Posted on 01/03/2014 7:33:29 PM PST by lbryce
An obscure regulation designed to close a gun law loophole that allows some people to avoid background checks when purchasing machine guns and silencers has sparked one of the more unusual gun control debates of the year. That's because those doing the arguing are all gun enthusiasts. Gun control groups have stayed out of this one.
The regulation in question — proposed earlier this year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) — has drawn more than 9,000 comments. Many are from individuals urged to write the agency by gun groups, according to analysis via Sunlight’s Docket Wrench tool. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on Dec. 9.
They are protesting the agency's plan to shut down a loophole that allows people to avoid background checks when purchasing sawed off shotguns, machine guns, silencers, guns that look like pens and even Molotov cocktails — all classified as National Firearms Act weapons under a law dating back to 1934, the glory days of Al Capone and Baby Face Nelson — as long as the weaponry is transferred into a legal trust. Usually, purchasers of such weapons must get approval from the ATF, pay a $200 tax, undergo stringent fingerprint-based background checks and get sign off from local law enforcement officials, among other measures.
But if individuals register these firearms to a legal trust or corporation, there is no background check or required approval from local law enforcement officials. In recent years, gun enthusiasts have been flocking to lawyers or creating their own trusts with popular software such as Quicken. The New York Times reported that Christopher J. Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer who went on a shooting rampage earlier this year, wrote in his manifesto that he'd used Quicken to create a trust where he placed silencers and a short-barreled rifle without having to undergo a background check. (The paper notes, however, that because Dorner was not a felon, he would have passed a background check.)
A Google search for "national firearms trust" returns sponsored ads trumpeting legal services to help people create such trusts. The ATF reports that applications for transfers of NFA firearms to trusts and corporations has skyrocketed from 840 in 2000 in 2000 to 12,600 in 2009 to more than 40,700 in 2012.
While President Barack Obama claimed the regulation as one of the executive actions he was taking to reduce gun violence following to last year's shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the ATF had been working on a proposal for many years. In fact, the proposed regulation says it was drafted in response to a 2009 petition by a firearms industry group — the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA). The group had long been seeking that the ATF eliminate the "CLEO" provision, which requires local law enforcement to sign off on NFA weapon transfers. The complaint was that many local law enforcement officials were refusing to do this sign off, thereby preventing such transfers.
But the group felt double-crossed by the ATF once it saw what would be in the proposal. "The proposed [rule] is being used as a political expedient to address areas of negligible concern. The Executive Branch proposals unduly burden the law-abiding public, will restrain lawful commerce and bury an already overwhelmed agency with an administrative infrastructure that will not serve the public safety interest," wrote the NFATCA's president, John K. Brown III, in a public statement last August.
Meanwhile, the NFATCA was getting beat up on the Internet by gun enthusiast publications and bloggers for being the inspiration for the new rule. Blogger David Cordrea, who has earned the title of "Gun Rights journalist of the year" from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for his work on the "Fast and Furious" controversy, has written a series of posts both blasting NFATCA and the ATF proposal. A typical reader comment: "Way to throw your brothers under the bus, traitors." A spokesman for NFATCA told Sunlight that the group was not responding to requests for interviews but rather directing people to its website for information about its position.
The 9,000-plus comments posted on Regulations.gov and available for viewing here on Docket Wrench appear to come largely from private citizens and are overwhelmingly negative. One cluster of comments appears to be inspired by this alert from Grass Roots North Carolina, which includes such language as, "The resources available to ATF/NFA including but not limiting to NCIC, TECS, NLETS, III, and NICBCS databases more than adequately ensure that all applicants are fully screened." The acronyms refer to government databases used by Homeland Security that link law enforcement offices together, follow background checks for gun purchases, track crime and so on.
In October, the National Rifle Association encouraged its members to comment. The gun group argues that many people use gun trusts for estate planning reasons, "One of which is to simplify the transfer of the firearms to the heirs of the owner. Thus, children, including those who are very young, are often beneficiaries of trusts. The proposed rule seemingly would require even such children to be included in its expanded background check procedures."
One of the leading attorneys who has advocated for gun trusts, Florida-based David M. Goldman, whose website is titled "guntrustlawyer.com," posted his formal comments as well as comment letters from the NRA, NFACTA and others.
Major gun control groups, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, while supportive, have largely stayed out of the fray. "To get these particularly dangerous guns, the president is doing whatever is within his power to close loopholes in federal law," said Sam Hoover, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. However, he said his group had not submitted comments to the ATF. A search of comments does not show any coming from gun control groups, although due to the vagaries of how such searches work it is possible that some may have been missed
Better than 99% of NFA transfers are suppressors and short barreled rifles. The number of full auto weapons transferred is miniscule because the Hughes Amendment ended the productioj of full auto civilian firearms. To play in that venue now is prohibitively expensive. The article talking about “loopholes” to buy machine guns is designed to induce fear and panic in the uneducated minds that make up the majority of society. This is just more of the piss poor unprofessional “journalism” we are forced to bear these days.
To get these particularly dangerous guns, the president is doing whatever is within his power to close loopholes in federal law...
Oh, bad guns! Bad bad dangerous evil malicious stinky extra-dangerous scary bad bad bad guns!
In full seriousness: how many fully automatic weapons or short-barreled rifles and shotguns are ever used to commit crimes?
Another lie in 1946:
“The Alcohol Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, is charged with the enforcement of the National Firearms Act, which provides a penalty not to exceed $2,000 or imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both, in the event a person is convicted of violating any provisions of the Act. Veterans, register your foreign weapons today!”
Nov 19 1946 ‘Plattsburgh Press Republican’
Taa Daaaa !
Private security corporations like Blackwater wouldn't be able to buy new full auto weapons without the trust and corporate exemptions.
Every time there is a mention of repeal of the Hughs Act, these elitist bastards come out and oppose it. Traitors indeed.
NFA should be repealed. There is no reason for any regulation of silencers (suppressors); they should be encouraged to protect the health of shooters and to reduce the noise signature of ranges. While there is a criminal potential in short barrel rifles and shotguns (SBR/SBS), the same potential is in pistols that can be just as concealable and powerful; regulating SBR/SBS is pointless.
As for machine guns, I don’t feel safer with those restrictions than without. Anyone with minimal mechanical skills can quickly modify a semiautomatic to full auto. The machine gun restrictions only inconvenience the law abiding citizens who will not take that legal risk, without bothering the few criminals who want full auto when they are planning a felony and don’t care if they break one more law. I never want full auto because ammo is too expensive and I prefer to place my shots.
None, but that's probably because full autos are so expensive that anyone who can afford to buy one already has the money, he doesn't need to rob a party store......
I’ll take half a dozen in assorted colors!
Where does the line form? LOL!
It’s not the possession of the full auto firearm, suppressor, or short-barreled rifle that is the problem. Millions could own then without problem. Just like a hammer or fertilizer, it’s the use that should be subject to law not the possession.
While I generally agree about placing shots, I would like to have the option, in case I ever need it (okay, and just for fun, every now and then).
When did the value of machine guns ever go down?
The year was 1985 when REAGAN signed the Hughs act. The act made all machine guns manufactured and imported into the country ineligible for registration after 1985.
Before the Hughs act, a full auto M16 could have been purchased for $400.00, plus the $200.00 transfer tax stamp. The Colt semi auto version was $450.00. Now, a full auto M16 sells for upwards of $10,000. The Colt semi auto sells for $1150.00.
My Thompson 1927 A1 deluxe cost me $1000.00. The 1927 model full auto Thompson sell for upwards of $18,000.00, plus the $200.00 tax stamp.
If the Hughs act were to be repealed tomorrow the price of a full auto M16 would plummet to about $1200. The same if Auto Ordnance was allowed to produce the full auto 1927.
The collectors would really take it in the shorts, wouldn't they? Thus their opposition to the repeal of the Hughs act. Follow the money.
OK, I understand your logic. My point is that all other types of firearms have continued to be produced since 1985. I don’t see the price of them dropping, despite millions more added to the market. You know a lot more about it than me, but I just don’t see your scenario happening. Collectible firearms continue to go up in value.
LOL... this article is full of it. The information in it is patently misleading. I deal with NFA items and trusts every day. I’ll just say this, show me one single instance where this fear mongering claim is true.
Good luck because BATFE cannot show a single instance of it.
In 1980, the Colt AR was a little less than a weeks pay. Today, the Colt AR is still less that a weeks pay. The price really hasn't gone up except for inflation. The full auto on the other hand has gone up 3000 percent because a stupid law makes it illegal to buy new ones.
The 1927 Thompson is a collectible because it is an antique. But what makes it really valuable is because it is full auto and they aren't making them like that anymore thanks to the Hughs act.
Gun prices haven't really gone up much in the last 30 years due to the fact that more companies have entered the marketplace and technology enables guns to be made cheaper and faster. A good accurate hunting rifle cost me $350.00 in 1981. Today a good accurate hunting rifle still can be had for $350.00. The difference is now it's a Savage, then it was Winchester. Technology made Savage the equal of Winchester.
Agreed.
There is no reason to have federal regulation of gun mufflers (silencers,suppressors) or short barrelled rifles or shotguns beyond what exists for pistols.
In effect, short barrelled rifles or shotguns *are* effectively pistols, while there has never been a decent reason for these insane controls on gun mufflers, which even most European countries impose far less regulation on than the United States.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/11/comment-now-on-proposed-additional.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.