Summary of LEAKED ATF White Paper & Analysis: NFA-Free Suppressors, Shouldered Braces, and Armor Piercing Ammo, Oh My!

In what appears to fly in the face of the Bureau’s prior attitudes towards enforcement of gun laws, a white paper by BATFE Associate  Deputy Director Ronald Turk was recently leaked which proposed loosening or modifying gun regulations in sixteen ways, to be discussed below. If you have not yet read Nicholas’ post on the leak, you can do that, and also follow the link here to the white paper itself. In this article, I’ll be taking a (hopefully) brief look at what the white paper means and why it’s so significant (and it is significant, don’t get me wrong).

First, we must understand what the white paper isn’t. It is not a new set of regulations, and it is not an announcement that regulations will soon change. It’s more like a memorandum containing suggestions that could be implemented in the future. Indeed, the entire document is worded this way, making it very clear. It even says, in the executive summary:

This paper serves to provide the new Administration and the Bureau multiple options to consider and discuss regarding firearms regulations specific to ATF. These general thoughts provide potential ways to reduce or modify regulations, or suggest changes that promote commerce and defend the Second Amendment without significant negative impact on ATF’s mission to fight violent firearms crime and regulate the firearms industry. This white paper is intended to provide ideas and provoke conversation; it is not guidance or policy of any kind.

[emphasis mine]

So we’re not looking at something that immediately changes the law, or even indicates that the law will soon be changed. However, even though it is just a list of suggestions, what those suggestions are and how they are written may indicate a major shift in attitude may be occurring within the ATF. Let’s quickly summarize what these sixteen suggestions are, first (I have bolded the most interesting suggestions):

  1. Allow/facilitating gunshow-only dealers to apply for an Federal Firearms License
  2. Reform the process of classifying ammunition as “armor piercing handgun ammunition” to allow manufacturers to produce new armor-piercing rifle ammunition while maintaining the exemption for SS109/M855, as well as an acknowledgement that many rounds not classified as “armor piercing” will still penetrate body armor.
  3. Work with the State Department and Trump Administration to import surplus C&R US service arms for sale to the American public.
  4. Allow greater flexibility to the ATF to grant FFL/SOTs permission to transfer post-86 machine guns to other FFL/SOTs working for DoD agents and in the film industry.
  5. Remove the clause in the pistol stabilizing brace (PSB) ruling that lists shouldering the brace as an NFA violation.
  6. Revise the “sporting purpose” wording to accommodate so-called “Modern Sporting Rifles” within that category.
  7. Create a database of easily accessible and understood firearms regulations and rulings.
  8. Consider reclassifying silencers as non-NFA items, revising the definition of “silencer”.
  9. Allow FFLs to transfer firearms out-of-state (such as at gun shows in a neighboring state).
  10. Discuss changing Destructive Device rulings to better differentiate between launchers and munitions (e.g. by allowing manufacturers to register whole lots of munitions as DDs, rather than the individual munitions).
  11. Change the Demand Letter 2 (DL2) requirement to a number between 10 and 25 firearms (15 suggested), from the current 10.
  12. Eliminate Demand Letter 3.
  13. Review and possibly discard the current proposal to have FFLs retain records indefinitely, from the current regulation of 20 years.
  14. Allow FFLs to run NICS checks on potential employees.
  15. Push for a Presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed ATF Director.
  16. Remove or amend old, obsolete regulations like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

Whew! Got all that? Good!

With that out of the way, several significant aspects of the white paper jump out at me. First, much of the language is structured to indicate what appear to be four major priorities:

  • Appeasing a newer, blacker gun industry.
  • Avoiding litigation over some of the less legally rigorous ATF regulations currently on the books.
  • Reducing ATF workload.
  • Transitioning from the Obama administration to the Trump administration

Whether these priorities are the raison d’être for the white paper, or just language within which pro-gun reforms are cloaked, I don’t know, but they do seem to be things that concerned the paper’s authors in some way. The implications of the individual suggestions themselves, should they become actual rulings, should be obvious. Not only would rulings along these lines substantially reduce the regulatory burden on gun owners, importers, and dealers, they would also considerably clean up many of the most nonsensical areas of current firearms regulations.

As a prime example of this, consider the sporting purpose clause, which has probably never prevented a crime, much less a loss of human life. It is a regulation that simply wastes everyone’s time and money with conversions of importable “sporting purpose”-classified weapons to unimportable configurations. What sense does it make for FN (singling them out for demonstration purposes) to have to import SCARs in a configuration that satisfies “sporting purpose”, just for their US contingent to convert them to their original style once in the country? It does not, and in a refreshing change of pace, the white paper recognizes this and suggests that the “sporting purpose” definition be revised to include weapons like the semiautomatic SCAR in its proper configuration.

This is what FN SCARs look like when they come into the country. The import stock is so minimalist because it just gets thrown away without being used. Stupid.

 

All this then raises the question: Given the history of the ATF acting as downright obstructionist to the firearms industry and firearms owners, why this, and why now? Well, I can only speculate, so let’s get right to doing that.

Since the white paper was the work of ATF ADDr Ronald Turk (or at least his name is on it), it may be that Turk harbors these sentiments himself, and simply feels he is better equipped to act under a nominally pro-gun administration than he was under the previous one. I do not know very much about Turk’s previous career, but it seems reasonable to at least speculate about this, given that he is a career Air Force man, went to school in Texas at Sam Houston State University, and lists the National Rifle Association among his groups on his LinkedIn profile. It should be emphasized that Turk himself may not have written the white paper, this was likely the work of others working under him. Therefore, how much of its content reflects his feelings isn’t known, but there do seem to be some dots to connect regarding Turk’s affiliations and the paper’s contents.

There is also another angle here: Something that has baffled myself and others regarding the ATF’s past belligerences towards the gun industry was just how bad those actions were for the Bureau itself. Fighting the fight over “green tip” ammunition in late 2014 and early 2015 did nothing for the Bureau but reduce its credibility and strengthen the position of its opponents, and the same is also true for many other positions, regulations, and even operations undertaken by the ATF which need not be mentioned here. Perhaps Turk’s (or rather, the authors’) angle on this is one of streamlining the Bureau and making it more competitive in such an obviously pro-gun world. Baiting the gun industry for no obvious gain has proven over the past decade to be simply a losing proposition for the ATF, while obsolete regulations (like the inclusion of suppressors within the NFA) have increased the Bureau’s workload in ways that are completely non-advantageous to it. Therefore, these regulations may be less about pushing pro-gun regulations than they are about creating a leaner, more effective ATF which, if we take the white paper at its word, is better able to combat violence:

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.

A friend and colleague of mine had yet another take: This may simply be the ATF covering their backside against an administration that has, though young, become knowing for firing first and asking questions later. While I don’t doubt this is a general concern among bureaucrats of every stripe, I disagree that the white paper rings especially loudly of this sort of panic. Still, it’s worth asking: Is this paper just an excellent example of CYA?

What do you think of the ATF white paper, why it was written, and what implications it has for the future of US gun law? Be sure to let us know in the comments!



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at [email protected]


Advertisement

  • BattleshipGrey

    I’m not trying to bash Mr. Turk or his co-authors, he/they may be firearms enthusiasts finally breathing a sigh of relief to have a new admin. However, I think my overall opinion of the letter is based on my mistrust of the ATF and the Feds in general.

    It seems to have good things to offer compared with what’s been handed down over the last 8 years, but the fact that it doesn’t go for even more deregulation (like SBRs and SBSs for instance), leads me to believe they’re trying to look accommodating to “silent majority” and the new admin and say “hey, look at all this confusion, headache and unenforceable rulings, we can fix that for you and the public. We’re still relevant, please don’t defund us.” And now there is a name affixed to this helping hand that will be buzzed about the gun webs for a week or two as one that put himself out there for the new admin.

    There are some things that would be nice to fix in the letter, but it really only seems to touch the spots that have actually been headaches in the industry and imports and a few things for the public that are already on the table like silencers. If they’d offered more to us “little people” I’d be a bit more enthusiastic about the letter.

    • RSG

      Well, that we are even reading such a letter is breathtaking, considering how gun rights ostensibly teetered on the edge of extinction, right on up until 9pm on November 8th. Compared to the alternative, I’d say this is a wonderful start.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      The letter can only affect suppressors by “redefining” what a suppressor is. I believe SBSs and SBRs are too clearly defined in the law itself to redefine, but I may be wrong.

      • Mike

        I would think that it would be easier to change “minimum length ” than change definitions.
        First, make shotguns 16 inch, same as rifles. Who could argue against that?

        • pun&gun

          I think his point is that those definitions are defined by the text of the law, and the ATF can’t do anything about it.

        • Jesse Foust

          Rifles were actually changed to 16 so surplus M1 Carbines could be sold I believe.

          • milesfortis

            If a statute were going to be changed (which would be necessary) the whole SBR/SBS/AOW phantasm needs to simply go away. Not to mention other sections just to keep it simple.

            Look at the ‘firearms’, SBS, AOWs and the handgun SBRs that can all be exactly identical, except for simply the timeframe of when they were made.

            NFA ’34 has been obsolete for 30 years.

          • Hardwood83

            NFA ’34 has been obsolete for 83yrs, IMO.

          • Dylan Ridge-Storer

            The M1 Carbine has an 18″ barrel.

          • milesfortis

            And in the original NFA, barrel lengths for both SBR and SBS were 18″, at the beginning.
            The “story” is that some manufacturers weren’t all that attentive to the specification barrel length during the mad dash necessity of arms production numbers in WW2 and some M1s were made with barrels a bit shorter than 18″.
            The length for SBRs was thus made 16″ to cover all possibilities.

          • Kivaari

            I believe it was Swedish Mauser carbines. We used to see them with a welded on extension to make them legal.

      • BattleshipGrey

        Right, but since they’re just making suggestions, why not suggest other options for Congress if they are really trying to protect the 2A?

        • Mystick

          Why would any agency give up regulatory power and therefore budgetary revenue willingly?

          • BattleshipGrey

            They’re not going to unless they believe in standing for what’s right, which they don’t, so my suspicions that the letter is not completely for our benifit have ammunition (so to speak).

      • valorius

        If they changed the ruling on shoulder fired braces, SBR’s would for all intents and purposes become extinct, as everyone would just build pistols with braces instead.

    • M.M.D.C.

      “please don’t defund us.”

      That was my thought as well. They’re having a good old fashioned existential crisis, just like all those guys over at the EPA.

      • milesfortis

        Precicely.
        Trump as President and Sensenbrenner’s bill.

        Bureaucraps see the possibility of their gravy train being taken away and are in a mad scramble to remain relevant.

      • valorius

        Ideally, congress will pass the HPA and then Trump will defund the crap out of ATF.

        • BDUB

          Doing that would net us easier access to supressors, and a defacto ban on everything else. No thanks. GCA/Hughes and NFA have to go, then the ATF can go.

    • noob

      I too worry about how much this letter seems to say EVERYTHING that we want to hear. “Let a hundred flowers bloom” – it might be an orchestrated campaign to flush out who sympathizes with the 16 points for future reference and processing.

    • TeaPartyPagan

      I agree, that it doesn’t go far enough. I have never seen the reason behind the SBR and SBS ban. Since when have criminals ever paid attention to pesky laws. They are in for a penny; they’re in for a pound. All it does is penalize the law abiding. As for “sporting purpose”…. who’s to say? If they were legal, I can imagine competitions sprouting up for them. My first thought to was “Don’t defund me; I don’t wanna be fired”. On second blush, though, here is a bureaucrat who actually expended a great deal of political capital by affixing his name to this paper. He stuck his head in the furnace, and is daring the Democrats to fire it up. It is a modest proposal, and a good starting point, from a guy who actually might be a rare bird in Washington; a reasonable man…..

  • Don Ward

    Everyone is talking suppressors and ridiculous Sig braces. Of far more interest to me are the talking points regarding eliminating the 1989 import ban as well as allowing US Milsurp back into the country.

    • glenn cheney

      Yes, Return ye’ to us, your tired Garands, your oppressed M1A’s…Embrace the ace.

      • DW

        what M1A, you mean M14?

        • glenn cheney

          Those too, was thinking carbines at the moment, bet some BAR’s still are around too.
          Across the Pacific is a lot of hardware.

          • Major Tom

            US-Vietnamese relations are improving, maybe we can get some old ARVN hardware?

          • glenn cheney

            Let’s hope. I’ll pay “select” price for a nice one that was only dropped once.

          • Acad Ronin

            Ease up there please Mr. Cheney. I was an advisor with RF/PFs in 1971. There were good people there that we later betrayed.

          • glenn cheney

            Rodger that, mountain people are our friend, ’75 was hard to watch.
            No good came. Whiz kids and amateur wannabes….that better?

          • valorius

            There were also bad people who did nothing to help their country, i’m betting.

          • 40mmCattleDog

            Lot of difference between an ARVN grunt and a Montagnard attached to a MACV unit. The mountain people kicked some serious NVA ass.

          • glenn cheney

            That is why I referred to them. You could trust them with your life.
            Friends got to come home due to their loyalty.

          • ostiariusalpha

            I know a Vietnam vet that sure despised the ARVN helicopter pilots. He said the MFers would refuse to touch ground for his squad to disembark, and expected them to jump out the last few feet, just so they could run away that much faster.

          • valorius

            what was your buddies squad doing on an ARVN helicopter, would’ve been the question i asked him.

            8 out of 10 people who claim to be vietnam vets are either REMFs who never even saw a battlefield, or outright fakes.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Considering that I’ve seen pictures of him with his fellow platoon members, I’d say his bona fides are pretty solid. He was a respectable biology teacher when I met him, not a grizzled drunk in a bar. As to hitching rides, that’s no big secret that it was a common occurrence; I should correct myself though, the pilots were VNAF.

          • valorius

            You’d be amazed how many REMFS became Special forces commandos. And it is certainly not hard to walk down to the flight line and take some pics with the guys there. People of all backgrounds lie about their military service. Even people who WERE there will lie about what they did there. Even today.

            As far as hitching rides, it’s no big secret to whom?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Uh huh, seems more likely that you’re projecting a little here. No one said anything about Special Forces, or posing for pictures in front of Hueys except for you. The pictures were from their fire base (and other places), and last I checked REMFs didn’t wear leech straps.

          • valorius

            Anyone can wear leech straps in the field in a warzone bro. Or jungle boots. Or any of the other things you’d equate with making someone “the real deal.”

            I take this very personally because i used to be admin on a military forum and we were CONSTANTLY exposing fake vietnam (and other) vets.

          • ostiariusalpha

            So, you are projecting. Look bro, if you are going out to a fire base and cinching on leech straps, you are by definition not rear-echelon. Neff was showing some curious students (including myself) pictures of the flora & fauna from around his fire base, because that was what interested him even back then, the buddy pics were incidental. He wasn’t trying to prove anything, and certainly wasn’t trying to get benefits from a douche-nozzle like you.

          • valorius

            There were REMFS on firebases too bud. Every one of ’em.

            LOL, i’m a douche nozzle becuase literally millions of fakes claim they’re vietnam vets. OK, well, i can’t argue with logic like that… o.O

          • ostiariusalpha

            Please tell me you’re not so stupid as to conflate a modern FOB with a Vietnam era fire base. And you’re a douche-nozzle because you feel entitled to blithely slander a man you’ve never met, justifying that slander because you were a desk jockey that dealt with fraudsters on a regular basis and therefore magically presume who was doing patrol duty in a war zone from before your time. You are an ignorant buffoon.

          • valorius

            I merely pointed out the FACT that the overwhelming majority of “vietnam vets” are either remfs or outright fakes.

            I was a cold war infantryman, btw, but long after Vietnam ended.

            You seem mighty attached to this man. Were you lovers?

          • ostiariusalpha

            He was a vet that served his country, and a man I respected as an instructor, that you slandered for no cause; I need no other reasons to defend him from a desk jockey with an attitude problem.

          • valorius

            I wish i was a desk jockey, i’d have much better knees today.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            You know, as I read back over your comments, I couldn’t help but see how vitriolic some of them were. You really shredded a guy just for relating a story about a friend. Sorry, I can’t let that go.
            It reminded me of another guy I met online. He was a city cop and former Navy Seal. He delighted in bashing “wannabe vets” and demonstrating how they couldn’t possibly be what they said they were. As time went on, I started seeing some inconsistencies in his stories. I decided to check him out. Turns out his police department had never heard of him, and he had never even been in the military, forget “Navy Seal” Now, I suppose you are wondering what this has to do with you…..

            Valorious – “I was a cold war infantryman, btw, but long after Vietnam ended.”
            Valorious – “You’d be amazed how many REMFS become Special forces commandos when they get back home.
            And it is certainly not hard to walk down to the flight line and take some pics with the guys there. 8 Remfs in their TO&E with M16s standing in front of a Huey look shockingly like 8 grunts.”

            I gotta tell you, There is not an infantryman alive who has forgotten that field gear is TA-50, and even your lowliest, much dissed “REMF” knows that a “TO&E” is the unit’s Table of Organization And Elements. It kinda makes me wonder just what *your* background is……

          • KilltheBank

            A grown man who calls himself a pagan?

          • valorius

            What designation did i forget? In any case, you can think what you want, it has no impact on my life.

          • Kivaari

            Isn’t about 95% of military personnel REMFs? I was in both the Army and Navy and was a proud REMF. Since 95% of vet are REMFs, I don’t think that such a bad thing. Every job in the services are important. Even if we sit back and kill by remote control or simply do the paperwork for a new resistor to keep a radar running.

          • TSA_TheSexualAssault

            In the rear, fixing your gear.

          • valorius

            I’m not saying being a REMF is a bad thing per se, i’m just saying a lot of REMFs get back home and decide that they need to exaggerate their service to their girlfriend, friends and family. I don’t know why they do it, but it’s sadly very common.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            Listen, you have your opinion. You may be right, you may be wrong, but you are definitely wrong to make a definitive determination and sling insults w/o ever seeing the man himself make a claim, and then present false bona fides. Cool your jets man, I detest stolen valor as much as the next guy, but to me it sounds like you been in the boonies too long.

          • valorius

            I’m actually demonstrably right that the overwhelming majority of online “vietnam vets” are fakes. Just google it.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            “Demonstrably right” doesn’t make you ALWAYS right. Sorry man, I know you’re wittle feeiings are already hurt, but I am going to hurt them some more. You cheapen your position by doing that and sound like those PC @$$holes who think they are right just because they say so….

          • valorius

            It’s ‘widdle.’

          • Jimbo

            What’s a “leech strap”?

          • Kivaari

            I have always told people I never heard a shot go by. I sat back 9 to 12 miles away and helped launch 74 pound rounds at an unseen enemy. We all had our place.

          • valorius

            Yep. Every job is important in it’s own way. Even gun bunnies 😀

          • TSA_TheSexualAssault

            I didn’t need an M-16. I was maintenance crew in a forward-deployed back-shop for A-10/F-16/TR-1. Warthog is a low & slow friend of infantry, all were great to watch launch/land. It was “special” to know that I was ~1% of keeping those birds ready. MXS, ooh-rah!

            Air Force didn’t really believe in having weapons accessible to other than Combat Arms MOS’s, or much in weapon training for non-shooters. One half-day in Basic and “qualifying” before going overseas.

          • valorius

            Thanks for your service bro 🙂

          • Jimbo

            That pretty much reflects my experience. A half hour learning how to field strip an M-16, then fired 20 rounds through a “smoothbore” M16, with the range officer standing nearby with a .38, to make sure you didn’t put the gun in full auto. I never got shipped overseas. All my torture was stateside.

          • Kivaari

            It was common for street people to claim Vietnam vet status to get street creds. If you stopped to do the math amny of them would have been 8 to 12 years old when they were in Vietnam. Just a couple years ago a “Vietnam vet” was killed in a street incident. He was 53, and would have been 10 years ld to have been there an done that. People accept the “I’m a vet” line too easily.

          • valorius

            As i said in another post, i used to be board admin at a military site, it was amazing how many fakes tried to pass themselves off as ___________________ (insert fake claim here).

          • TSA_TheSexualAssault

            Born in 1968. Gulf War I vet, not Viet Nam. I see those guys, too, who look 35 with “VietNam Vet” signs. Pls, maybe son of VN vet?

          • Cap’n Mike

            I read somewhere that Charlie used to mine the landing zones, so pilots would not let their skids touch the ground for fear of setting one off. Cant remember what book that was in.

          • BeoBear

            That’s every account of helo pilots I’ve ever heard, seen or read. Seems odd that a US vet would complain about something like then when it’s apparently SOP for American pilots also. Unless they were full of BS of course. The pilots almost always hovered a few feet off the ground because potential LZ’s were often littered by enemy mines as mentioned. Me thinks someone was falsely claiming they were a vet or at the least they never had any experience dismounting helo’s in hotzones.

        • valorius

          M14’s are a no go- they’re full auto capable from the factory.

          • GnarlyNardHair

            I’ve seen this a few times, but AFAIK all M14s were produced prior to 1986, so why would they be a no go? Or is it because it’s illegal to import full auto weapons even if they were originally produced in the US prior to 1986? (further showcasing the stupidity of our laws)

          • lowell houser

            Nothing to do with import or manufacture. The class 3 registry is closed to new entries and has been since 1986 because of the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection act. It was a poison pill snuck in before the final vote.

          • valorius

            2 Reasons: 1) I’m almost certain it’s illegal to import full autos for civilian sale, and 2) Don’t the pre 86 machine guns have to have also been originally registered by the deadline in the law? IOW- I don’t think the Army couldn’t just suddenly sell off it’s stockpiles of M16A1s as US civilian surplus.

            Maybe i’m wrong, i’m sure someone will tell me if i am. 😉

          • TSA_TheSexualAssault

            Select-fire rifles and MG’s should be decriminalized, and de-registered. One less job for ATF.

            Not many people will want a MG, since an M2 is just about useless for other than it’s military job. It inhales valuable cartridges at over $1000/minute. I’ll take a .50BMG boltie or self-loader like Barrett.

    • Ben Pottinger

      Except I think many people are underestimating the effect of removing suppressors from the NFA. Seen the Maxim9 from Silencerco? You could expect *many* more designs like that hitting the market, and the market for intergrally suppressed rifles would skyrocket because it would be as simple as buying a new barrel for your rifle. Why *not* get a integrally suppressed 10/22 or lever action 22, or (insert firearm name here).

      Super short suppressors would actually have a market because why not? If I don’t need to wait 10 months or pay a 200$ tax why not get a tiny marginally useful suppressor for my Glock 43, or a tiny “take the edge off” suppressor for my 556 SBR?

      All kinds of toys would suddenly be viable.

      As for the brace I have to admit that if they changed the ruling on the braces to “allow” shouldering them that it would only be a matter of time until we pushed SBRs to be removed from the NFA as well. I mean lets be honest, the brace when used on your shoulder is really just a more expensive and crappier stock. Personally I’m 100% for it because I believe that SBRs *should* be removed from the NFA. I also believe that the MG registry should be reopened and the 86 “ban” scrapped. (well, the NFA should be scrapped but I’ll take what I can get for now).

      • Don Ward

        To be sure. Don’t get me wrong. I’d like it all to pretty much go within a certain amount of reason. Just for myself, the Sig brace is kind of silly and I’m not a fan of SBR/pistols so that won’t effect me personally. Similarly there are only two – maybe three – guns that I own which I’d even care to suppress.
        Conversely, there are all sorts of neat Unobtainium rifles of various vintages, calibers and configurations sitting overseas that I would purchase in the blink of an eye if they were finally allowed to come in (or come back in).

        • Ben Pottinger

          That’s part of the problem. “Won’t effect me personally” “don’t care about xxxx item”.. Well I’m not a hunter, never have been, probably never will be. Yet I fought for hunters to be able to use suppressors, and I’ll fight against the silly anti-lead rules the park service is trying to implement thanks to Obama.

          We need to fight for *all* portions of the hobby and all portions of the 2nd. We can’t pick and choose what interests us. Especially now when we have a real chance to roll back some of the nonsense that’s been in effect for decades. It’s time to clean house 😉

          • I have been a 2A Rights advocate turned activist and the “Won’t effect me personally” “don’t care about xxxx item”. IS the problem.

            Not to many people left born prior to the 1968 GCA when the Second Amendment stood on its own. Everyone prior to 1968 has been conditioned to the “common sense” background check which hasn’t stopped on criminal from using a gun. Now they will willingly give up even more of their rights because the media and the left say that it will make everyone feel better about gun owners.

            The passion for the Second Amendment has been extinguished and replaced with guns are scary and nobody needs a gun except maybe a hunter and even they are stupid for killing Bambi. For the nuts that “want” guns, we must do everything we can to keep us all safe. (from them). And as a gun owner, and member of the NRA I willingly give up my right to remain silent and other rights just to buy a gun.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            I have found this to be true everywhere I look in the gun community. I have become involved in another issue, that I won’t go into here as it smacks too much of politics, but it affects every gun owner, whether they know it or not, and a huge number of gun owners are absolutely for it because “it doesn’t affect me”. This kind of shortsightedness will be the death of us.

          • BDUB

            Right on, brother.

    • Emperius

      That’s it? How about 1934, 68, 86 laws?

    • KilltheBank

      Go sign the white house petition to rid us of the NFA!

  • ax

    Number 15 is very interesting. It’s tempting given the current political climate, but in the long run it will mean that the law of the land is de facto written by administrators nominated by the president, rather than by congress. if ATF defines suppressors as something not included in the NFA, they’re just rewriting the laws. In the long run, that’s horribad for America. Do it right and keep political power in the hands of congress and potus, don’t let the directors in the administrations have it.

    • It’s the norm for administrators to be appointed this way. The ATF’s Director has been an “acting” Director only for many years now.

    • Bradley

      I think the point was commenting on the fact that suppressors should be removed from the NFA by law. The comment about redefining was due to that fact that any part of a suppressor is currently regulated. That would cause issues if it were reclassified as a gca item.

  • Disband the ATF President Trump! protect the constitutional rights of citizens!

    • Joseph Goins

      Not to be stupid, but how would that be “protecting”? Does the ATF prohibit your from exercising your 2A freedom?

      • GR Arnold

        Yes, as a matter of fact they do. Must you really ask this silly-assed question?

        • glenn cheney

          The Administration will work toward “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” as they can, with or without a LAGGING HIGH ROAD NRA, a foot dragging irrelevant Demo Party, and and a commitment to less being more…less reg, more Freedom…
          Soon, ATF won’t be telling us, they will not remain a separate entity. The horror, the horror, long time retirement plans, bureaucracy dashed upon the rocks…I hope they gut this outfit, they are going to try their best.
          Turk, THE TURK IS COMING FOR YOUR PLAYBOOK DUDE…Coach wants to see ya…

          • GR Arnold

            I don’t know how many has noticed so far … I see hidden in there more and more subtle ways they are trying to slide in background checks for every purchase(s) … gun shows or otherwise. Some of us are NOT stupid or blind. Best thing for us to do is write our Reps. and detail what we want/dont want, then force their hands.

          • RegT

            You are right, GR. It seems as if most of the folks here (including the author) missed suggestion #4, which would remove MORE machine guns (select-fire weapons) from civilian hands, putting them in the hands of DoD personnel and Hollywood instead. A sneaky way to make it harder for civilians to own one than it is now.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            I wish you success with your campaign. Certainly more than I have had. My legislators hear from me monthly, or more often. I keep trying to motivate others, and hear crickets…..

          • Phillip Cooper

            What have you been smoking?

          • glenn cheney

            Two Turks don’t make a right. So, no need to fight.
            In the NFL, the Turk ain’t swell, he’s the next to the last person you’ll see in the NFL.
            Decrypted, CFO Turk, may or may not be a jerk, but his agency has been….and that’s what we hope they become as a formal agency, a has been.
            Now, you can flick your bic.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Put the bong down and go away.

        • Joseph Goins

          Does the ATF prohibit you from owning, purchasing, carrying, shooting, or otherwise enjoying your own firearms (including, but not limited to SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and destructive devices)? No, it does not.

          Even if you were to say “the ATF still infringes on my right to buy a brand new machine gun” or something of that sort, I would point out that eliminating the ATF doesn’t get rid of the law that the ATF enforces which still isn’t an infringement on your right because its simply a hurdle rather than a prohibition. (And technically, it isn’t a right. The Ninth Amendment was intended to be a catch-all in case the founders forgot to list a right that the people had. It was never intended to include made up beliefs that don’t exist. Just because the Constitution doesn’t prohibit me from murdering people doesn’t mean that I retain that as a right.)

          • Kyle Cowart

            Hatred towards the ATF is the same kind of hatred towards the IRS, which is misdirected. Both agencies are tasked with executing the law, not making it. They do some have some horizontal ability, but if you truly have a problem with the ATF, look towards congress and blame them.

          • Joseph Goins

            My point exactly.

          • ostiariusalpha

            You’re very right, but that doesn’t mean that individual directors and department heads of those agencies weren’t pushing the envelope of that congressional mandate, and actively encouraging more legislation. The BATFE is just an enforcement agency, Byron Todd Jones and Max Kingery are authoritarian scumbags.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            Ahhhhh, but the way they INTERPRET the law is sometimes mystifying.

          • Mystick

            “Shall not be infringed”…. that’s pretty straightforward.

          • Joseph Goins

            That isn’t the part of contention.

          • Mystick

            To the contrary – that’s the very core of it.

          • Joseph Goins

            No. The issue is the lack of specificity around “arms.”
            “The right to keep and bear ALL arms.”
            “The right to keep and bear SOME arms.”
            As long as the government allows some it lives up to its obligation.

          • Ebby123

            No ambiguity – the federal government is completely banned from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. There are no other qualifiers or exceptions.

            ALL Arms are outside the pervue of the federal government. That’s what the constitution says.

          • salty

            doesn’t matter, point being anything they do is therefore stuipid, so to defend them at all after knowing that everything they do is basically illegal, why would you want to defnd them????

          • Joseph Goins

            Why do you think I am defending “them”? I am pointing out a truth: the ATF isn’t to blame for anything. The law is the problem, not the agency tasked with enforcing it.

          • Ebby123

            The ATF knowing violates the supreme law of the land (The Constitution), ergo “just following orders” is not a defense.

          • Joseph Goins

            I guess that’s why we have a court system. Oh wait…the courts upheld NFA. I guess you are against the courts now.

          • Norm Glitz

            The courts “upheld” the NFA in the “Miller” case when it was presented to them by the very lawyer that wrote the NFA and with no defense. Miller and his lawyers were complete no-shows. A rather one-sided case.

            Hopefully, that sort of thing wouldn’t happen today and the NFA would have been found to be blatantly unconstitutional.

            Hopefully.

          • Ebby123

            The Constitution trumps the supreme court. Slavery was ruled legal by the courts, but it was never legal according to the Constitution – hence part of the reason we had a civil war over the issue.

          • Joseph Goins

            What are you smoking? Of course slavery was legal at the time!!!

            Art 1, Sec 2, Cl 3
            “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”

            Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 1
            “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

            Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 4
            “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

            Art 4, Sec 2, Cl 3
            “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

            Art 5
            “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

          • GR Arnold

            Yes Joseph … we already know this. The ATF has too much authority to make too many regulations that causes too many problems. They cannot remain unbiased in hardly anything and they cannot understand how to use discretion to the extent it should be possessed and used by a law enforcement agency.

          • Joseph Goins

            Blame Congress.

          • GR Arnold

            I do blame Congress. I also assign blame as I see fit. This will not change.

          • Stephen Paraski

            The ATF has only concentrated on the F part. It is a outdated agency that is only for “Revenue Collection” rather than any enforcement on the A and T parts. When is last time you saw ATF at that new micro brew in town? Or how about investigating the Billion a year counterfeit cigarette market? The GOV makes more on Alcohol & Tobacco Taxes per year than anything Firearm related. How much is a carton of smokes at PX on base now?

      • Ebby123
        • Joseph Goins

          Does the ATF prohibit you from owning, purchasing, carrying, shooting, or otherwise enjoying your own firearms (including, but not limited to SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and destructive devices)? No, it does not.

          • Ebby123

            LOL! Does the segregation laws prohibit you from using the bathroom?
            No, no they do not. You just can’t use the white people’s bathroom.

            Rights cannot be “taxed”. And yes, I am very much prohibited from owning machine guns and all other NFA items due to the punitive tax that WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for most people to own them.

            That was the intent. To prohibit people from being able to afford them.

          • Joseph Goins

            Segregation laws? You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel there. They were overturned because of the whole equal protecting thing. But hey, if it suits your needs…

            You are falling back into that trap of assuming that ownership of NFA items is a right. It is not and it never has been. (Don’t think I’m against having NFA items. I’m waiting on my first few stamps to come back since the CLEO signature went away.)

          • Bill Wrights

            Read the 2A. It says “Arms” not with a predicate modifier like “certain” or “sporting,” but just “Arms.” It’s no assumption, owning Arms is right.

            Was written in plain English in 1791…you’d think people would having better reading comprehension skills in the 21st century.

          • Bill Wrights

            have* (not having)

          • Bill

            Why even include the following: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..” in the 2A? Do you think this language is superfluous? Why not just say “the right to keep and bear arms by the people shall not be infringed” or “the right to keep ANY and ALL arms shall not be infringed”? Either the language is poorly drafted, in which case there are many reasonable interpretations, OR the language is extremely calculated, in which case you can’t discount the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is brought up in the context of a well regulated militia.

          • Kivaari

            Remember before ’34 you could own any weapon you liked. Then congress, knowing they could not ban them, taxed them out of reach of the common man. Class warfare keeping the common man down.

          • Clifford Mechels

            You do realize that in modern context, everyone is the militia, at the time the bill of rights was written, every able bodied man was a member of the militia.

            Further, SCOTUS ruled it is an individual right, membership in a miltia is NOT REQUIRED.

          • Joseph Goins

            “Plain English in 1791”? That made me laugh. (I also take it you aren’t a lawyer and don’t have much experience wth historical legal documents.)

            As you pointed out, the Second Amendment does not incorporate any limiting verbage. It also doesn’t specify “all arms,” “any arms that may come into existence,” or any other absolute terminology. As such, the Amendment is open to interpretation. Even the most pro-gun advocate on the Supreme Court (the late, great Antonin Scalia) acknowledged this. In his own words: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

          • Ebby123

            Yes. Please explain the basis on which you think NFA items are NOT included in “The right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed.”

            Arms meaning military arms that included cannons and artillery at that day and age, both of which were supplied to the Militia by private citizens.

            I’m dying to hear how you think an arbitrary piece of impulsive and illegitimate legislation from the 60’s has redefined a basic human right.

          • milesfortis

            Yep, there go them crickets.

      • Mystick

        Indeed they do, in many ways. Have you not been paying attention for the last 80 years?

        • Joseph Goins

          What does the ATF prohibit you from doing? Be specific.

          • Kivaari

            Congress passed the laws. ATF enforces them. Congress wont let me have a post ’86 machine gun for personal use.

          • Joseph Goins

            Do you have that right?

          • Kivaari

            I believe we do have a right to own arms. Like before ’34 an individual could own anything they like under federal law. I should be allowed to own without hassle a case of hand grenades. I am prohibited from using them in a crime. I pose no threat to any good person. I believe the 2A protects the rights of citizens to own any kind of weapon they like short of nukes. Like laws that prohibit people from having TASERS, stunguns, pepper spray or even body armor. I find those laws to be unconstitutional.

          • Joseph Goins

            Under your interpretation, there would be nothing to prohibit anarchists from purchasing an M1 Abrams for the purpose of destroying the White House and destabilizing the world.

          • Kivaari

            Correct. It is the misuse that’s the crime. People own tanks. People own cannon. People have attacked the White House with aircraft before. It can happen again for a lot less money than an M1 tank. I can buy 34-0-0 fertilizer and diesel fuel as well. I can combine them into explosives and blow up federal buildings like OKC. People can do a great many things.

          • Joseph Goins

            So you are totally ok if when the country descends into an irrevocable chaos simply because of a perceived ambiguity in the Second Amendment?

          • Kivaari

            NO! I find your proposition to be silly. If people wanted to take out the White House there are plenty of ways that don’t involve buying an active M1 tank and the ammunition for the main gun. You do know it is legal to own tanks with main guns and ammo under NFA rules. Main gun $200 FET each HE round $200 FET. You can’t drive a tank on the streets or highways without drawing attention from the cops. In DC, I suspect the DC National Guard has a few HEAT weapons on hand.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Right, just because you can keep & bear an arm, even if that arm is a tank, doesn’t mean there won’t be restrictions on where you can bear that arm. There were brandishing laws even at the start of the Republic, even “gun-free” zones, so there would certainly be restrictions on where you can deploy the tank without permit. The highway wouldn’t probably be one of them, and certainly not the streets of D.C.

          • Ebby123

            There can be restrictions imposed, but not by the federal government. That power is expressly denied them.

          • milesfortis

            You can argue with a troll until you turn blue with frustration.
            You see how he finally stops when he grows tired?
            Crickets when he’s confronted with too much logic

          • Kivaari

            He certainly proposes silly stuff.

          • milesfortis

            You see similar occur when drowning people will crawl over each other trying to get aboard anything that happens to be floating at the time.
            That’s all it is.
            When you see someone resort to outlandish examples in the attempt to remain relevant, the game is over.

          • Chris

            Dude ,chill ! 2nd is clearly written , shall not infringe means the same now as in late1700s

          • Ebby123

            The “ZOMG THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS” is a red herring. A very OLD red herring. Let it die. It has never been true, it will never be true.

          • Joseph Goins

            [1] It’s has never been disproven. You are only talking about deregulation that happened after the Clinton ban and a few other items.

            [2] It’s not similar in any fashion. The original poster wanted to get rid of the ATF and NFA which would essentially mean that we could all purchase RPGs online.

          • Ebby123

            (1) It has been disproven in every instance of concealed carry that has been implemented across the country. It has been VERY disproven.

            (2) You can purchase RPGs online, you just have to register each projectile with the ATF. Thanks for playing though.

          • Joseph Goins

            Both of which are false analogies. None of what you discussed is the result of ending the NFA. Even the current ability to purchase RPGs with the tax stamps is not even close to what could happen if the NFA and ATF went away. We would be more like a Somali bazaar.

          • Ebby123

            Every. Single. State. that got concealded carry it was predicted that “there would be bood in the streets, it’ll be the wild-wild west out there!”. They were wrong.

            Every. Single. State. that got open carry it was predicted that “there would be bood in the streets, it’ll be the wild-wild west out there!”. They were wrong.

            Every. Single. State that legalized the owernship of NFA items it was predicted that “there would be bood in the streets, it’ll be the wild-wild west out there!”. They were wrong.

            You are now argueming “if we eliminate the NFA tax there will be blood in the streets! It will be like the wild-wild-west!”

            You. are. wrong.

            Your argument is tired, unoriginal, and thoroughly debunked.
            Exclaiming “but it will be for realz this time guys!” adds nothing to the credibility of your argument.

          • Joseph Goins

            You inserted yourself into a conversation that had nothing to do with you. Nothing you have said in any way relates to what I have said. I never said anything about the effects of open carry, concealed carry, end of the Clinton ban, etc. My comment was directed to the original commentator and was specifically about eliminating the ATF and the laws that the agency enforces, including the NFA. Government has legitimate concerns about allowing “destructive devices” onto the open market where anyone — regardless of criminal history, mental stability, political affiliation, or religious views — can purchase a high grade explosive. While anyone with time and ingenuity can make a crude improvised explosive device now, it will no longer required since the “real stuff” would be available to the general public if a company decided to sell to non-government entities. Imagine how many more people the Boston bombers could have killed with a few pounds of C4 as opposed to two pressure cookers.

            If you want to comment on that, fine. If not, fuçk off.

          • Ebby123

            Yeah, I’d try to redirect the conversation if I had as little factual support as you do. Repeating the same tired mantra I just debunked doesn’t count as new evidence.

            You lose. Thanks for playing.

          • Ebby123

            “THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!! IT’LL BE LIKE THAT SCENE I SAW IN THAT MOVIE BLACK HAWK DOWN ONE TIME!! HONEST GUYS FOR REALZ THIS TIME!!!”

          • Chris

            He said he was prohibited from using them in a crime …And if I owned the proper anti armor munitions ,I could help stop those ( extremely
            Wealthy {Soros funded ?} ) anarchists with an
            Abrams …Dude ,chill out ! You’re being silly !

          • Joseph Goins

            Its about the principle behind it. Don’t focus on the specifics.

          • Chris

            Shall NOT be infringed …That is the specific
            PRINCIPLE !
            You are being silly ,dude !

          • Clifford Mechels

            Other than they would be stopped before they ever got close enough to fire, an M1 Abrams under way is impossible to hide.

            You do realize the government couldn’t/didn’t stop the world trade center, Oklahoma City, 9/11, etc.

            Using absurd scenarios negates your arguments and makes you a hysterical fool.

          • Joseph Goins

            You — like many others — fail to see what is in plain sight. Scenario-based questions are about the principle therein and not about the details.

          • Chris

            Or just silly !

          • Jacob

            So lets start with this, I don’t agree with you, however I would like to understand your viewpoint. You believe we have the right to own any arms up to an including a case of hand grenades, but you draw the line at nukes. So my question is why draw the line, why is your line different from the current line? What part of your line at not owning nukes, is different than the current line of a box or hand grenades, or an RPG? If you believe the 2nd amendment covers all arms as you’ve said above then I should be able to have a nuke. After all according some peoples logic goes I need what the government has in order to be able to defend myself against them. I just don’t understand the logic behind this. We can either agree that yes there are reasonable limits on what civilians are allowed to own, or we can say you can get whatever you want. We have to first agree that this either is or is not a legitimate reason for the government to regulate what we can and cannot have before we can begin to discuss what those things are, and frankly sometimes that may not be what we agree with.

          • Kivaari

            Under federal law you may own an RPG and the missiles that fit it. Each is taxed.
            Regarding nukes it is the radioactive material that I think is of such great danger. And seriously who should own nukes. Did you know our military doesn’t even own the nuclear weapons? The DOE controls them.
            The feds could not outlaw any weapons, so they taxed them. Every one of the destructive devices are legal under federal law. With rare exception STATES outlaw certain weapons. Even a “free state” like Idaho which allows machine guns, SBRs and SBSs, restricts DDs over .70 caliber, shotguns excepted. Under federal law you can own a 105mm howitzer and the ammunition. The key is don’t use it in a dangerous or criminal manner.
            Personally, I see no “need” to own heavy artillery by any individual. BUT, I think they have the right and that is why the feds allow them.
            I think registration under the NFA for machine guns, SBRs, SBSs, AOW ($5 tax) is wrong. If you qualify to own a single shot .22 rifle, you qualify for owning NFA weapons. I don’t mind the use of the 4473 and the NICS program. I should be able to go to the local gun store and simply buy a suppressor or SBR. Just like I can buy any other conventional firearm. There should not be a 9 month waiting period since all the feds do is a typical “triple I” check just like they do today for a NICS.
            Look at the new Mossberg Shockwave 14″ shotgun. Change the pistol grip to a vertical design and it becomes an AOW. That’s a $5 tax and nine month wait. If I want to do it after I buy the factory shockwave the cost is $200 for an ATF Form 1 “Making and Registration” application. After that it is a $5 tax if I want to sell it. Any good person should not have to go through 9 months of paperwork to get a 14.5″ M4 semi-auto carbine. Why should we not be allowed to own a new M4 full-auto carbine? It’s a $900 gun to dealers. A 40 year old M16A1 that sold for $600 now commands $30,000. The only reason for the May ’86 rule was to limit guns in the hands of the common man. Well, this common man feels we should not have to be subjected to such high prices and paperwork. It’s not that I need any of them, it’s because I want one.

          • Kivaari

            I haven’t found a range that permits practicing with my nuke.

          • Clifford Mechels

            Arms are common weapons usable by the average individual, nukes aren’t, tanks, grenades, bazooka/hand held missile launchers, artillery would be considered arms, not a complete list and more than I would care for, much less afford. However Arnold S owns and has driven his tank. or did.

          • Chris

            The 2nd refers to the weapons common to those possessed by soldiers they would (or may be )
            in combat with ! Including cannon and armed vessels !All could be owned by private individuals
            Uninfringed by our government !
            The soldiers we will face won’t have nuclear handgrenades ! We pray ?

          • jacob

            See but once again we’re drawing that line. We have to be able to say “yes they’re are limits on the 2nd” or no there isn’t. “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.” Now it doesn’t;t say “to keep and bare arms common to those possessed by soldiers”. So ask yourself do you agree that there are limits on what the 2nd allows you to own or not. IF you agree that there are limits then we can have a reasonable discussion about what those limits should be. But if not, then I want my fat boy. My point is often we see people say the 2nd guarantees them a full auto short barreled shotgun shooting mini-grenades but then they’ll say but not nukes or whatever. But when we pretend that not being allowed to register new full-autos is absolutely against our rights, but not owning nukes is ok we shoot ourself, and our argument for things like MSR’s and suppressors and SBR’s, in the foot because we refuse to even acknowledge that some restrictions are okay and even necessary.

          • Chris

            The answer is NO! Absolutely no infringment by our government of THE PEOPLE’S right to keep andBear ARMS ,because a well regulated milita (supplying their own private arms of a useful caliber and power ) is very
            necessary to keeping our leaders honest and responsive to the freedomloving citizens that hired them …this private ownership of arms
            Is what ensures that All the other enumerated God given rights are protected and guaranteeing the Security of our Free State !
            And the framers did discuss what types of “ARMS” they meant ! Reams of letters were written debating the meaning of the 2nd Amendment !
            So we do know that they thought that the citizens (the keepers and bearers who should not be infringed upon ) addressed in the 2nd Amendment should be armed with the same weapons as any army they would fight ! Arms ! Not weapons of Mass destruction
            No citizen soldier has a right to weapons that can destroy areas half the size of some States !
            But , artillery or hand grenades , stinger missiles ,tanks ,mortars , belt fed heavy MG’s ,and AOW ,SBR & SBS ,fully auto or burst fire … shall not be infringed ! Means ,as long as we are law abiding citizens ,we shouldn’t be prevented from buying any “arms ” we can afford

          • Mystick

            I cannot purchase modern, fully automatic firearms made after a certain date, as a civilian. I cannot manufacture replacement wear components for fully automatic firearms manufactured prior to a certain date. I cannot freely exercise my Liberty of temporarily moving said firearms from one location to another without prior notice and permission. If the subject target location is not “addressed” – that is not having an assigned postal box, such as “deeded semi-wooded lot down by the river[sic]” – it is deemed an incomplete application and is denied – especially since it’s in also another state. These are all things the BATFE has prohibited me from doing.

            So go set yourself back down under your bridge and pretend that a certain government agency doesn’t do what you think it cannot possibly do. These things are happening, and happening every day, to many people. This is why there is so much hate in the community for this agency. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalalalala” doesn’t make these infringements go away or stop happening. Wake up.

          • Joseph Goins

            And what does the ATF prohibit? Nothing that you mentioned. Getting rid of the agency will not enable you to do those things.

  • Warpig

    So, the ATF does Obama’s bidding with out missing a beat for 8 years. They create the problems and now they say we can be your friend and fix your problems? Just venting, but I think they got big balls to suggest they can fix our problems when they created them and even worse problems they are not rescinding.

    • glenn cheney

      We’ll see you a pair of ATF balls, and raise you a Neuter.”

    • Squirrel

      Hate to take a dump on your rant, but the NFA and ATF regulations were around well before Obama.

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      Yeah, I wish we had another Reagan in there…..oh wait…

  • glenn cheney

    “We have yet begun to fight.”

  • glenn cheney

    “This is not the beginning of the end, rather, this is the end of the beginning.”

    • Dougscamo

      LOVED old Winnie….and I ain’t talking Pooh….

      • glenn cheney

        Lol, I tried to be inclusive. How am I doing, can you see me now?

  • MR D

    “ATF white paper leak”? Or ” please, Mr.president, dont remove Obama friends in ATF , we are so gun friendly”

    • glenn cheney

      This alpha-bet agency looses.
      ATF to be FBI/DEA de-fanged. More to come from Congress.
      Whip Goin Down.
      REDUX in force, new interpretations, rif’s, I look for SBR/SBS to become a non anything.
      Yes, the Lady is a Tramp.

      • Norm Glitz

        “loses”

    • GR Arnold

      I’m inclined to agree with this and all the other CYA-based reasons. I still don’t trust them at all.

    • glenn cheney

      LMAO, “They love you long time?”

  • GR Arnold

    This is good (if true) but NOT good enough. Too many folks demand the repeal of the 1986 full auto ban and I am one of them. I agree that suppressors and SBR(s) being currently regulated is, and always has been, absolutely ridiculous but the near absolute ban of full autos being made after 1986 and/or current weapons banned from being modified in that manner that were built after 1986 is every bit as ridiculous and unconstitutional. Never before has such an unconstitutional law passed under such questionable and shady means. Actually I prefer a total repeal of the whole damn gun control act period. The govt. may have the right to tax small arms but regulating them has always been unconstitutional.

    • Bill

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the repeal of the 86 ban, but it is by no means clear that the 86 ban (or gun control generally) is unconstitutional. The second amendment is short and extremely ambiguous, and there is good historical evidence that the framers of the constitution did not intend that the federal government should be prevented from regulating firearms in ANY way whatsoever. Based on writings at the time, the framers of the Constitution seemed to be more concerned with ensuring that the individual states could combat a federal standing army, as opposed to guaranteeing an individual right to possess firearms free from any government influence whatsoever.

      • RegT

        The Second is only ambiguous to people who refuse to read – and parse – proper English. NFA, GCA, Lautenberg, and all of the rest are indeed unConstitutional. The Left has been abusing the language of the Second Amendment for years, which is why it took Heller to finally get SCOTUS to admit it is an individual right – JUST LIKE THE OTHER NINE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

        Based on the writings of the Founders, it was an individual right which was necessary so that a militia could even exist. A well-regulated (armed and trained, not restricted by legislation) militia was necessary to keeping a free state (country), since they knew any government would always seek to increase its power and control over its citizens, and a trained militia would be more effective than what we would now call lone wolves or guerillas. The Second NEVER meant that only a militia had the right to be armed. It was simply an explanation of why all citizens needed to have their right to be armed respected (and untouched) by the government.

        A Second Amendment supporter should know this. A troll would not. With all due respect, which are you, Bill?

        • RegT

          Let me add that the Lautenberg Amendment was easily the most obviously illegal legislation concerning the Second Amendment that had ever been written, because it made an individual’s violation of the law RETROACTIVE, which in itself is illegal. So anyone who owned a gun and had been involved in a domestic disturbance twenty or thirty or any number of years before is disbarred the use or possession of firearms.

          And it didn’t matter if you were in a militia, the National Guard, the US Armed Forces, or a police officer or any other bearer of arms in local, state, or federal service.

        • Bill

          If the framers REALLY intended to ensure that individuals could bear arms without the interference of law, why wouldn’t they ensure that the Second Amendment applies to the individual states as well? It wasn’t until the 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 (and all the framers were dead) that the Bill of Rights could be applied to more than just the federal government (i.e. the individual states), meaning that the framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well that the individual state legislators could regulate firearms in any manner they saw fit. Nowhere do the framers say that every right in the Bill of Rights is supposed to be an individual, as opposed to collective right. Furthermore, if the right to bear arms is unequivocally an individual right, why even include the phrase “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”? Unless you think this clause is superfluous language, why even include it? Why not just say “the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? If you really knew your history, you would also know that the second amendment was inspired by a similar provision in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which was clearly understood as providing that the right to bear arms was subject to some regulation. I could go on, but the point is: with all due respect, don’t act like you understand the “proper” interpretation of the amendment when a lot of constitutional law scholars much more intelligent than you or I have reasonable disagreements about the proper scope of the Second Amendment and what the framers intended. I’m not a troll, I do support the 2nd Amendment, and I do believe that greater access to firearms will promote greater liberty, but what I WON’T do is remain ignorant of the fact that the Second Amendment, like many portions of the Constitution, is hardly clear and unambiguous.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Oh, that’s pretty simple: southern states luvved them some slavery, and didn’t want anyone getting ideas about giving their human property nonsense like inalienable rights. This worked very well for them, at least until they screwed up and went secessionist, thus losing their capacity to forestall the 14th Amendment.

          • Mystick

            Indeed. Ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion?

          • Amplified Heat

            Does the Second state “Congress shall make no law,” like the amendment right before it, or “shall not be infringed?” The US does not require states to have a congress, but all are capable of infringing upon a right.

          • Bill

            The Constitution provides the states with plenary power, meaning that the states are capable of doing whatever they want UNLESS prohibited by Congress. This is opposed to the federal government, which cannot legislate unless first given power by the Constitution. Up until the civil war, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, meaning that the states couldn’t actually “infringe” upon the Second Amendment because it did not apply to them. All of this background needs to be analyzed according to the historical conditions at the time. In the minds of the framers, states were supposed to be set up as sovereign entities with much more power than they have today. When the framers used the word “militia” what they had in mind was a state-sponsored group of citizen soldiers, akin to something like the national guard.

          • Chris

            Knew it ..the old disproved ” milita=National Guard
            Anti-American anti-gun argument !

          • Bill

            Disproved? Do you maybe want to link to some evidence? or keep throwing ad hominem attacks around like someone who doesn’t know what the hell they are talking about. Americans should have the right to bear any and all arms because that is the best defense against tyranny, not just because people imagine that the constitution is some perfect document that says exactly what they want it to say. Do you realize that at the time the Constitution was ratified the individual states could outlaw all firearms if they so chose because the second amendment didn’t apply to them? How’s that for fascist you ignorant moron.

          • Kivaari

            Remember that the militia is not the national guard. The NG came into existence in 1903 because of the experience from the recent war where there were not enough troops in the regular army. Like Roosevelt he was part of the NY volunteers. The state militias could not be federalized (still can’t).
            The NG is a reserve component of the regular army and can be federalized.

          • Chris

            “…Constitutional law scholars much more intelligent than you or I… ” Wisky Tango Fox???
            You are obviously a mind full of mush ,leftist who is ignorant of our Country’s history and foundation!
            The 2nd is very clear ,to an honest person anyways !

      • GR Arnold

        WE THE PEOPLE need to be able to affectively do both.

      • Chris

        Wrong

  • GR Arnold

    IMHO, what should be done by all of us is get behind the Heller-based lawsuit filed by the GOA against the Hughes / 1986 auto ban nonsense that is still pending in court. It seems this is the big hump in the road. If this gets repealed it very widely opens the door for the rest of the nonsense to follow right along behind it.

    • glenn cheney

      I can’t recall off the cuff, but what case you refer to may be the one plus another opposing Fed. Dist. Ct. rulings…so, as legislation is formulated, good things should come our way. I was following for same reason…waiting for thee ruling.
      Nothing short of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is my bar, but if the prevailing argument is positive on de-reg, Huges 86′ will not pick up stix.
      We have two years minimum, with trends in, four…Cases in court hopefully will get push from Administration Attorneys.
      Wholesale revamp of the “regulatory/predator agency” diluted down into FBI/DEA and reg’s de-reg’ed coupled FBI’s other main focus, and so, if in the exercise of their operations and duties, they encounter a firearm in possession of a felon, or a stolen arm, they can let “the rook” handle the paperwork. Be advised, there will be some bad attitudes for a while, so hope you draw a veteran FBI special agent, not a newly augmented one.

    • RegT

      That would be a good move, but you won’t get enough support from Congress on that one. Trump wouldn’t do an EO on such a move, either. Too much flack from Congress as well as the progressives, in spite of the fact that the only illegal use of a machine gun was by an off-duty police officer, quite a few years ago.

  • A Fascist Corgi

    It sounds like the ATF is reforming itself to be in line with the new pro-2nd Amendment Trump administration. I wouldn’t be surprised if these proposed reforms are the result of Trump’s anti-regulation stance. He said that he wanted to slash regulations across the board by 75%. So, it seems like that goal is affecting the ATF as well and forcing them to abolish their idiotic regulations about arm braces and suppressors.

    All of the people in the gun community that were saying that Trump was a fraud that was only pretending to support gun rights in order to pander to voters now have egg on their face. It seems like Trump really does want to implement most of what he promised while campaigning.

    These types of reforms are also long overdue. The era in which these regulations were passed are not relevant today. Mobsters aren’t running around with sawed off shotguns under their trench coats anymore. It therefore makes absolutely no sense to regulate the length of shotguns and rifles – especially since we know more about ballistics these days. If anything, short barreled shotguns and rifles make firearms less deadly because they produce less velocity.

    And now that we know that the Hollywood depiction of suppressors is a myth (suppressed firearms are still loud), allowing the public to more easily obtain them won’t result in a more dangerous society. On the contrary, it will allow civilians to enjoy shooting sports without being a nuisance to society. The people that live around shooting ranges and hunting areas won’t feel like they’re living in a war zone anymore due to there being much less noise pollution. And home owners will be able to defend their home from home invaders without having to worry about not being able to hear the 911 operator.

  • glenn cheney

    This publication lags well behind it’s affiliate sister pub, having some amusement here…When the President said DE-REG was coming…he didn’t exclude any alphabet, and the alpha’s over at ATF are going to get aired out, uh-neutered….When Congress gets things straightened out, as in a ninth Justice on SCOTUS, the legislation will flow….heard it here first, same as I said ATF to get neutered, Hearing Act to pass, sooner than later…
    Indeed, shifting sands to appease…just go away please, too soon to trim excess from NFA/Huges, but heed the news, baby to get new shoes.

    FWIW, Much more this week on front burner for FBI, you’ll read in other pubs as this unfolds, and 9th Circuit readies the can for SCOTUS to kick. Recent loss of Seal Team 6 member, a set-up, they knew the boys were coming and were waiting…Not normal, operating with foreign nationals..SAUDIES….Trump to MacDill yesterday, not gonna be anymore screw-ups like that….words behind closed doors, Obama weeds being pulled, one by one….notable was junior officers enthusiasm, some staff ready to “get sum.”

    • KestrelBike

      Wut?

      • Raven

        All I got out of that was a heap of weird conspiracy theories and pseudo-prophecy.

      • Phillip Cooper

        It’s like a beat poet fobbed off on his keyboard,.

        • Amplified Heat

          or is it keyboards clacking?

      • Chris

        Some are saying that mission details of raid where SEAL Team member William Owens ( multiple Bronze star awarded ,aged 36 from Peoria )died were leaked by former Obama supporters still in several departments who want to see Trump fail … ? ? ?
        I’ve already read articles blaming Trump even though this mission was planned months ago during Obama’s administration … I don’t know if info was leaked or not ,but America lost a hero when Owens was killed !

        • milesfortis

          It is reported that the people on the mission said that the “targets” acted like they were expecting the assault force.

          And another point to add. Remember the news reports of the 3 brothers who were IT staff in the House Intelligence Committee and were fired for hacking the computers? Reports are that they were members of the Moslem Brotherhood.

          Yeah neglect due diligence (or worse actually know who they are) and hire an avowed enemy to access and manage a congressional computer system.

    • Bradley

      If you added some appropriate punctuation and articles that might make slightly more sense. I really doubt it though.

      • glenn cheney

        Bradley, does your mom know you’re out alone?

        • Ebby123

          Ah, so in your mind its Bradley’s fault that NO ONE HERE CAN UNDERSTAND A WORD YOU’RE SAYING.

          How interesting…

          • glenn cheney

            Nothing to see here, move along.
            Look, on several other threads here in TFB, I was very coherent pre-pol gate opening…predicted the chit hitting the fan now.
            Now every one is fully briefed and the P.C. po-po are out in force I see.
            If I share a snippet, paste on your screen, could be weeks, days or hours, never know.
            I’m a LRRP and operate alone.
            Waiting now for flurries of FBI in their eye…They and their, not ATF hair.
            Mark em’ before you snark em’. Don’t read it, you font need it.
            Peace.

          • Ebby123

            You literally don’t get it.

            You’re not a wise monk, you’re a babbling idiot.

            This has nothing to do with political correctness – this is basic communication skills. Most of us learned it by the age of 13. What’s your excuse?

          • glenn cheney

            Go away troll…deal with it…

          • glenn cheney

            You seem to understand quite well, lol.
            BTW, There is now a W.H. Petition to disband the ATF, and absorb into FBI/DEA.
            Are you American or girlie pond person from Brussels?
            Sign some A2 Petitions, you need something positive to do.

          • Ebby123

            Don’t deflect the blame, just learn to communicate better.

          • glenn cheney

            Lmao, I have many styles, they traverse many miles.
            Take your comments back to the journslism class, you might find me the prof. teaching Presidential Speech Writing and Effective Communication.
            Sir, how many speeches have you penned for even a Presidentail candidate?
            Let me guess, and don’t deflect the question?

          • Ebby123

            Don’t deflect the blame, just learn to communicate better.
            Your day job is irrelevant.

          • glenn cheney

            I seem to be communicating just fine with you….everyone else got it the first time…why don’t you and I agree to avoid each other. You are a troll.
            Troll something else, or do something constructive.
            Leave the literary styles to the pros. Carry on……………………………

          • Ebby123

            I’m really not interested in what respect you think you’re entitled to.

            Listen to the feedback that numerous people are giving you and apply the lesson found therein: MOST OF YOUR POSTS ARE INCOHERENT AND POORLY WRITTEN. TRY HARDER TO COMMUNICATE CLEARLY.

    • Marv

      That just made my head hurt….thanks a lot dude.

      • glenn cheney

        It hurts my heart more.
        I only dumped half a mag….even I can’t stand the truth.
        Seriously, we wait to see what they’ll disclose to thee.
        Much is dressed to be palatable, let em fix what can be fixed, we’ll try swallow the spin, as long as we win.
        Just an observer, just an observer.

    • Ebby123

      Constructive feedback:

      1- You make little to no sense to the average reader.

      2- “….” is not proper grammar, and in internet-ese it implies an incoherent rambling style of communication.

      3- Try using complete sentences and plenty of paragraph breaks to separate each idea. This will help your thoughts to be received by a much broader audience.

      • glenn cheney

        Here’s the deal….those that know the prose, are those who know what go’s…I toss the chum, fish feed, those that don’t keep on swimming.
        Ebby, I’ve been saying things out front for decades, sometimes at tables where the only person not knowing, lol, was the person I was talking about, as they sat right there.
        If you don’t follow, I must be doing something right.

        • Ebby123

          Not me, everybody reading. 100% of your target audience.

          Being borderline incoherent is NOT a virtue.

          If people cannot understand you because of the complexity of the idea you are expressing, that is one thing.

          If people cannot understand you because you use poor grammar and lots of run-on fragment sentences, the fault lies solely with you.

    • Don Ward

      DAFUQ?

  • Uniform223

    I only have one word to describe it… criminal

    • Ebby123

      Well… if you had 6 words they would be “Slightly less criminal than previous criminals”

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    The only problem I can see with the “redefinition” of suppressors is that if htat goes through, HPA may be seen by lawmakers as unnecessary, but the ATF’s redefinition is much more reversible than a bill through congress. Though the two together would be even better.

    • Bradley

      I don’t think that’s what it means by redefining. It says that if they were moved from NFA to gca classification it would be necessary to redefine because currently every part of the item is regulated.

  • Slim934

    May the God emperor reign terror and destruction on this bureaucracy from his cherry blossom throne.

    In all seriousness though, old US military surplus being reimported back into the country? “Sporting purposes” being re-defined? Music to my ears.

    I still cannot believe such a sane document came from the ATF.

  • it’s just Boris

    If this sweeping a change of regulatory framework can be made by an agency itself, perhaps under the direction of the President, then the legislative branch has ceded far too much power to the executive branch.

    Don’t get me wrong, I would personally like to see many of these changes go through. But anything this President can do by himself, the next President can undo.

    • TeaPartyPagan

      No, actually, a long time ago, the executive stole authority from the legislative. The legislative never saw fit to slap their hands and take it back. All of this should have been cleaned up a long time ago, but the legislature just grew fat and lazy.

  • Vet for Trump

    #3, I believe, was an EO by obama that stopped the importation of the South Korean M1s that we gave them during the Korean Conflict. Can’t President Trump just undo it?

    • Amplified Heat

      There’s also some legal questions about whether we can lawfully purchase the guns, or if we’ve already paid for them (lend-lease minutia over sixty years old), but yeah

    • Chris

      EO by Obama definitely stopped the import of all firearms from Russia ! Trump EO can fix that now !

  • Bradley

    I’m not sure how people are getting from this that the atf could or would make these changes on its own. That isn’t what anybody it says.

    • Ebby123

      Because most of these were changes they made on their own… through bureaucratic “rulings” that became defacto legislation.

      The only one that stands out is the removal of suppressors from the NFA list – that requires congress.

      • Bradley

        Yeah that’s mostly what I’m referring to. I guess that wasn’t clear. People keep talking about where it mentions redefining suppressors as if they think that is what would get them off the nfa.

  • J.T.

    Ronald Turk seems to be a man vying for the position of ATF director and is trying to win points with the new administration.

    • milesfortis

      Well, he is the current number 2 man there.

    • Ebby123

      A shrewd move, but if it nets us a gun-owner friendly ATF I won’t mind at all.

  • Sausage

    Clearly this is the product of someone who has been set free of the oppressive and restrictive anti-gun leadership of the DOJ and the political appointees of the Obama administration. Not all ATF employees are bad, anti-gun people. Many are there because they are of the gun culture and have been handicapped by the progressive anti-gunner in charge. This is refreshing to see and I hope Mr. Turk is the one they appoint to run the ATF as it is clearly a product of his making and direction. As a retired Marine Officer and a post career Federal employee, I can tell you he would have never put his name on that document if he didn’t believe it. All good news.
    You did misstate one issue perhaps, it will still take a new law to pass to remove silencers from the NFA. The reclassification mentioned in the White Paper relates to silencer PARTS so that parts are no longer classified as silencers themselves (say like barrels, triggers, upper receivers are to a lower receiver).

    • milesfortis

      Actually I have a better candidate for Director.
      John Ross has volunteered as a “Dollar a Year Man”.
      Keep the guy who wrote this where he is, the number 2 slot.

    • Chris

      So now we can own chore boy copper scrubbing pads ?
      sarcasm !

  • Mmmtacos

    With this ruling reversed imagine all the unicorn firearms that will finally be able to (or could have at some point) trickle in: SVD, SVT, a proper variant of the SL-8 (and possibly the real deal HK293) even the MAS 223… if anyone cares (Metal Gear fans, maybe?)

    Maybe President Trump can get congress to repeal 922(r) while we’re at it. Useless, pointless legislation that’s just a headache to gun owners.

    • Ebby123

      Its not a headache to me. There is no way in God’s green earth that the ATF could actually enforce that on an individual.

      An importer? Sure.
      But that’s it.

      • Ebby123

        ATF: Prove that these three tiny unmarked internal components were made in the U.S.
        Me: Prove that they’re not.

    • MattCFII

      I thought 922r and the Chinese import bans are EOs so Congress is not needed…

  • Sianmink

    “Discuss changing Destructive Device rulings to better differentiate between launchers and munitions (e.g. by allowing manufacturers to register whole lots of munitions as DDs, rather than the individual munitions).”

    Holey moley.

  • Nicholas C

    Actually the import SCAR grip/stock is not thrown away. it is sent back to Belgium and reused.

    • Ebby123

      The more you know…

  • Michael Bane

    ATF has virtually no friends in D.C. Fast and Furious and the increasingly incoherent “dueling letters” style of regulation saw to that. NRA has a seat at Trump’s table…ATF does not. CYA all the way…

    • glenn cheney

      It’s a fact. Meet ATF new boss, his name is Comey. Just a matter of the right pen to make it hap-“pen.”

    • Amplified Heat

      Yeah State Dept had to be pretty pissed about the foreign gun running & having to play/look dumb, assuming Hillary wasn’t all up in there herself.

  • Acad Ronin

    How about also dropping all restrictions on smoothbores with an interior dimension of 0.5 inches or less? I’d even be almost as happy with a 0.4″ limit. I kinda like the idea of .22 or .35 rimfire garden short-barreled shotguns.

  • Seth Hill

    I’d like to see the following:
    *change definition of a firearm to where it is a collection of parts (such as receiver, bolt, firing pin, etc).
    *remove certain 12 gauge shotguns from destructive device

  • Michael Lubrecht

    Although allegedly authored by Turk or subordinates, it’s perhaps more difficult to determine who actually ordered its publication. Perhaps the director – now fearing for employment – ordered it, with plausible deniability for possible backlash? At any rate, it does indicate that at least some ATF policy makers are capable of rational thought.

  • Bierstadt54

    Sanity in government? Sounds too good to be true.

  • JASON B

    This is NOT something Turk or Turk’s staff whipped up in a day. The thoughts and suggestions in the paper were also not formulated in a day. They reflect the thinking of someone who has dealt with these issues for some time now and has spent time formulating solutions. Just as your thinking has evolved over the years, and you have come to certain conclusions, so has Mr Turk’s. They were simply and finally put on paper.

  • glenn cheney

    Look, the leaked white paper is not policy, nor penned by one (Turk) who will make policy. It is nothing but an olive branch in hopes the agency known as ATF will survive with autonomy. Turk, if retained , will be done so solely for the purpose of leading his bosses to where the bodies are and were buried. That concise and coherent for everyone?

    Turk is likely gone and other chiefs too, indians scattered to FBI/DEA.
    Twenty ATF just sent to Chicongo….

    Turk stuck his toe in the water…it accomplished what was intended…they got the entire country yapping about it and it was intended to whip up some support and take stock on how thick the ice is they’re standing on…hey, spring thaw is coming, so the ice “crack”…pun, what pun, pun ain’t no fun.
    Bottom line cohesive answer, lots of trimming, your cup will be brimming.

    This really is not news, it’s agency fluff to avoid their muff(s.)

  • Walter E. Kurtz

    I thought the fact that the ATF memo was dated January 20th (Inauguration Day) was mighty telling. As others have stated, perhaps Mr. Turk was just waiting until Obama was gone before “revealing himself” as this earnest, anti-regulation mole that has been quietly lurking in ATF all these years. Now all the sudden he has grown a pair. We should be skeptical. The horror…..the horror….

    • Jonathon Quentin Public

      The term is “all OF A sudden” you illiterate dolt.

      • glenn cheney

        He could be a dolt, but, you Sir, beyond being a troll, likely a NATO worm from across the pond, but your unwarranted attack upon a full bird Col. only identifies you as dollop of fecal tissue.

      • Heartland Patriot

        “all the sudden” is a dialectical form of a colloquialism.

    • glenn cheney

      Noon or later release, 1/20/17…one second earlier, it’d have never made print…if “things” are that hairy, you can bet the “tribe” has other factions hanging on and about.
      Purges happen. The horror, the horror.

  • retfed

    All that stuff you want to do is against the law. If you abolish ATF, it will still be against the law. The only question is, who will enforce it?
    ATF started out as the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of IRS, because NFA was (and is) basically a tax law. Do you want IRS enforcing the gun laws?
    If you keep and reform ATF, you have a specialized agency you can keep an eye on. If you abolish it and keep the laws, they will be enforced by a division of a larger agency (IRS, FBI, ICE, etc.). Divisions are much easier to manipulate than entire agencies, and much harder to watch.
    Be careful what you wish for. You might end up wishing you hadn’t gotten it.

  • matt

    The ATF cannot remove suppressors from the NFA, but they can make it as simple as sending a check for $200 and a completed 4473 with the completed background check to the ATF and them simply sending the stamp on receipt. That process shouldn’t take more than a week or so vs what ever it is they do currently.

    • Amplified Heat

      Sit on their thumbs for over a year, check the paperwork & perform a NICS check over the course of a few dozen minutes. The NFA checks are a redundant joke.

  • Phillip Isherwood

    Pinch me I must be dreaming, the government is proposing rational gun policies.

  • Edeco

    It’s a trick, get an axe.*

    *Army of Darkness

  • Dan Goodwin

    Real simple additions to make me happy. Deregulate short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Canada thinks they’re fine! Second; keep NFA paper on FA, but allow new and ones sold after Reagan’s ’86 Fail to again be sold to citizens.

    That is all. Stoked about suppressors! Tired of all the damn forms you need to go out of state to hunt or compete.

  • valorius

    Someday a US president will outright abolish the ATF and solve these issues once and for all.

  • Jesse64

    Eliminate the ATF, period.

  • lowell houser

    DON’T FALL FOR THIS. ATF is trying to turn down the pressure so that you’ll relax and not pressure you congressman to start passing laws that actually change the firearms status quo. Don’t loose sight of the objective. We should accept nothing less than total deregulation of silencers/mufflers(make them mail-order), removal of short barreled long arms from NFA status, and the repeal of the Hughes amendment. NOTHING LESS THAN THAT.

    IF POSSIBLE we take more. LOTS MORE.

    • lowell houser

      Also, they mention M855, but WHAT ABOUT 7N6?!?!?!?!? What about new Mosin imports? AK/RPK parts kits?

  • Cal.Bar

    The problem is that the STATES where a HUGE chunk of AMERICA actually LIVES (CA, NY, CT, HI, NJ, etc.) BAN all NFA type items and WILL NOT be cooperating. In fact, they are going the other way. So even as the Feds consider loosening firearms regs, the STATES are rushing headlong the other way.

    • ostiariusalpha

      A new majority on the Supreme Court can force them to comply.

  • Heartland Patriot

    The bulk of the NFA needs to simply go away, including the parts on suppressors and the lengths of rifle and shotgun barrels. The machinegun registry needs to be opened back up to newly manufactured full-auto/burst firearms (since only ONE registered machinegun has ever been used in a crime, by a former LEO, IIRC), and make it simpler to accomplish. The bulk of the list above seems decent but simply doesn’t do enough.

  • some other joe

    Psssst….. The FBI took over Waco and Ruby Ridge well before all of the “unpleasantness” happened. Horiuchi wasn’t an BATman.

  • MATT

    woah, those SCAR stocks look like they will break, and impale shoulders, with the slightest recoil.

  • glenn cheney

    New W.H. Petition up, Disolve the ATF, Absorb into the FBI/DEA.
    Deal with the problem at the source, return Making Law to Congress, reign in rogue agencies.
    Congress makes law, Executive promulgates law, doesn’t create new interpretation.

  • Ebby123

    Paragraph breaks.

    They’re a thing,

  • L. Roger Rich

    I want a silencer so bad but don’t want to go through the registration BS that it takes now days. HOPEFULLY WE CAN BUY THEM OVER THE COUNTER LIKE GUN PARTS.

  • evlutionz LLC

    I think there are a lot of guys and gals in the ATF that are just sick of dealing with the nonsensical regulations, just like we are. Much of it has no positive effect on anything and is simply a waste of everyone’s time and last time I checked the criminals give 1/2 hoot about the laws anyway.

    As a small one man custom shop, I see it like this. I am tired of wasting my shop time explaining the NFA process and the nuances of it, the arm braces, that silencers are not illegal, that SBS and SBS are not illegal, and that we have to play a part swapping game with some weapons if we want to do certain things with them. I’d rather be at my workbench, but I end up spending a lot of shop time getting bogged down in all of this regulation that shows no gain in safety for anyone and seemingly serves as a way to harass those who actually abide by laws.

    As for the ATF, I’m sure there are some people there that have to examine or approve imports that feel like a ton of time is wasted ensuring that arbitrary rules that achieve absolutely nothing are followed to the T. I think we have all had enough and this streamlining could possibly renew the public’s view of the ATF. Let’s be honest, most people simply hate the ATF. All of the IOIs and Agents I have come in contact with around here are really laid back and helpful and I have grown to appreciate them. They have a job to do and would probably like to feel like they are spending more time on the things of actual effect than wasting it with a bunch of BS. They are also probably sick of fielding all of the questions on matters that are simply not written in the regs so that a layman can understand it. The less BS you have to enforce and clarify the more effective you can be at the things that actually matter. Many at the ATF would probably like to see things whittled down a bit. I couldn’t imagine what it is like working the phones at the NFA Branch dealing with form status inquiries. It seems like it is one of those hectic non-stop call answering marathons and I would not want that job. Removing silencers would make a drastic change in just that aspect of it alone.

    I think this letter is an effort to jump on board with the sleeker/leaner/efficient mentality of the new administration. If you know it is coming you may as well put your ideas out there and be the guy they lean on for input than the guy who gets ushered into retirement early. Very smart move.

  • Guido FL

    It’s about time the ATF stopped acting like the Gestapo of old. Seems no one in the gun owners community has any respect for the ATF and their heavy handed tactics !

  • Derek Huffman

    I think Turk is just trying to get nominated as the Director.

  • Core

    Very logical discussion. Good to hear. This will save our tax resources if implemented.

  • Pat Hines

    H.R. 367, Hearing Protection Act, has already been filed (and needs more co-sponsors) by South Carolina congressman Jeff Duncan, so that much of this white paper is covered. by proposed legislation.

    What’s needed next is another bill that includes the remainder of those items listed in the White Paper so that they’re actual law to prevent future back sliding by the BATFE under future administrations. An Omnibus “Self Defense Protection Act” that would remove short barreled rifles and shotguns, interstate transfers, and the rest of the 16 point list. That way it would be black letter law, not some BATFE “ruling” change.

  • Chaz Spaulding

    Legalize SBRs!

  • Buickguy1967

    Something smells fishy about this white paper by Turk. I put my Google skills to work to look up the history on Associate Deputy Director Ronald Turk, who is ATF’s #2 man. For years before getting the 2nd in command job he
    headed all of field operations for ATF, which includes the agents and
    inspectors in the field. According to his promotion timeline and bio info, he
    would have been promoted by Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and ATF director B. Todd Jones, an Obama appointee lawyer and anti-gun zealot. Under Turk’s watch, the M855 ammo fiasco came into play, as well as many of the things Turk now seeks to stay in the “leaked” white paper. Ordoes he? I also saw he was confirmed as a National Guard brigadier general in New Jersey by the Democrat controlled state
    senate. So tell me this: why no change over the five years he has been in the top ranks? Leaking the supposedly unofficial “white paper” to Washington Post guaranteed it would reach all the Washington insiders, and don’t forget that the date on the paper is when Donald Trump was inaugurated. Is it still leaking if ATF was the one who emailed the document to the Washington Post? Thing is, there are some really decent and long overdue proposals in the document, and it would be nice if ATF had changed its ways, but color me suspicious. Is this really how Turk thinks or just a convenient shift to tell a new administration something ATF thinks President Trump wants to hear? Personally, my opinion is this guy is selling us a bill of goods, and he lacked the courage to do this years ago when he first came into power, because he would never have risen so high by being honest. If this is how ATF really feels, wouldn’t Tom Brandon, their director, have put HIS name on the document? According to Brandon’s bio he has headed ATF for about two years and was the #2 guy for years before that, also given the job by Jones. Why do you think he left his name off something that is such a huge potential policy change? This looks like just another bureaucrat smelling an opportunity and trying to camouflage his real views so he can become the next ATF director.

  • DChrls

    #15 is a bad idea IMO.

  • CavScout

    Your ‘friend and colleague’ is just anti-Trump most likely, or being influenced more by the MSM than he thinks. A way to confirm it is to ask about what he thinks of Trump using Twitter. If he’s against it, then he leans anti-Trump. He probably thinks Trump should only talk to CNN or that CNN is doing fair reporting. lol

  • Rollin Shultz

    It could be they just want to get dropped down the priority list, so that the new administration doesn’t go after them right away. A little obfuscation goes a long way.

  • marcus johannes

    I do not believe it ,Until I see it , When the ATF is abolished then I will believe it ! along with the Department of Education and the Department of Energy

  • matthew_carberry

    We need to keep in mind it isn’t ATF’s -job- to simply redefine regs as a workaround “repeal” of the NFA, etc. That is, in fact, as much of a Constitutional abortion as their prior attempts to use regs to further -extend- the NFA.

    Congress needs to step up and actually vote to repeal or change the laws on the books. Eliminate “sporting purposes”, repeal Hughes, remove as much stuff from NFA as is politically possible. Explicitly redefine DD munitions as distinct from launchers, etc.

    These are actual laws their predecessors passed, and making and changing Law is the job of the Legislative Branch. The “pro-gun” Reps and Sens now have majorities and a friendly Pres, time for them to finally put their money where their mouths are and do their damn jobs and start repealing, not continue to play CYA games by pointing fingers at the Exec branch enforcement choices or applaud/deride the decisions of the COurts.

    Do.Your.Damn.Jobs!

  • BigDave Deplorable ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

    All those surplus M1 carbines sitting in storage in South Korea. Millions of them, right?

  • KilltheBank

    ABOLISH THE ATF!!!!

    REPEAL THE NFA!!!

    Anti gun is anti constitution!

  • tideman89

    After the previous administration, I’m not used to seeing anything coming from ATF that remotely made sense. These proposals actually make sense, and would be a boon to all of us Pro-2nd Amendment folks. Kudos to Mr. Turk and his staff for this white paper!

  • Lee

    All good ideas, but removing the import ban and the reimportation of military surplus rifles should be the priority. After that would be getting rid of the stupid “sporting purpose” definition.