiences apply to every other person on the planet are actually exactly what people sick of.

          • Ebby123

            Lol… you just don’t get it.

            Tolerance doesn’t mean “Free to have opinions that agree with me”.
            Tolerance means “I strongly disagree with your views, but I support your right to have them.”

            Enjoy your continued electoral losses in 2018 and 2020. Apparently you have learned nothing from your mistakes in this last election.

          • bmrtoyo

            DonTheAcidHead : Are you still sitting at the ELECT Hillary, headquarters parking lot ? lol ! your’e team lost get it , were tired of youre stupid liberal policies.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            if you are starting from a point that’s already challenging the humanity of other people, you don’t get to then complain about not being tolerated. you don’t tolerate intolerance, moron. and not tolerating you is not “doing the same thing” or “not tolerating a difference of opinion.” not “tolerating” you is self defense. Why are you even on a gun blog if you apparently believe all violence is equal lol. Anyone who wants to murder you just has a “difference opinion” than you. context has no meaning or relevance apparently. we all live in some vacuum where everything everyone does is just “speech.”

            jesus why is this like rocket science to you people. other than conservatives just seem to default to predatory behavior that targets the worst off people and liberals just enable it because they’re more interested in an orderly guaranteed fascism than a disorderly or uncertain justice.

            what can you expect from a libertarian though lmfao. it never even occurs to you types than being born as a well off able bodied white person might have had something to do with why you even though there’s anything viable about libertarianism at all lol

          • Ebby123

            Or in other words, “I can tolerate your views as long as I approve of them”…. which is exactly what I said.

            Congrats on living up to your own stereotype.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7f600e8583fbb29de422f77fb8d3b5e69f8d74acf9d5a810c4fac4add9b01e3.jpg

          • bmrtoyo

            Don’sAcidTrip: hey buzzy , why dont you just stay in Berkley ,and rinse whats left inside your’e empty head down the drain

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            I can see reading and nuance is a real struggle for you

          • bmrtoyo

            DonAcidBrain: , i see you got the jist ,really that all that matters

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Got the gist of your rambling old man “those kids and their wacky tobacy” comment? yeah I think I caught that

          • bmrtoyo

            donAcidBrain: you really think trans and gay people love you using them as a liberal shoehorn ?

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            not a liberal, not that I expect you to know what that or very many words actually mean, being a guy who probably reblogs memes about how hitler is a socialist, the kkk are leftists, thinks obama was a secret muslim tyrant, etc.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Sure, tubbs.
            I bet if one of them dang hippy librel comys took over your neighborhood Dennys you’d be the first to join up.
            Hahaha.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbb9bcbc7dfa80bb7ba57ec24b9e593db64329bad3cd83269b0d2ee31cb6368e.jpg

          • mad dog

            I seriously doubt that , I’m the guy front left with the dog. I have already done more than you ever will. and dude, you cant even spell liberal…
            since when is Militia liberal…
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7a349b00ffb08d2fd991ae43cf80407677a6237038e1360eb5c521046aa4afe.jpg

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Hey, I like you girls matching Halloween costumes. Did your mom take this before trick or treating?

            Im guessing combined IQ of…..17?

          • Ebby123

            GET. OUT.

            You do not represent us.
            You are not welcome here.

            You are at best, a professional troll.

            At worst you are a pathetic attention seeking bufoon, who’s own complete lack of OPSEC shows that you has never even met the kind of patriot warrior you claim to be.

          • mad dog

            the Notorious???
            ha ha , you are a N I G G E R wanna be.

          • AC97

            If there were ever any doubt on whether you’re an absolute moron or not, this comment puts it to rest.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Well, there wasnt much doubt.

          • AC97

            True, from the radical crap he’s been spewing, to the constant stream of BS coming from him.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            I was wondering how long it would take you to use your favorite word.
            lol
            Why the all caps, bud? Do you need to concentrate spelling out such a big word?
            Actually I would “wannabe” Tom Brady but hes kinda old so I guess I would pick Steph Curry.

      • jamezb

        The ATF withdrew the proposal after reading your comment. Thanks.

        • mad dog

          cry and protest, maybe that’ll work ???

    • Just Sayin’

      Yeah, and you could use the same logic to deregulate machineguns as they did for silencers, as they are never used in crimes in the U.S. (not holding my breath…)

      • Proud_to_be_American

        Since, the NFA there has been only one reported Machine Gun attack. And That was by a cop with a department weapon

        * to my knowledge…

        • Michael c coley

          maybe not an “attack” but i remember a class 3 dealer mowing down some dude with a full auto mini 14 not to long ago in self defense

        • jess

          Does the North Hollywood bank robbery not count?

          • Chad Hendricks

            If you’re keeping it under the umbrella of LEGAL full auto’s then no. Their weapons were illegally modified. It wouldn’t of made any difference.

          • Norm Glitz

            wouldn’t “have” made any difference.

          • Reef Blastbody

            No, those were illegally modified AK pattern rifles. Proud was referring to crimes committed with NFA registered MGs. I think there was one other, for a grand total of *2*, but I can’t recall any details at the moment, just that all the discussions about registered MGs use in criminal activity has always been limited to 2 occurrences, one being the aforementioned LEO with a department issued weapon.

          • jcitizen

            The 2nd incident you are probably referring to was a legal machine gun that was mistakenly registered to a person that wasn’t qualified. This guy used it to hold up an armored car. The that was technically an improperly registered machine gun – kind of a special and rare case – but it did happen.

        • Bill

          There haven’t been many, but there’s been a few. Extremist groups both right and left and a few professional criminals have used them. Not enough to warrant the NFA, but enough.

          • Duddly Doright

            Using that logic, pressure cookers should fall under the NFA.

          • Kivaari

            Those are NFA items as well. They need to file a form one.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            A devils advocate might argue that the sheer scarcity could be attributable to the effectiveness of the NFA.

        • Kivaari

          Wrong. Try the North Hollywood Shootout, Robert Matthews’ murder of Alan Berg, several shoot-’em- ups around the country. I believe Buford Furrow used a converted Norinco Uzi in the LA Jewish center shooting as well. It varies from source to source. That said, they are rarely used in crimes.

          • Kevin

            Wrong! They all used illegal converted weapons. Not legally owned full autos on form 4’s.

          • Kivaari

            The original comment doesn’t mention legal machine guns. Just since the NFA ’34. Well, lots of crimes since then. If you are saying no legal machineguns have been used, I’d say BS. Look at how many guns have been stolen or lost just by federal agents.

          • Cymond

            The moment a stolen/lost machine gun falls into someone else’s hands, it becomes illegal.

          • Kivaari

            Then the original poster should have said legally registered and owned machine guns on the NFA. Not simply since the NFA as thousands of illegal machine guns are out and about.

          • mad dog

            no guns are illegal.
            you get busted for having the guns in your possession without a tax stamp…

          • mad dog

            they killed all them people in Waco and after the investigation concluded the only thing they did wrong was their full auto tax stamp was delinquent by 2 weeks.
            now don’t say he molested kids, for one thing he didn’t, and since when does the ATF raid a place for child molestation ?That’s not their jurisdiction…
            they were there for the tax stamp

          • Kivaari

            The re-activated hand grenades was an issue as well. One of the survivors even had one in his hand when he surrendered. I feel ATF really screwed up, that the local sheriff should have been used. The one video I’ve seen regarding Waco was poorly done and made several false claims.

          • Norm Glitz

            The tax stamp was an excuse to play assault cowboys.

          • Cymond

            Yeah, the original poster did a bad job of repeating that old factoid.

            “If you are saying no legal machineguns have been used, I’d say BS. Look at how many guns have been stolen or lost just by federal agents.”

            My statement still stands, though. The moment it is lost or stolen, it is no longer legally owned & registered.

          • mad dog

            unless you have a class 2 license and pay the tax…

          • Cymond

            wat???

            How would someone pay the tax on a stolen machine gun?
            The tax is to transfer (Form 4) or make (Form 1), and the registry is closed, individuals cannot file a Form 1 to make a machine gun anymore.

          • jcitizen

            I don’t know what form you use now, but you can make a machinegun, it is just that it has to be for a CLEO or the military, etc., etc.

          • Cymond

            *I* cannot make a machine gun that way. I would need to get a manufacturing FFL, and that business would need to pay the Special Occupation Tax (SOT). It’s a ton of red tape and expense. Even then, I can only use the machine gun for certain purposes, such as testing or demonstration for potential buyers.

            My details are probably a bit off, but my point remains that a private individual cannot simply “pay the tax” to make a machine gun like Mad Dog said.

            On a side note, I’m glad he’s gone, but a little sad that his idiocy was removed. His comments were so asinine that responses were required, and those responses don’t make much sense out of context.

          • jcitizen

            Yes, your statement is accurate – I’m a little behind on CLEO requirements, because I heard a new ATF twix on the old letter requirement has changed; but basically under the old rule, if you had all that you mentioned, and as long as the CLEO was interested in keeping up with developments, you could keep several designs around for testing or loaning to law enforcement or other authorized organizations; for as long as you paid your yearly license and special occupational taxes.

            Yes it is all a hassle, as I used to do it when I was young before the GCA ’86 law came around. There were still sales samples that were as bad, because you couldn’t keep them after closing your business either. You had three choices; 1. sell to another SOT, 2. sell or give away to a CLEO, 3. Let the BATF have it for destruction. I had good relations with the BATF, and they didn’t like having to destroy things, the paperwork on their end was a nightmare too. If you found an unregistered weapon in my local district, they would pull out all stops to try and get it legally registered to the person or SOT turning it in. IF they could find ANY records in US military or manufacturing matching the serial numbers, they would simple register it to whoever attempted to abandon it.

            Those were the good ol’ days! 😉

          • mad dog

            the weapons were not illegal, the full auto conversion thingy was..
            you don’t get busted for an illegal converted machine gun, you get busted for the possession of the full auto conversion part.

          • Cymond

            Yes, doing the conversion work is illegal without the proper paperwork.

            Try drilling an autosear home in an AR-15 and see what the ATF says about it if you don’t believe me.

          • Norm Glitz

            Same difference.

          • Tom Currie

            Aha – we have a troll – or an illiterate – in either case, Kivaari apparently either cannot understand or refuses to recognize the difference between a legally owned machine gun and some half-assed do-it-yourself “conversion”

          • mad dog

            pay the tax they demand, usually a 200 dollar fee.and any firearm is legal…ATF are tax police. not cops

          • Norm Glitz

            Until they arrest you. Then what?

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Really? So why did the church in Waco Texas get burned down?

          • GR Arnold

            My point exactly. If you complete the forms and send all the information and pay the tax at time of purchase then ATF has all the information on you they will ever need. It can all be done at time of purchase which is when your responsibility and accountability begins anyway. The current full auto ban of 1986 is both unconstitutional and simply paranoid-ridiculous.

          • MIstwalker

            The original claim was that only one crime had been committed with a machine gun. It didn’t specify NFA or illegal. The reason for the ATF regs are crimes committed with machine guns period, not just crimes committed with legal machine guns. Thus, it’s entirely fair to bring up crimes committed with illegal machine guns.

            Recall also that these regs are on the books in response to mobsters in the 20s mowing each other down with Thompson SMGs and BARs. The problem was very real at the time, and the tax largely worked, making it a financial hardship to own one of these guns. In modern days, though, the tax not being updated to jive with inflation meant it wasn’t any kind of deterrent anymore, so they banned machine guns made after 1986, which profoundly inflated the prices of existing guns.

            If fully auto guns were cheap, there’s plenty of historical evidence to suggest they’d be used in crimes. What’s stopping them from being used now is their scarcity and high price. This is why the full-auto guns we see being used for crime are illegal modifications, and not legally owned NFA stuff.

            That’s not to say the system we use is good, though. I’d like to see a system where getting the firearms requires a licensing process, eliminating the ban on full-auto firearms made after ’86. Making people accountable for their full-auto weapons could have a similar preventative effect, if the law were intelligently crafted, while also allowing more law-abiding citizens to know the joys of owning and firing full-auto firearms by not jacking up the prices.

            But, we’re not going to have that happen, because we can’t get the two parties to agree on anything rational, and the midway point between two delusional viewpoints doesn’t actually end you up anywhere good.

          • Major Tom

            The whole “mobsters mowing each other/everything down with Thompsons/BAR’s” thing is a Hollywood fiction. Those occurrences were statistically rare but played up by the media at the time.

            Kinda like how today’s media does the AR or AK or any gun that’s not a musket.

          • Cymond

            “The reason for the ATF regs are crimes committed with machine guns period, not just crimes committed with legal machine guns. Thus, it’s entirely fair to bring up crimes committed with illegal machine guns.”

            That makes as much sense as saying that Prohibition worked because it reduced legal drinking to zero, despite the widespread availability of bootleg booze.

            I would argue that crimes committed with illegal machine guns just confirm my view that criminals can still get ahold of machine guns despite the NFA.

            In short please don’t use the ineffectiveness of ATF regs as justification for those same ATF regs.

          • Amplified Heat

            Speaks more to a lack of effectiveness of full auto to criminals, as much as anything. Illegal burp guns in the Crack years faded away, and not only because of ATF action, but the rise of cheap reliable pocket autos like Glock or Lorcin (before it was mostly revolvers on the budget market)

          • Colonel K

            I respectfully must disagree with some of your assertions. I’ve been in the NFA world for over 40 years. When I started collecting during the “golden age” of the 70s – mid-80s, a MAC-10 could be purchased for $100. I paid $125 for mine, which I considered outrageous at the time. The tax tripled the cost, but it was far from prohibitive at that point. Other machine guns were more expensive, but nearly all of them were well under a grand (MP40s at $400, Stg-44s at $350, Colt M16s for $600-$800). Yet there is no evidence to suggest the affordability of registered MGs led to any increase in their crime use. As far as the gangster scene of the 20s and 30s are concerned, from what I’ve read, nearly all of those guns were stolen or purchased surreptitiously, much as is done today. While the 1934 Act was intended to deal with mobster weapons, what few people realize is that the originally conceived bill was much broader and included handguns. The handgun ban/registration was removed, but the making of “concealable” firearms converted from rifles and shotguns was left in. Sub-machine guns and assault rifles make for fun range toys, but are of dubious utility in most gunfights. A good shotgun or semi auto rifle will be more effective, but the public image has been swayed by 90 years of Hollywood glorifying the SMG, whether it’s hosing down rival gang members or Japanese Zeros (yes, Alan Ladd did it in ). The truth is somewhere in between, but few are inclined to listen to reason. Such is life.

          • Mr. Privilege

            Oh! So you are one of those guys who lobbies against opening up the registry to “protect your investments” by denying the rest of the populace full-auto. Nice try with the “You guys don’t REALLY want full-auto! They are pretty much useless, anyway! That’s why every military in the world uses semi-auto small arms for their infantry! No one wants that full-auto stuff, guys!”

            I’m sure after you made that post you crept down to your basement to stare at all your toys that younger guys like me will NEVER be able to afford thanks to old geezers like you “protecting your investments” by lobbying to keep the registry closed. You are scum.

          • Amplified Heat

            So wrong, on so many points. Gangsters used cheap pocket guns during Prohibition, same as today. Machineguns were retardedly expensive and a total status symbol for guys like Capone. Dillinger & Clyde’s gang stole their guns from armories. The St Valentines Day Massacre was probably committed with Chicago PD weapons, if not by the Chicago PD officers on Capone’s payroll. Silencers were banned because starving Depression vagrants were poaching game. Machineguns were banned because of the Bonus Army rioters on Capital Hill. Short rifles, shotguns, and AOWs were banned because pistols were meant to be banned along with them (this at least was in direct response to a Prohibition crime wave, though instigated by fed enforcement)

          • Amplified Heat

            Or a real machinegun? You do realize there is no magic involved in the technology, and is quite easy to make reliable/safe –in fact, moreso than semi-auto (which anyone who’s built a legal semi-auto from an open-bolt parts kit can attest)

          • Bill

            Right wing extremist groups in the 80’s were known for conversions, and attempts at stealing military weapons. I believe the Bruder Schweigen peeled open an armored bank truck with a bazooka, or planned to.

          • cawpin

            LEGAL full auto firearms used in crimes is what he’s talking about.

          • Proud_to_be_American

            You said it yourself “CONVERTED” that in and of itself is a felony!

        • Cymond

          I saw a newspaper clipping of a second one. A guy’s wife was murdered with numerous rounds of 380, and the guy was the registered owner of a M-11. He claimed that it was lost/stolen but he didn’t report it.

          I don’t know how it turned out, but it sounds pretty suspicious to me.

        • Kivaari

          So you are saying that registration of guns is a solution to crime. Since no NFA guns have been used in crimes. Really? Just one. What about all those stolen and lost government guns.

      • Tom Currie

        Interestingly enough, based on an article I read a couple of years ago, only one NFA registered machine gun had ever been fired in the commission of a crime – that machine gun was used by a police officer to murder his wife. Personally I’m fine with full-auto weapons remaining under NFA (although I’d love to see the registry opened permanently and the total ban on post-1986 machine guns).

        The total foolishness of the SBR, SBS, and related AOW definitions has become clearly evident over the last few years, first with rifle caliber “pistols” that are simply short barreled ARs and AKs without the buttstock, followed more recently by the short barreled smooth-bore “firearms” that are not pistols, not shot guns, and not AOWs, but some legally undefined “firearm”.

        Currently we have 2 years of possible sanity ahead in congress and 4 years of near-sanity at the white house — that should be sufficient for silencers and the ridiculous “arm braces.” If we can keep congress sane for the next 4 years, maybe we can make some small inroads on the other issues. If by some miracle we can extend sanity or near-sanity for eight years, MAYBE we can start dismantling the sillier parts of the NFA and GCA86

        • Getting rid of hughes would be a good first step. I think that is very doable. I doubt we’ll ever get MGs off the NFA, though I fully support that.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Rolling back the 1986 FOPA ban on sale of newly manufactured automatic firearms to civilians would be a bigger priority, but eliminating their NFA status would be a dream come true.

    • Michel_T

      Just wait… it was leaked to crank-up the anti-gun crowd/media… and Trump will be blamed for it!

    • CJ Klekar

      Pray that that particle of common sense blossoms and grows!

    • retrocon

      ATF is reacting to Trump and his stand on regulation. I see detractors here, but as a Cruz supporter, I can say that if Cruz, or Bush, had been nominated, Hillary would be POTUS, and ATF would be evolving into the gestapho. Why? Middle America saw everyone except Trump as same old D.C. hacks. Yes, we knew better with Cruz and Paul, but most of middle America didn’t.

      This deputy director is trying to favor himself with Trump. Not nearly enough, but a good start.

      • Emperius

        Canadian, unqualified, doubt he was going to do anything.

    • 35Whelan

      They just smell which way the wind is blowing, and don’t want sewage coming back up the pipe.

  • Blake

    Oh my god. Ohmygodohmygodohmygod.

  • Keiichi

    Reading that got me genuinely excited. I don’t remember the last time government did anything that got me excited.

    ?

  • Don Ward

    Elections have consequences. Sometimes they are good.

  • TangledThorns

    This is why elections matter.

    • JASON B

      Yeah, but this paper was written before Trump was elected.

      • RSG

        Proof? I know you said you know an attorney. But that’s not enough. This could’ve been written post election. The only date on it is Inauguration date.

        • JASON B

          Brandon is the acting Department Head and Turk is the #2. Turk is the author. These guys were NOT appointed by Trump. They have both been in these position since the former administration. Turk has been in that position for at least 1.5 years. He did NOT write the paper in 1 day. Nor did he just come up with these ideas since Trump was elected. These are the issues they have been dealing with for years and these are their proposed solutions. Or at least Turk’s.

  • Joe

    They saw which way the winds were blowing and got on board. There are already bills introduced to disband the ATF and I’m sure they were feeling the heat. This is great news and all, but I don’t believe for a second that if there was no HPA and no President Trump, they would come to this conclusion by themselves.

    • JASON B

      This was written before Trump was elected. When they thought Hillary was going to win. Nor is the ATF afraid of proposed legislation to disband it. No bill like that would ever get out of committee.

      It is simple common sense. Even the Director of the ATF, the author of this White Paper, can have common sense.

      • Joe

        Where do you see it was written before he was elected? The only date I see is 1/20/17, the exact date he was sworn in.

        • dootdootbeep

          If you’ve ever written a multipage white paper, you would know they aren’t completed in a day.

          • Joe

            I’ve never been in the government, but here in the private sector a 9 page opinion paper in two months doesn’t sound too daunting.

  • Joe

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with gun Christmas, but we can’t be satisfied with this. We need to keep fighting and go after the NFA itself. What you see here is the ATF changing it’s opinion on current NFA items. They could easily change it again if the winds blow a different direction. We need to go after the law that is the bedrock of their authority.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      Very good point. The easier it is to change to our benefit, the easier it is to change to our detriment. If some guys can come together and all of a sudden de-regulate items and change definitions, that means they can just as easily regulate new things and change definitions against us.

      • Paul White

        They weren’t saying they can deregulate; they were advocating that legislatures knock silencers off the NFA. And pointing out problems/redundancies/pointlessness of regulations they’re tasked with enforcing is appropriate for an agency.

    • mad dog

      They will change them, we’re bound by State Dept. Doc 7277, the UN disarmament treaty, world wide disarmament, abolishment of borders and the nation states themselves.
      World socialist government.
      you gonna submit ?, I’m not, …….gonna need silencers..

      • Major Tom

        I need more automatic weapons and heavy artillery. What good is a good old fashioned resistance if I can’t get a good belt-fed MG or some 60/120 mortars?

        • mad dog

          it’s going to be brutal hit and runs, no army or massing up needed, there’s too many of us.., most wont even get a shot and the war will be over.
          we got 80 million combat experienced vets alone not on active duty
          we are the worlds largest army..
          if we all pop 1 invader, that’s 80 million dead..
          the world combined cant field an army 80 million strong, but we can..we’re here and we’re armed and stocked already.
          I hope we get to prove it…, I love war…sissys don’t come back..

          • Ebby123

            Shut up you useless poser.
            Go back to your grown-up paintball club and study what OPSEC is.

    • Cal S.

      The more they roll it back the more irrelevant it becomes. Arguably, it could be seen as frivolous. You’re right, though. With vigilance, the opportunity could be seized to do away with it altogether.

      • Ebby123

        Prove it to be antiquated and irrelevant like we have with suppressors, and in a few years the foundation is laid to chop is altogether.

  • nova3930

    For every one, thou shalt remove two. Seems like it’s a winner for us….

  • Joseph Von Banda

    Ummm 7n6 #notmyatf

    • Rick O’Shay

      Except they kinda sorta address the whole AP ammunition issue, too.

      • mad dog

        just drill out a metal jacket, and press in a piece of tungsten welding rod, clip it off, file it down and wala…
        the lead acts like a hammer and pushes the hardened steel through anything..
        add some powder behind the metal tip you press in and …the compression of the powder sets it off and it explodes in the slot you drilled and forces the welding rod tip out like a bullet.
        or drill out a bullet and fill with powder and cover the tip with wax, it explodes upon impact..
        put little eye hooks all around your doors and windows on the inside, during a riot or an attack, or hell even a cop raid, if you know it’s coming, hang chicken wire and build a cage, they”ll bust in through the door into a cage and you mow them down while sitting in a chair laughing at them.

        • David Michael Homer

          …what? Are you advocating an ambush on an LEO?

          • mad dog

            cant you read…

          • David Michael Homer

            “Put little eye hooks all around your doors and windows on the inside,
            during a riot or an attack, or hell even a cop raid”. This is the kind of dribble the Left uses against us; modifying a bullet to AP characteristics or booby-trapping your house against a lawful LE entrance would surely be seen as malice aforethought. God forbid you utilize the aforementioned methods of metallurgical ingenuity and find yourself in a legal situation. Can I read? Apparently not. -Stay golden.

          • mad dog

            quit being a sissy…..

          • Paul White

            and posting that he hopes he gets to square off. ANd claiming to be a combat vet (and for some reason dragging his dad and grandad’s military service into it–my grandaddy fought in the Sicilian campaign but that doesn’t mean SWFA about my own abilities).

        • Rick O’Shay

          Every comment of yours on this post I’ve seen, has confirmed that you need psychiatric help in a big way.

          • ostiariusalpha

            What kind of “powder” is he rambling on about here? That blow he’s shoving up his nose? Because propellant sure as hell doesn’t explode from a simple impact, no matter how forceful.

          • Cymond

            Supposedly black powder is shock sensitive, buy I’ve never checked myself.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Potassium nitrate will never, ever detonate from simple shock, only a sufficient amount of heat will do the trick. You’re not going to get that from just stuffing it in a bullet, unless you add a fricative into the mixture to spark off a reaction.

          • mad dog

            apples and oranges
            get on the same page, why do you people always go off the page and start talking about something other then what the post talks about ?
            did I say nitrates or thermite ?

          • mad dog

            yes it is…….

          • mad dog

            what an idiot…

          • ostiariusalpha

            Why, because I know chemistry?

          • mad dog

            I’m a warrior…I love combat…
            not a sissy like you…

  • Jacen

    So…we can shoulder braces without fear again?….even though people still do it regardless

    • KestrelBike

      If they allow that, then cut the crap with SBRs and SBSs. The only thing I can see them not stomaching at this point is Select Fire.

  • Cal S.

    //ERROR MSG 102
    I’m sorry, the user associated with this account has collapsed. If able, please contact emergency services and direct them to the residence of this user.

    //REPLAY LAST RECORDED SOUND FROM ACCOUNT USER
    “SQUEEEEEEEEEEE”

    • JASON B

      LOL. That’s funny!

  • anon

    >atf straight up endorses silencers being removed from the NFA
    WE IN THA BAG, BABY

  • Harry’s Holsters

    So you still won’t be able to legally shoulder a brace but there is no longer the worry of making a Glock 19 an SBR by shooting it with 2 hands.

    The silencer news is encouraging.

    • mad dog

      absurd, they can only regulate the firearm it’s self, not how you use it..
      it’s color of law, ATF enforce laws on fire arms, they don’t make them…
      their administrative regulations carry no force of law.

      • Harry’s Holsters

        The whole SBR is something. Playing devils advocate and taking the anti gunners side I don’t see how barrel length has anything to do with it. Overall length is all that matters for concealment. It’s easier to conceal a Tavor or X95 than a Sten Gun that has a super short barrel.

        • mad dog

          it’s all in the regulations and the way they word it
          did you know an 1865 colt 45 is not a firearm, you can conceal carry anywhere. it does not use a cartridge and there for under ATF regulations, is not a firearm..

          • Harry’s Holsters

            Yup anything made before 1898 correct? But I also believe there are exemptions for the few machine guns made before then. They are still NFA items and considered firearms. Obviously someone who knew nothing made all of these.

  • D

    I wonder if its an attempt to appease us so we don’t push for the disbanding of the ATF.

    • Joe

      Yep. They’re trying to join the side that’s winning.

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        Well, if you can’t beat ’em…

        • Major Tom

          …rage quit!

          • Amplified Heat

            You mean like the EPA and possibly California?

    • I think this is exactly what we’re seeing here.

    • mad dog

      The ATF is under the Federal Reserve, not the US Government. All alphabet agencies are..
      as long as the federal reserve over see’s ATF taxation, they will be there.
      we must abolish the Federal Reserve.

      • dootdootbeep

        I think you need to go back to school dude. This kind of bullshit doesn’t help our causes.

        • mad dog

          The ATF are tax police dipshit, not cops….

          there’s federal tax on Alcohol, Tobacco and firearms, all require an ATF tax license..

          the ATF over see that tax and the regulations surrounding it.

          my god are you people stupid

      • Kirk Newsted

        Bullshit. Proof?

      • Bill

        Are you high?

        • Keiichi

          Don’t feed the troll…

          • Amplified Heat

            The mad dog has rabies!

          • Paul White

            Looking at his post history I think he actually believes this stuff.

      • jamezb

        The ATF seems to think they are a part of the Justice Department, as evidenced by their own statement at their .gov (government) website. Lose the foil hat- ..Looks silly.
        ———————————————————————————————–
        About the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

        ATF is a law enforcement agency in the United States’ Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. We partner with communities, industries, law enforcement, and public safety agencies to safeguard the public we serve through information sharing, training, research, and use of technology.

        • mad dog

          the ATF, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, enforce tax regulations on those items, they are not part of the government, but rather IRS under the federal reserve, and that’s a fact dipshit.

          they derive their authority from CFR2701, tax on Tobacco, alcohol and firearms.

          • Norm Glitz

            They are NOT under the federal reserve. The federal reserve isn’t even part of the government.

        • mad dog

          dumbass, I knew this since 1990….my god are you people fken stupid

        • mad dog

          The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the “Revenue Laboratory” within the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Internal Revenue.
          see told ya, they gave themselves more power under regulations, not law.

        • mad dog

          google learn how to read and comprehend a statement.
          did I not say all alphabet agencies are under the federal reserve ?
          yes I did.
          they are revenue agents, not police.
          the ATF, DEA, BLM and IRS is under the DOJ
          the DOJ, is under the federal reserve.
          they are not mentioned 1 time in the constitution therefor they are not part of the US government as for the Constitution created the federal government.
          the bill of rights tells the government what it can not do
          the constitution frames the government and dispenses the power to carry out their tasks, only.
          if it’s not there, it’s not part of the federal government.
          go look up Federal reserve in an old set of phone books.
          it’s not in the blue government section, it’s in the yellow pages because it’s a commercial for profit bank.

    • Emperius

      Hm…

      DISBAND

  • NB

    I hate to be a Debbie Downer but this is almost certainly fake.

    • Rick O’Shay

      On what basis?

      • mad dog

        Last I knew, the DEA was considering removing Marijuana from schedule 1, it said so in the white papers. Did it happen ???

        • Rick O’Shay

          WTF are you taking about? Do you need to up your meds again?

          • mad dog

            get a clue, my god, this was just 4 months ago…
            Federal agency considers amending current drug laws and makes the recommendations to do it, and yet it didn’t happen..
            I’m talking to morons here…

    • JASON B

      You are going to fell very silly in the AM.

      • NB

        Well I certainly hope so.

  • Michael R. Zupcak

    Almost Too Friendly

  • Gary Kirk

    Want.. post.. no.. can.. Think.. now…

  • Whatever

    No if we can repeal the Hughes and the whole not buying handguns across state line thing and eliminate the import ban B.S., we should be good to go.

    • Amplified Heat

      Read the white paper; that’s all in there

  • Scott Connors

    The sounds you are hearing are the wailing and gnashing of teeth of all the lost souls in Everytown, Demanding Moms, the Brady Bunch, and all the other Bloomberg astroturf groups. And I expect someone should call the cops for a welfare check on Josh Sugarman, who is probably staring off into space while holding a bottle of pills and a fifth of cheap liquor.

  • Beardedrambler

    Playing ball so they aren’t rejected from the game.

  • i1776

    Amazing. That Turk fella must be trying to keep his Obama job. Don’t trust this.

  • Sunshine_Shooter

    I hope this is legitimate. Don’t think this is a time to rest on our laurels, now is the time to continue to press on and see how much we can get while the getting’s good.

  • ArkhamInmate

    In other words…”We really want to keep our jobs”.

  • mad dog

    Last I knew, the ATF enforces current law and has no authority to change, alter or add additional requirements.
    also, the ATF, like the FBI, DEA and so on, are not part of the US GOVERMENT!, they are tax regulators under the federal reserve.
    They have but 1 duty, collect and administer taxes on taxable items.
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms…only.

    • Nicholas C

      Look up govt deference.

      • mad dog

        don’t care about that.
        as a matter of fact, not as a matter of what they do..
        you got the bar assn., the British aristocratic regency , , enforcing bankruptcy law ( the commercial code) on items taxed by a private foreign bank, the federal reserve.
        it’s not really law, it’s color of law..

      • mad dog

        these laws can and have been beaten.., you have to know how to attack it..
        it’s all in the wording.., then you gotta police them and thwart the cover up…

      • mad dog

        BLM is a prime example, Bureau of land management., they have crossed well over their authority seizing land in western states., well, I forget which one, but 1 governor took all the land back., as for that agency was never given authority by congress to take land, they simply gave that privilege to themselves in the form of regulations..

      • mad dog

        police enforce laws, they don’t make them…they cant make them…

      • Paul White

        He’s claiming the FBI is not a government agency, I think you’re kinda wasting your time

    • jamezb

      The ATF seems to think they are a part of the Justice Department, as evidenced by their own statement at their .gov (government) website. Lose the foil hat-Looks silly.
      ———————————————————————————————————
      About the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

      ATF is a law enforcement agency in the United States’ Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. We partner with communities, industries, law enforcement, and public safety agencies to safeguard the public we serve through information sharing, training, research, and use of technology.

  • Trevor Handermann

    This would be the first time the ATF did something that truly made sense to me….

    • Amplified Heat

      What do you mean? They *always* cover their own rears.

  • glenn cheney

    Who wuddah thunk it.

  • Mr.Don’tGiveAFu

    BATF is just trying to save their ass, its a real possibility that the BATF will no longer be an agency in the near future and they are trying to win public support. End all Gun Laws.

  • They are trying to be reasonable before they get taken to court and benchslapped. Right now they are dictators who can change their rule making process at a whim, with no obligation to give the same legal conclusion to two different individuals. Getting taken to court once could change all that. They are trying to defend their ability to make up the rules as they go. This isn’t about being reasonable, it’s about not getting into a losing fight where they have to take contradictory stances in court and lose permanently.

    • Amplified Heat

      Yup, there’s pending court cases held up in District for every one of these issues, waiting for a sympathetic SCOTUS to begin processing them.

  • El Duderino

    Common sense from the ATF? Wait, my feet are getting really cold right now…

    • Major Tom

      Well it is still winter in Michigan.

  • glenn cheney

    Nick, Did you ask your source how many other tidy “whities” might still be in the folder? Sure that’s “all?”

  • DanGoodShot

    Can you please give me a minute while I pick my jaw up from the ground…

  • ChrisJ

    I’m disappointed at the AP ban wasn’t discussed in an appropriate way. It needs to be highlighted that merely containing steel does not mean that the bullet’s core is made entirely out of steel. As both M855 and 7n6 contain substantial amounts of lead (ie. non-trace amounts), and therefore do not even come close to meeting the letter of the law.

  • Bigbigpoopi
  • THP

    Wow, this is promising. I haven’t read the entire doc yet, but is there any mention of the SBR laws? Those have got to be the most ridiculous of all the ATF legislation. The fact that I can go buy a small pistol tomorrow, but need to wait 10 months to legally chop the barrel on my 7lb rifle is ludicrous.

  • Mystick

    Here’s a change: Stop using the phrase “sporting purposes”… as for suppressors, every one of those “recommended defendants” were for manufacturing a suppressor for sale without paying the tax and not for the use of a suppressor in an actual crime.

    • Amplified Heat

      If an ATF study finds “sporting purposes” to encompass all lawful purposes (because you can turn anything, including murder, into a game), not only will all those laws be effectively mooted by the new regulation, it will be harder for a later administration to arbitrarily act in opposition to the scientific study and clamp down. Legislation is the proper, permanent method, but this would work in a pinch while the bill is being drafted & sent through congress (there is a bill submitted every couple years that explicitly changes “sporting” to “lawful” purposes in all the import, armor piercing, and determination laws)

      • Mystick

        Indeed. Congress has a long aggregate history of delegating(read: abdicating) their responsibility of forming regulations in a manner representative of The People to arbitrary – sometimes partisan – committees and agencies in a manner outside the strict purview of the Constitution.

  • Nightand Fog

    Am I supposed to be grateful? In light of the 2nd amendment and its purpose, the whole NFA is unconstitutional even if the supremes disagree. The SC has been colossally wrong before. In the spirit of the 2nd amendment a law abiding citizen has a right unimpeded by govt to any weapon likely to be used against the public by tyrannical govt. That govt does not trust the public with those arms right now is evidence enough that tyranny is alive and well.

  • El Duderino

    But what about the brace I put on my silencer?

    • Amplified Heat

      You’re doing it wrong, unless it goes up

  • Disband the ATF President Trump!, it is an unconstitutional encroachment on our rights!

  • Lead Kisses

    I’m a little ignorant so help me out here. White paper is a list of policy changes or a proposal. This article says “leaked.” So, is a white paper internal only or has it just not been released yet?

    What would the process be, now? If they change the wording in NFA classification for the stabilization braces or remove silencers from NFA, how is this done? Wouldn’t that be changing law…? The ATF can’t just change law? Does it go in front of congress? What wold the timeline look like?

    • Keiichi

      If you read the document itself, it explicitely states that it is for internal use only, and not for public consumption. I just hope that it being leaked doesn’t threaten its chances of being considered and adopted.

      The ATF has discretion to adjust regulations within the purview of the law so that it can enforce the law. That is the extent of what this document is discussing.

      As an example, the ATF cannot unilaterally remove suppressors from the NFA – that takes an act of congress, and is what the Hearing Protection Act would do – but they can adjust the definition of what a silencer is for the purposes of applying the law, and as such can make the application of the law more or less strict (such as allowing 80% suppressor kits to be sold without a tax stamp, which is currently a violation as their current definition considers any part of a suppressor to be a suppressor itself).

      • Amplified Heat

        It’s a strategic leak; congress now knows (that the public also knows) that the ATF doesn’t even want to enforce half the stuff we pay them for. Makes it far safer to propose rolling back rules as well as laws in these areas. The leak also makes the sudden heel-face turn of such a hostile agency seem more heartfelt.

        • Keiichi

          Yes, yes… the political inside-baseball being what it may, that’s not what Lead Kisses’ questions were about – therefore I stuck to facts and not speculation of their motives.

      • Lead Kisses

        Thanks for the insight. I’m going to read the entire document. Sounds like there are some other goodies in there, too.

  • gunsandrockets

    If the ATF is this badly jammed up just from processing silencer paperwork, can you imagine how much gridlock the ATF would suffer, if some gun-control advocates got their way to reclassify most of the firearms in the USA as falling under the NFA regulations?

    • marathag

      That’s feature, not a bug to them. So much the better to be near eternally delayed for paperwork to go thru

  • Arch Stanton

    DO away with BATF, NFA and GCA’68 and the government and tax payers will save a BOAT LOAD of money!!!

  • Walter Williams

    I hate the idea of having to throw money at these people to be able to add a butt stock to a 10.5″ barrel. This doesn’t address that!

  • LazyReader

    New Federal Firearms License specifically for online and gun show sales.
    This would be the return of the “kitchen counter” FFL, allowing private
    citizens to enjoy all the benefits of a Federal Firearms License
    without actually needing to run a proper business. Ostensibly it would
    be used for those who don’t have a retail location but still want to
    sell guns online and at gun shows, but reality is that it would be a way
    for every citizen to pay one licensing fee and have guns shipped
    straight to their door from the factory with no middleman (since the
    government already did a more thorough background check than any NICS
    check could do).
    Redefinition of “armor Piercing Ammunition.”
    Companies making and importing ammunition that currently meets the
    definition of “armor piercing” such as lead free projectiles and the 7N6 ban
    from 2014 would be able to sell their wares once more without fear. It
    would also drive down the cost of ammo for Soviet surplus ammunition
    since the pipeline would once more be open.
    Lifting the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M1911 Army Surplus Importation Ban.
    For years there has been a treasure trove of surplus M1 Garand, M1
    Carbine, and M1911 handguns sitting in Korea waiting to be shipped back
    to the UnitedStates so that the CMP could sell these guns to the U.S.
    citizens at dirt cheap prices. The Obama administration blocked their
    importation citing concerns over “gun violence”. Overturning that
    decision would be quick and painless and make many a firearms collector
    very happy.
    Eliminating Law Letter Requirements. If an FFL
    wants to get a machine gun manufactured after 1986 they need a letter
    from a local law enforcement agency requesting the gun for demonstration
    purposes. These “law letters” or “demo letters” are really just a time
    consuming formality keeping gun stores and FFL holders from buying
    machine guns. Elimination of this archaic requirement would allow new
    machine guns to be avalable to every FFL/SOT holder. Possibly including
    the new wave of “kitchen counter” FFL holders.
    Reversing the decision on shouldering a pistol brace.
    A couple years back the ATF issued a series of confusing and
    conflicting rulings about whether it was illegal to shoulder a pistol
    arm brace such as the SB Tactical brace. There’s apparently quite a bit
    of energy being directed at reversing the ruling and once more enabling
    the mass shouldering of pistol arm braces.
    Redefine “Sporting Purposes.” There’s a Chinese
    manufacturer that is making brand new M14 style rifles. They are
    plentiful in Canada but unavailable in the United States because,
    according to the law, they are not for “sporting purposes” and
    ineligible for importation. The folks behind this white paper seem to
    think that it’s high time we redefine what “sporting purposes” are. This
    might qualify things like 3-gun and other competition shooting
    activities as “sporting” and open the door for just about everything to
    be imported.
    Make agency rulings searchable. Instead of relying
    on what opinion letters have been published on the internet, make those
    opinions publicly available and searchable so that everyone can see
    previous opinions and hold the ATF accountable.
    Remove silencers from the NFA. This one isn’t
    really possible to do from within the ATF, it would probably require
    Congress to act through the Hearing Protection Act. But support from the
    ATF goes a long way towards public acceptance of the idea.
    Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows. Right
    now gun stores can only sell guns to residents of their own state from
    locations within that state’s borders. If they want to visit a gun show
    across state lines they can only take orders and ship to a local FFL,
    not directly sell. The ATF wants to make it so that FFLs can travel from
    state to state and sell guns as they see fit.
    Reclassify “destructive devices”. Right now both
    destructive device munitions and launcers are considered “destructive
    devices” and regulated just like silencers and machine guns, meaning
    every round of HE for your grenade launcher needs a serial number and
    its own Form 4. The ATF wants to make it so that only the launcher, not
    the munition, is considered the registered “destructive device.”
    Raise the threshold for “grey market” records reporting.
    Right now any store that has more than 10 crime guns traced to it needs
    to do extra recording and reporting to the ATF of their used guns. The
    ATF wants to raise that threshold to lessen the strain on dealers.
    Eliminate “multiple gun reporting” for border states.
    Right now, if you buy more than one AR-15 in a certain time period in
    Texas and other border states the ATF requires a special form to be sent
    detailing the sale. It’s ostensibly to stop straw purchasers, but the
    success rate is low enough to be statistically zero. Eliminating that
    burden would help gun dealers.
    Reduce record retention requirements. The ATF
    currently requires all 4473 forms to be kept for 20 years. That’s a bit
    much, don’t you think? This proposal would reduce that burden on gun
    stores.
    Allow NICS checks for non-gun purchases. You can’t
    work in a gun store if you are prohibited form buying a gun. To figure
    out if an employee is disqualified the simplest way would be to have the
    store run a NICS check, but that’s not allowed under the current law.
    Allowing background checks for employees would reduce the cost to hire
    new employees and make life easier for gun stores.
    Right now these are just proposals — none of them have been approved or
    implemented. The document in question was prepared as a menu of items
    for the new ATF head to consider, not necessarily a final list of things
    that will be implemented. But it seems reasonable to expect that this
    is at least an indication of the general directions of things to come.
    And of course, the anti-gun groups are already in full pearl-clutching
    mode.

  • Fox Hunter

    Trump should just abolish the BATF. It is a waste of taxpayers money.

    • mad dog

      he has to abolish the Federal Reserve, they are charted under it not the US government.
      all alphabet agencies..are tax regulators for the federal reserve.

  • jamezb

    I’d just like to say: “WOW”…

  • YS

    “Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study” looks promising.

  • Guido FL

    The ATF is seemly out of control, making new rulings in order to justify it’s rule making committees ? By adding the “butt stock” to rifles with short barrels actually makes them less easier to hide.The SBR’s rules are perhaps left over rules from the 1930’s and really don’t make much sense ??

  • Kafir1911

    MAGA, MAGA. Hooray for President Trump. MAGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • CompletelyOutsane

    It is time to remove ALL INFRINGEMENTS upon law abiding citizens UNALIENABLE RIGHT to keep and bear arms! They are ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL.

  • Al Wise

    This is only a white paper, folks. Proposals and nothing more. Don’t get too excited.

    • Brent Akin

      The way to use this to our best advantage is to include a reference link to this white paper in our communications with federal legislators about the HPA.

      Basically, “See, even the ATF thinks this should pass!”

  • My guess they are mellowing out because there is a new sheriff in town and senior ATF employees don’t feel like looking for a new job in their mid-40s. Mortgages and the kids college have to be paid for.

    • mad dog

      Or, perhaps they interpret ” shall not infringe ” as just that ?
      hunh ?

      • Danilushka Ozera

        We still have Comifornia to deal with and, unfortunately, that is where my work is. Sigh.

      • perhaps they interpret ” shall not infringe ” as just that ?

        Nope. Not the way they acted during the Bush II and the Obama administration.

        The agents hired during Bush & Obama are worried about their jobs.

  • lbeacham

    Dogs and cats will be seen lying together watching pigs fly.

    • Hillary: A Voice of Treason

      Yep.

      I saw the Women’s March in Washington after Inauguration Day, too!

  • mad dog

    Several months ago the DEA made the recommendation to reschedule marijuana to schedule 2…did it happen ?

  • Jones2112

    It was leaked purposely so that they would get a reaction from the leftists as there is obviously already overwhelming support from the majority of firearm owners regarding suppressors…

  • bruce Cambell

    Its funny how much an election can change the attitudes of federal agencies. As noted in the white paper, The ATF is already spending a ton of resources trying to do keep up with NFA paperwork and maintaining “archaic” regulations rather than focusing on their core mission. They see the writing on the wall that the ATF budgets will be impacted with coming federal spending cutts by the Trump admin, so some changes will be needed.

  • Rock Island Auction

    This totally made my morning. Thanks for sharing TFB!!

    • Amplified Heat

      Ha! I’ll bet it did, SVTs and RP46s for everyone!

  • survivor50

    Funny how this “coincidentally” emerges after TRUMP takes office…
    Trying to save their collective @$$e$ I say..

  • Tom

    Nice, so the ATF wants to rewrite a regulation without letting Congress do it for them, since they are probably thinking there is a good chance the HPA will pass… This then keeps Congress out of the mix; and gives them the leeway to come back later (10 or 15 years) and say “We were wrong, please forgive us; we need to reclassify silencers as bad things…” And then force everyone to register them… Plenty of precedence for them to classify them as objects we don’t deserve to own.. The best approach is to abolish the ATF and shut them down.

  • darrell_b8

    ATF is a ‘rogue’ agency and should be DRASTICALLY cut back or abolished; the ‘Act’ of 1936 needs to be drastically amended; the GCA of 1968 was in response to the Kennedy assignation; vigorous prosecution of firearms offenses coupled with STIFF sentences will do more to reduce ‘gun crime’ than all the ‘Progressive tinkering’…

    • Major Tom

      Define “firearms offenses”.

  • jk

    Another boon is the deletion of 2 regs for every new one

  • Chad B. Hanging

    What I find interesting (yet not surprising) is that the DOJ and ATF “have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA.” Basically, resistance for the sake of resistance…

    Removal of suppressors is a good start. Hope it continues on to short-barreled rifles. I’ve never understood why a 16-inch barrel is okay but a 14.5-inch military barrel is not…

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    Now, how about the SBR’s? Talk about an unreasonable classification. With the advent of Bullpup rifles you can have a 10″ SBR that is longer then the bullpup. It just make no sense to make a crime out of something that has never been used for criminal behavior. That and the silencers need to go away. And the ban on newly manufactured FA needs to go away too. President TRUMP…WHERE ARE YOU???

  • kazetsukai

    “Oh crap is Trump going to close down shop and shift our operations to the DEA and FBI? We’d better behave ourselves!”

  • Nonya Bidness

    This would be a huge step in the right direction if it comes to fruition!

    As usual, we hear great news and it still deteriorates into an argument.

    I’m fine with machineguns being regulated through the NFA. Just repeal the Hughes Amendment so we can have new ones, while prices drop on old ones. 🙂

    • Nicholas C

      I agree. While a minor inconvenience opening the registry to new ones is fine. There are so many Type 3+ dealers who have current machine guns that it is a giant loophole. Albeit a slightly expensive loophole it is still a citizen in possession of a new machine gun. Technicality of Trust and FFL being the actual entity aside.

  • Homeisthehunter

    Common sense? Maybe not so much. I suspect this is a tactical move on the part of AFT to dampen the enthusiasm for reform. They will trade a trinket for Manhattan any day. Internal agency policy checked by legislation is the best way to put these folks back in the box.

  • So much good in there, I’m SHOCKED!

    ““There is no clear public safety reason why taxpayer-funded US-origin C&R defense articles should be denied re-importation to the American public, while many non-U.S.- origin C&R items are approved.” – Garands can be reimported!!

    “Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study”- This is so needed. Pretty much anything can have a sporting purpose, so just define it out.

    Elimination of multiple purchase requirement in the southwest- an illegal regulation that needs to go

  • L Cavendish

    Imagine: new threaded barrels…new ammo…multiple suppressors…integrated suppressors…
    could be a HUGE bump for the firearms industry

  • John

    I was secretly hoping that it was going to say that the ATF is being disbanded.

  • Marcmcm

    Who do we need to contact to push on this?

  • dltaylor51

    All it takes is the right president or at least one that’s not a commie,Muslim,progressive and our freedoms are restored.Can you imagine the door to door searches that would be going on right now if Hilary and the demo’s were in charge of ATF?

    • lurpy

      Like all those door to door searches we were promised during the Obama administration?

      • dltaylor51

        The only thing that stopped Barry’s gun laws was a repub.controlled house and senate,if not for that we would still be in civil war with hundreds of thousands dead and no end in sight,it was very close so be careful what you wish for Mr.liberal because it might come true.

        • lurpy

          Just lol.

  • Brian Hert

    I could have done without the “mission to combat gun violence” baloney at the end. Their mission is to enforce specific sets of laws on alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. Full stop. That they even make comments about things beyond that is proof of agency overreach.

    • Doom

      By combat gun violence they were probably alluding to their gun trace program.

      • Doom

        (And forgetting about all their massive failures of gun running programs)

  • cruzo1981

    Yeah right, leaked. I’m sorry I don’t believe any of this. We need to continue to pressure our representatives. The ATF added 33 people when there are 300,000,000 firearms. We cannot let up the pressure is my point. It isn’t over until the fat lady sings.

  • retrocon

    Don’t forget lead bullet ban in national lands.

  • disqus_0jln85eNvY

    Wait; is it just me, or do they only really seem to be up for discussing REVISIONS in the definition of a silencer/suppressor, and not outright REMOVAL of suppressors from the NFA registry…?

    • Cymond

      ATF interprets the NFA, they can change their interpretation.
      It would take an act of Congress to remove them from the NFA.
      It makes sense for the ATF to discuss their own role zero rather than the role of any other organizations.

  • retrocon

    That’s probably why he appointed the most conservative cabinet in modern history and the perfect replacement for Scalia.

    Same thing happened with Reagan, if you are old enough to remember.

    “D.C. Outsider, no real experience”
    “Long time democrat”
    “Progressive Hollywood liberal”
    “Just a dumb actor”
    “Led the liberal SAG”
    “Won’t be able to work with the politicos after insulting them by calling them the problem”
    Etc.

    • ostiariusalpha

      Reagan didn’t really do the 2nd Amendment any favors with FOPA.

  • Samuel

    This is so epically fake. There’s just no way. You don’t get an overnight change in civil service opinion like that.

    • Doom

      When a bill calling for the disbanding of the ATF is introduced and there is a president who is more than willing to kick government agencies in the balls it would probably be willing to do a 180 to keep their jobs. As long as they stop being total dingdongs I dont care if they exist, whats a another government agency sucking up money when we are 20 trillion in?

  • DwnRange

    Real gun culture folks should remember this from “Unintended Consequences”, by John Ross and if you do not have a copy I suggest ya get one.

    January 3, 1939

    “All rise. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, is now in session, Judge Heartsill Ragon presiding.” “You may be seated. First case, UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. Mr. Gutensohn?”

    “Right here, your Honor.” The defense lawyer from Fort Smith stood
    up. Paul Gutensohn was a smallish man with thinning black hair who wore round,
    wire-rimmed spectacles. His quick movements and his sharp, prominent nose gave
    him a slight hawklike appearance.

    “Your Honor, if it please the Court, my clients, Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, are guilty of no crime whatsoever. Their arrest under Section 11, 48 statute 1239, is clearly in violation of their Constitutional rights for two obvious reasons.

    First, the so-called National Firearms Act, though presented as a revenue measure, is clearly a Federal attempt to usurp power reserved to the States. This should be obvious as the so-called ‘tax’ of two hundred dollars is greatly in excess of the value of the
    arms on which it is levied.

    Second, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is completely in conflict with the
    second article to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. To wit, ‘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.’ “Inasmuch as both
    Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton are able-bodied and between the ages of sixteen and
    fortyfive, they are clearly members of the Militia of which the framers of our
    Constitution spoke. Further, unlike the Fourth Amendment against ‘unreasonable’
    search and seizure, the Second Amendment makes no mention of ‘reasonable’
    infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The article states
    that this right shall not be infringed, period. There is no way to interpret
    our government’s attempts to levy a tax of two hundred dollars on any weapon
    which can be used to defend oneself and one’s freedoms as anything other than a
    gross and willful infringement on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
    “Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton are guilty of nothing more than exercising
    their Second Amendment rights. Indeed, the arresting agents reported that both
    my clients obeyed all orders given by the agents, and that at no time did
    either of the defendants threaten either agent in any way, with or without the
    weapon in question. In fact, the agents both admit that the shotgun in question
    was found by one of the agents on the seat of Mr. Miller’s unoccupied vehicle
    when the arrest was made. “Accordingly, I have filed a demurrer
    challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute
    a crime, and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was
    returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution
    of the United States, U.S.C.A You have the demurrer before you, your
    Honor.” Gutensohn sat down.

    District Judge Heartsill Ragon looked at the slender man and his two clients.
    He had read the demurrer already, and it had been a rare experience for him. He
    could not recall the last time that he had felt so strongly in this particular
    way about a case presented before him. He had seen numerous cases where the
    arresting officers had lied, made up charges, manufactured evidence, and beaten
    suspects into confessing. This case was not like that. The Treasury agents who
    had arrested the two men had behaved properly in every possible way. Their
    arrest procedures had been straight out of the textbook. The problem with this
    case was why the two men had been arrested in the first place. Judge Ragon knew
    that the reason the Treasury agents had followed the defendants was to catch
    them making liquor without a license. He also knew that due to bad luck, there
    hadn’t been any moonshine to be found when the agents had sprung their trap. But the agents hadn’t let the men go. No, the agents had acted in a reasonable and prudent manner when they had arrested Miller and Layton for being in clear violation of a Federal statute. The problem with this case was that defense counsel was exactly right. The Federal statute, the National Firearms Act of 1934, was absolutely and unquestionably in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Judge Heartsill Ragon paused a moment to reflect on the men in the Federal
    legislature who had created this piece of legal garbage. What kind of person
    would propose that a man be put in prison for five years based on the length of
    the weapon he carried to protect himself? What kind of person would expect the
    man to pay twenty times the value of the weapon to the Treasury for each such
    weapon he owned to avoid going to prison, and then pay the $200 again when he
    sold the gun? What kind of legislature had agreed to this insanity? The law was
    even worse than this case would indicate, the judge reflected. He had taken the
    time to read all the provisions of the 1934 statute, and Judge Ragon had been
    amazed at what he had seen. In addition to throwing people in prison if they
    didn’t pay $200 taxes on ten-dollar guns, the National Firearms Act put people
    in prison if they failed to pay $200 taxes on three-dollar sound mufflers. This
    was a cruel addition to an already terrible law. Judge Ragon had spent his
    adult life studying the law and had not fired a gun since his service in the
    war with Spain in 1898, but that was not the case with his three brothers. All
    three of the now middle-aged men had fired guns their whole lives. And all
    three were now almost completely deaf, and there was nothing that any doctor
    could do about it. What was next? wondered the judge. $200 taxes on knives? Judge
    Ragon took a deep breath and looked at the U.S. District Attorney, C.R. Barry.

    “Mr. District Attorney?”

    “Your Honor, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not in any way in
    contravention with our United States Constitution. The defendants were found
    transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Neither defendant
    disputes this fact. Nowhere in the United States is a sawed-off shotgun of the
    type transported by Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton issued to members of the
    military. Accordingly, it is entirely reasonable that the Treasury enforce the
    National Firearms Act as a revenue-raising measure, and demand that those who
    are in violation of it be sent to prison, just as we tax liquor producers and
    expect those people who make illegal alcohol products to be sent to
    prison.”

    The judge smiled at the D.A., but it was entirely without humor. “Mr.
    Barry,” he said in a resonant voice, “there is no mention made in the
    Constitution about making whiskey. There is a very clear mention made of the
    right to keep and bear arms. You may be entirely right that our government does
    not issue our soldiers shotguns of the exact type that Mr. Miller had in his
    truck. However, you are forgetting everything you were taught in grade school
    civics class.” The District Attorney turned crimson at this barb. The
    judge went on. “A militia, by definition, is a group of citizens who use
    their own weapons for defense of themselves and their freedoms. We cannot throw
    them in prison or fine them five thousand dollars for failing to have exactly
    the same type arms as are carried by the National Guard or any other branch of
    our standing army, or expect them to pay two hundred dollar taxes at the whim
    of the Treasury merely to exercise their Constitutional rights.” “But,
    your Honor…” “Mister Barry, I have carefully reviewed this ‘National Firearms Act’ of yours, and it imposes the same five year prison sentence and $5000 fine on interstate transport of automatic weapons as well.” The District Attorney got a sick look on his face. He knew where this was going. “Tell me, Mr. Barry. Are you familiar with the Browning
    Automatic Rifle, the model 1918 BAR?”

    “Yes, your Honor.”

    “So am I. In fact, my son carried one in France at the very end of the Great War. A marvelous weapon, and one he could well have used at the beginning of the war and not just the end. In fact, the BAR is a weapon which I wish / had had when I fought in the war with Spain in 1898. And, Mr. District Attorney, the Browning Automatic Rifle is, I believe, currently issued to U.S. soldiers and members of the Arkansas National Guard, is it not?”

    “I believe so, your Honor.”

    “Mr. Barry, if the Treasury agents had found a BAR and not a shotgun in Mr. Miller’s truck, would they have arrested him for violating the National Firearms Act?”

    “I can’t say what the agents would or wouldn’t have done, your Honor.”

    “I’ll rephrase the question, Mr. Barry. If the agents had arrested Miller and Layton for possessing a Browning Automatic Rifle without having paid a $200 tax and without possessing the stamp-affixed federal order form as per this National Firearms Act, would you be prosecuting them under the National Firearms Act as you are now doing?”

    The District Attorney licked his lips. How the hell do I answer this one?

    “Well, Mr. Barry?”

    “They would be in violation of the Act, so yes, I would prosecute them, your Honor.” “And if I happened to have a Browning Automatic Rifle at home in my bedroom, the very same type weapon that my son carried proudly defending our country in 1918, and if this
    weapon in my bedroom was not stolen from a government arsenal, but rather one
    that I had bought with my own money from the Colt factory in 1920 so that I would be prepared to act as a member of the militia, or to defend myself from an abusive government should the need arise, and if I had brought this BAR here to my Arkansas bedroom from my former residence outside the state, would you prosecute me for violating the National Firearms Act and recommend that I be thrown in prison for five years, Mr. District Attorney?” The D.A. was sweating despite the cool air in the courtroom. “Your Honor, I would never prosecute someone who has not been arrested.”

    “And if I were arrested, Mr. District Attorney? Should I then go to prison for five years, pay a $5000 fine, and be disbarred, according to you and your National Firearms Act?”

    “Your Honor,” he said, holding his hands palms up and pleading with the judge, “the Treasury agents would never arrest you.”

    “Why not?” thundered Judge Ragon. Because I’m a judge? Because I’m not a moonshiner? Mr. District Attorney, I see no exemptions in this National Firearms Act for judges or any other categories of ‘the people’, to which our Bill of Rights refers. Do
    you?”

    “No, your Honor,” Barry said softly. “I didn’t think so. I believe you understand my position, Mr. District Attorney. Mr. Gutensohn,” he said, addressing the defense lawyer, “the demurrer you filed is accordingly sustained. The National Firearms Act of 1934 violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” He banged his gavel once upon the bench. “Case dismissed. Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, you are free
    to go.”

    • Amplified Heat

      And then they had sex on dead federal agents to celebrate (sorry, but like many fiction writers, ross got a little bit too “out there” at times)

      • DwnRange

        any review of the Western District Arkansas Federal court’s actual UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al case (available in numerous places, I got mine from a college student studying to be a lawyer in Houston law library – I also have spoken to the author) will reveal that the facts noted above came from the actual trial transcripts. If you read the book and checked any of the story-line in the books beginning you’ll find that sure while some of the book is fiction, (mostly the later parts) many parts, this one here included, is in line with what really transpired in history. Which begs the question – what part of the “F” troop do you work for?

  • Jason Lewis

    Nobody needs a silencer.

    (got ya)

  • Core

    I understand that this adversely effects manufacturers but I cant help but think once the language is cleared this will greatly benefit the consumer. I hope this will encourage more affordable suppressors. The demand will increase and manufacturers will be able to increase production capacity and offer suppressors at less cost.

  • Mr. Privilege

    Wouldn’t it be nice if they would open up the NFA MG registry for a while? That would be awesome, but I am sure “Alex from TFB TV” would be greatly opposed to such a measure and would lobby against it in order to not lose the monetary value attached to all his toys.

    Silly little plebs – full-auto is for rich people like “Alex from TFB TV”. Only the 1% can afford to exercise their Constitutional Rights. Laws are for poor people like you and me.

  • Mr. Privilege

    Silly plebs! Full-Auto is only for the rich 1% like “Alex from TFB TV”. Unless you are rich, there will be no full-auto for plebs like us, and the rich 1% like “Alex from TFB TV” will keep it that way to protect their “investments” – like that $500 Colt AR-15 converted in 1985 they paid $30,000 for.

  • wysoft

    I like how anti-gun folks still pretend that Obama and his admin didn’t spend almost all of 2013 trying to bring back a federal AWB and UBCs. “He didn’t take your guns” – uhh yeah, he tried really hard, but he lost. It dominated the news cycle for months. He and Joe Biden cried on live TV when they couldn’t get traction. They just forgot all of that?

  • He’s gone—–

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      Well done.

    • Ebby123

      Thanks Phil. That was a dumpster-fire for all involved.

    • bmrtoyo

      Clapping yes !

  • Wow!

    I suspect the Trump effect. After the EPA, all these Bureaus know he means business and is keeping his campaign promises. No one wants to be gutted out, and the only way to avoid it is to start fixing themselves before the God Emperor comes along for an audit.

  • marcus johannes

    In some European Countries for example Norway ,I could walk into a pawn shop and buy a Silencer or Suppressor for 30 or 40 dollars and no law regulates it

    • Cottersay

      I know; when I lived in France in 1979 I could go into any store that sold sporting goods and pick up a .22 silencer for 30 bucks. They treated them just like candy bars and crescent wrenches, which was and still is awesome to me!

  • richard kluesek

    thank Trump

  • Sgt. Stedenko

    BREAKING: TFB uses BREAKING way too much in their titles.

  • georgesteele

    This is borderline outright lunacy. An item is legal to use to fire bullets at objects, but if you lean against it with your shoulder, you are in violation of the NFA and could be charged with a federal law firearms violation? For leaning against something? Are any of them mentally competent enough to hear that and ask: “What the hell are we talking about?”

  • The Deplorable Boogur T. Wang

    Well La Ti Da…La Ti Friggin’ Da !

    I remain very skeptical until this gets cycled through quite a few Court cases.

  • Jim

    They’re justifying their jobs plain and simple. They are afraid the new administration will shut their doors permanently to reduce the deficit and because the public is outraged at the Fast and Furious scandal. How many “agency’s” have violated their public trusts in the United States? Too many. I support moving the alcohol and tobacco enforcement to the FBI/local LEOs. The rest of them can be reassigned to helping INS with the immigration criminals.
    Shut them down.

  • Ruark

    I just wish documents like this would stop using the word “silencer” instead of “suppressor.” They aren’t silencers in any sense of the word. All they do is reduce – supress – the loudness of the shot by about 30db. It’s STILL loud, and in some cases you still need to wear ear protection. The word “silencer” is a Hollywood illusion that leads people to believe guns so equipped go “pfft, pfft…” NOTHING could be further from the truth.

    • Cymond

      OTOH, the legal term used in the NFA is “silencer”.

  • Archie Montgomery

    What Ebby 123 said!

  • Mr. Privilege

    It’s absolute GARBAGE that only the extremely wealthy can afford to dip their toe into full-auto and anyone who claims to have “been in the NFA world for [X amount of time]” I am going to automatically assume is EXACTLY the type of person I described in my previous post. There’s a whole clique of you people who work against opening up the registry just so you can hold value on your $500 AR-15 converted in 1985 that is now worth $30,000

    Reminds me of the people who didn’t make a peep when the BATF banned importation of 7N6 5.45X39, but when Green Tip came under fire they were all up in arms.

    Bunch of hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to gun rights. The NFA MG registry is NEVER going to open back up. You Baby Boomers screwed up America so bad in so many ways, you will go down as the WORST generation in American History.

    • Colonel K

      Your false assumptions and outrageous accusations, unsupported by any factual documentation, serve no legitimate purpose. Maligning an entire generation for the actions of some is absurd, especially when many of those actions were the work of prior generations. I can only conclude you are millennial (whatever that term means), but I do not attack you for it because each person is an individual and should be judged by their personal merits rather than their casual association with any group.

      • Mr. Privilege

        I’m 41 years old. My mother is a Boomer. The mess this country is today is a direct result of the pampered, spoiled, lazy, and entitled generation of Baby Boomers. You sat by idly while our gun rights were taken away and allowed leftist maniacs to infest and corrupt our education system from kindergarten all the way up to college. You saddled future generations with a monstrous debt they will never be able to pay off. You allowed our jobs to be exported to the 3rd world just because YOU were comfortable in the world your parents – the GREATEST GENERATION – left you. You let massive 3rd world immigration ruin this country because you were afraid someone would call you “racist”. Baby Boomers are a plague on America and will be remembered in the history books as such. Everyone my age and younger despises you and is well aware of what you did to RUIN this country for future generations.

        • Colonel K

          Mr. P, many of us did none of those things. I spent 30 years defending this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have championed gun rights since before you were born. Now I happen to agree with you that our country has been moving the wrong direction for many years. Some would argue that it started with Mr. Lincoln, while others blame Mr. Wilson or FDR. But that’s all in the past. Each generation should learn from the mistakes of their forefathers and try to make the world a little bit better. I’m still in the fight. I suggest you stop wasting your energy attacking your colleagues, and join the battle with us.

    • bmrtoyo

      Privalage : so what is youre generation , the gen x clan and the millennial’s doing to make it so much better ?

  • Mr. Privilege

    Sounds like you been sucking up a hearty helpin’ of some Fake News, son. Your brand of do-nothing Jeb Bush “conservatism” is gone and it’s not coming back. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, you cuckservative crybaby.

  • Bang Stick

    Welp…we’ve got 2 yrs to push it through…mid terms could change the balance in Congress and put the gun ban whackos back in charge.

    Drive on it now!

  • Man what are you doing with that language. You’ve been on here long enough to know that won’t fly.

  • Yes a link places it in the moderation page.

  • sometrend

    lighten up on the SBR regs all together! while we`re at it….ditch the machinegun prohibition too! I don`t care if they`re still NFA regulated but I want 1 I can shoot! If you`re going to pay 25k for an old M16 you`re not going to take it out and run it on the weekends for fun! The ban is ridiculous and you can count the crimes committed with full autos on 1 hand…one of which was committed by a cop

  • themonkey69

    They are just trying to start making sense so the Donald doesn’t abolish the entire shiatshow.

  • frankspeak

    this change of administration may have Huuuge impact on firearms laws!…ATF has apparently decided that less is more..[desirable]

  • Steven Kaspar

    The ATF should be on trumps chopping block get rid of it!