- Messages
- 3,018
- Reactions
- 10,611
Must be Friday. Common sense class is back in session.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am hard pressed to think that this procedure was followed in Sandy Hook, Orlando, Denver, San Diego, Las Vegas, etc. I am pleased you followed the rules and have the necessary permits. As far as the 'trust route' I am sure it has other advantages as well.To expand on this as I have the time to do so now. Let's discuss "easy access", shall we? As an example, I have a silencer pending as of this writing. It is a small metal can that will protect my hearing whilst shooting.
When we started our NFA collecting many years ago, we opted to got the trust route for a variety of reasons. One of which was that my beloved wife would be able to use those items, without me around, without becoming a federal felon. What did that require? Well:
The Trust is now in existence and we commence registering NFA items. I decided late last year to obtain a 5.56mm/.223 silencer for two reasons:
- Hundreds of dollars spent with an attorney.
- His time and the time of his secretary.
- My time.
- My wife's time.
- A notary's time.
So what did I/we have to do to have "easy access" to that object that is slightly larger than a soup can, that will protect my hearing?
- When my schedule slows down, I would like to get back into coyote hunting. The hunting rifle setup I'm building will wear this device so that I can prevent irreversible hearing damage.
- I also have a SBRed AR-15 which is quite loud. Though we live on rural property and can and do shoot on said, some firearms are so loud, I rather not contribute to noise pollution. (Oh, and parenthetically, that SBR took 11 months and 6 days to get approved. More on waits in a moment.)
We done yet? LOL, not even close.
- Complete a Form 4 in triplicate.
- Fill out Responsible Person Questionnaire forms for both adults.
- Both me and the Mrs, who are working professionals (tech sector and teaching, respectively). We had to take time to go down to the police department on one of the two days they took them for citizens and get fingerprint cards completed. At our expense of course.
- Both of us going to Walgreen's, on a day we could get daycare, to get passport photos taken. Again, at our time and expense.
- Print and sign a copy of our Trust paperwork (all 46 pages).
- Update the proper schedule on said legal document.
- Cut a check for $200 to the feds to pay for the privilege to exercise an enumerated right.
- Make/scan copies of everything for our records.
Utter bullplop. Would you like to do all that to exercise any other right? I didn't think so.
- The can was bought from a vendor called Silencer Shop. They had to Form 3 it to a local FFL/SOT. Said firm was difficult to work with, but we got it nailed down. That transfer took nearly six weeks.
- Finally everything (Form 4, et al.) is then submitted to the feds.
- A copy of Form 4 is also sent to the CLEO.
- And here we are well over a year since the time of the purchase, and close to a year since going pending, and I'm still waiting. An ATF representative told me that it would likely be "another month or so", bringing the whole process just under a year and a half.
- When it is finally approved, I'll drive over two hours (round trip) to a licensed FFL/SOT to complete a Form 4473 and finally pick-up the item.
(And that isn't just hypothetical; remember, Senator Feinstein proposed legislation to make owning many semi-autos require the same NFA gauntlet.)
And no court has ever infringed on the bill of rights... Seriously dude, your arguments are not even tissue paper thin, they are non-existent. Quit trolling.the Supreme Court just rejected that argument in Maryland.
You are right, We might be able to find out if research could be done to find out "why" it is happening. But the Government has banned any type of Gun research due to pressure by the NRA and gun lobbies.
The first amendment does not mention what type of speech is protected either. The logical inference (and fully backed up by the framers intent) is that all speech, and all arms are protected.The isn't any disagreement about carrying or having firearms. The issue is what type of firearms and accessories. None of these references mention anything about the TYPE of weapon. And the agreement that "Assault Rifles" protect us against a military with machine guns, rocket launchers, drones, armored vehicles and even Tank doesn't even come close to making sense.
I had a discussion with a coworker a while back about the scary, evil AR15. I mentioned that it was "just a rifle" and he about had a fit, saying it was so much more than "just a rifle". Somehow it's a scary death ray?
He has a Mini-14 and that's OK. I told him that they were functionally identical except that the AR is generally more accurate and arguably more reliable. From a civilian perspective it's not even that much different from the old M1 Carbine from 1940 except a more effective caliber, accuracy and reliability. Somehow in his mind an AR is some new, high-tech death ray. Should we really restrict a certain type of firearm because it's more accurate and reliable? He had no idea that the AR has been around since the late 1950's! Tell me again how it's some kind of new-fangled weapon of mass destruction?
The old saw about any gun having been designed for "only one purpose" is a ridiculous argument. It's a gun-banner's tired old catchphrase that really doesn't even make any sense. A Brown Bess musket was clearly designed for only one purpose, and I don't hear calls to ban them.
The reality is that the vast majority of us do not want weapons in the hands of bad people. I have children and their safety is of the utmost importance to me. How to do that without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding is the question. I for one am not willing to have California or Australia style gun control in the quest for "public safety".
For one thing, I think that level of control takes away rights completely and divvies back some privileges as the government sees fit. For another, it's clear that ultimately they are not effective at keeping us safe.
I do agree that if we're going to have background checks they should be as accurate as possible. I think a nut job or a criminal is going to get a gun either way even if a background stops them, but if we're going to do background checks they should be complete and accurate, and flag someone who shouldn't have a gun while not delaying someone who is clean.
As a society, as individuals in society, there is one thing that we can do to help keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Here's some gun control that I can get behind: control your own guns and keep them locked up! Guns get stolen all the time; it's the number one way criminals get guns. A good friend just had three handguns stolen from his truck. As much as I hate a thief, he really should have had them secured better. I had some guns stolen many years ago and now keep mine locked up tight. What has always bothered me more than the monetary loss is the thought of what some dirt-bag might be doing with my guns. I hope my S&W model 29 is rusting at the bottom of a river, rather than in the pocket of some drug dealer.
No, I don't think we need a law requiring everyone to keep their guns locked up. That's the knee-jerk liberal solution to everything- a new law telling everyone how to live their lives. Rather, I think we need to improve the safety culture of our own community, and securing our weapons is a big part of that.
You are correct that is was the CDC that was stopped from doing research. I don't believe that it was a 'partisan ploy'.Stop lying. Pretty sure what was stopped was the CDC from researching gun violence as a disease specifically which was obviously a partisan ploy. There have been tons of other studies done on FBI crime statistics etc. Also nothing is stopping say you from funding some research if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Not that fast! only the "Rifleman" was that quick !Ah kin whip thu' lever uv wunna ma Winchesters purdy qwik!
Why does a comment have to be insulting? If it makes you feel better, go for it!A Doucheocrat's Soviet-sponsored, un-American Commie mouth.
In my mind, most of those would qualify.I have a reason for asking.
I agree, WE are smarter than this. We can do better. Rather than look for ways to turn around facts, statements, and throw insults. we can have a positive impact on rightful and responsible ownership of firearms."1. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better make sure kids can't get guns.
2. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better find out what's making these kids want to kill, fix that, and then they won't want to use guns to kill teachers and classmates.
See what I did there? Which statement makes more sense? Don't bring up politics. Don't refer to statistical data. Don't nervously look at your cell phone. Just read the two statements and be honest with yourself. We can do better. We're smarter than this. WAKE UP."
― Aaron B. Powell, Guns Part 2
All laws affect only those who wish to be law abiding.A flintlock or the latest issue Infantry rifle...There is no real difference.
If someone shoots you with either and you are hit in the right the place , either will make you dead.
The use of one over the other will not make you "deader"...
As for the argument of more or higher capacity magazines and a faster rate of fire makes a rifle "more deadly".. its only hits that count...no matter the amount of bullets in the magazine , shots fired , or how fast...
A gun only does what it is supposed to do , fire its bullet or shot , after someone pulls the trigger...it does not care what you think or feel about it....
It is time that folks understand that :
It is not the gun who is at fault...
It does not matter what gun was used in a crime , but that a crime was committed...
Owning one gun or a thousand guns , does not make a law abiding citizen dangerous...
It does not matter how many bullets a magazine holds or how fast a gun fires...neither makes one gun or magazine more "deadly" or dangerous...its the person using it.
Current firearm laws , while well intending , are faulty and not working at keeping folks from being shot...
Firearm laws also really only affect those who wish to be law abiding...
Andy
Seven out of the Ten-Point Brady/Bloomingdouche Talking Point Checklist, troll confirmed and Ignore Listed.Let me help you with your check list to make sure you hit all the predictable buzz phrases.
-"assault rifles"
-"Government has banned any type of Gun research due to pressure by the NRA and gun lobbies"
-"necessary permits"
-"The gun 'community' has to take responsibility for doing that, both personally and then through legislation when needed."
-"sensible measures"
-"controlled by the ideology (read money) of the NRA"
-"many features make one firearm more dangerous than others"
Well, that's a good start but somehow you neglected "as a fellow gun owner", "for the children", and "no one is coming for your guns". It's still early though. I'm sure you'll work them in eventually. There's always next Friday
I agree, WE are smarter than this. We can do better. Rather than look for ways to turn around facts, statements, and throw insults. we can have a positive impact on rightful and responsible ownership of firearms.
The current situation doesn't seem to allow that not does it allow sensible measures to be taken when our 'government' is so controlled by the ideology (read money) of the NRA.
Again we are going to have to disagree...All laws affect only those who wish to be law abiding.
And many features make one firearm more dangerous than others, the same way that a semi-truck is more dangerous in a crash than a small pickup. While both are driven by a person, one of them has more ability to inflict damage. True the result is the same, but there is a difference.