+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel NFA Center (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? (/showthread.php?tid=25299)
Pages:
1
2
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - lazyengineer - 01-17-2023
grayfox Wrote:Will be interesting to be sure, especially in these days of Bruen and WV vs. EPA. The gist of the latter is that an administrative bureau cannot make a new Reg not specifically authorized by Congress if it is a major action -- Congress must give explicit authority. Definition of "major action" is if it costs over $100 million. And the ATF has acknowledged this will cost over that, probably IIRC over $250 M. So unconstitutional, plus Bruen Heller etc say Biden (make no mistake it is on his watch) cannot forbid or criminalize a weapon in common use... which all of these are.
But none of this deters the leftists: notice that Illinois just passed a bunch of unconstitutional (US constitution) state laws as reaction to SCOTUS' Bruen... they will keep at it until someone, in Schwartzkopf-lingo, "breaks their nose" - and I'm talking about the leftists behind all of this, not just the bureaucrats... altho they need it too.
Finally, it fails because of the legal doctrine you cannot make something illegal that was purchased when it was legal -- Leniety or some such term. This is the same issue that Tumka ran into last week when he floated the idea of banning gas stoves "for health reasons" -- which CPSC also does not have authority to rule on anyway.
People keep quoting that. That doesn't really apply. The ATF is not making legislation. The ATF stopped enforcing codified law, and are now resuming enforcing codified law. That's a big difference to the EPA precedence. It's even codified into the law for them to do Amnesty. As to "allowing braces", not so much as everyone says. If you read those famous "letters" (which aren't worth much, as it's just a guys opinion - at the time), they didn't actually say the whole GAME ON BOYS like everybody selectively interpreted them to say. Basically, ATF did defacto OK the topic, by continuing to look the other way. So maybe a case can be made there. But "your honor, he didn't pull over us speeding last week", generally isn't the worlds best defense.
In the meantime, you have a pile of obvious intent and usage of the armbrace to be a stock. Just calling a DIAS a can-opener, ain't going to work when they pull that Drop In AutoSear out of your AR15, and you say no no, let me open this coke here, and show you!
Look, I look forward to the legal challenges and the ATF is at real risk of having NFA on SBR overturned, based on Thomas' instructions to the courts on how to interpret gun cases. I hope they do!
Banking on that is a dangerous game. You do you, I certainly will continue to support those who chose that path. But I'm not going to expect anyone to do so.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - biodsl - 01-17-2023
Living in a time where Roe v. Wade was overturned, anything is possible. I pray for the elimination of the NFA. In the meantime, I'm not dying on a hill for a 12" barrel rather than a 14.5. Others should let reason be their guide.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - LRRPF52 - 01-17-2023
lazyengineer Wrote:People keep quoting that. That doesn't really apply. The ATF is not making legislation. The ATF stopped enforcing codified law, and are now resuming enforcing codified law. That's a big difference to the EPA precedence. It's even codified into the law for them to do Amnesty. As to "allowing braces", not so much as everyone says. If you read those famous "letters" (which aren't worth much, as it's just a guys opinion - at the time), they didn't actually say the whole GAME ON BOYS like everybody selectively interpreted them to say. Basically, ATF did defacto OK the topic, by continuing to look the other way. So maybe a case can be made there. But "your honor, he didn't pull over us speeding last week", generally isn't the worlds best defense.
In the meantime, you have a pile of obvious intent and usage of the armbrace to be a stock. Just calling a DIAS a can-opener, ain't going to work when they pull that Drop In AutoSear out of your AR15, and you say no no, let me open this coke here, and show you!
Look, I look forward to the legal challenges and the ATF is at real risk of having NFA on SBR overturned, based on Thomas' instructions to the courts on how to interpret gun cases. I hope they do!
Banking on that is a dangerous game. You do you, I certainly will continue to support those who chose that path. But I'm not going to expect anyone to do so.
Pulling someone over for speeding (a violation of local and State statutes) is not equivalent to exercising rights specifically listed in the BOR that restrict government from infringing on them.
Weve had 11 years of pistol stabilizing braces and tens of millions of them in circulation, no problem.
Every time ATF tried to change their minds, they were slapped down by Congress.
Exercising rights is not to ever be misconstrued with criminal activity or traffic offenses.
In traffic law, the laws are put in place to help prevent accidents and overall road safety.
In US law relative to keeping and bearing of arms, the restrictions are on government from infringing on those rights, in order to provide for a free people who dont live in fear of tyranny, predatory animals, or common criminals.
As you study the history of the Prohibition and Alcohol Bureau, who were then converted to the ATF in 1934, you see that they are all of those things: Criminals enforcing the more powerful bootleggers while crushing the small-time entrepreneurs, who then got assigned the specific task of violating the Bill of Rights.
Nothing about the ATF is Constitutional when talking about arms. Just because a drunken and corrupt AGs office and Congress formalized their mission in 1934, does not make them legitimate.
Reading through the NFA Hearings of April and May of 1934 will astonish you as to how brazen the AGs office and Congresss disregard for the Bill of Rights was, which still governs the agencys culture today.
They have been very consistent in their charter, which is to prevent the ownership of firearms as much as possible using Congresss powers to tax.
Signing off on pistol braces was one of the biggest departures from that.
The other, most overlooked departure was arbitrarily amending the NFA to reduce rifle barrel minimum lengths to 16, while leaving shotguns at 18.
The 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution apply here, and none are even remotely in ATFs favor.
If we were to apply the reasoning of not getting a ticket for speeding all these years, it would make more sense to say, Your honor, theyve been letting us use 16 barreled rifles all these years.
ATF doesnt get to govern these things, yet WE the people have allowed them to for so long.
Smacking them down on the pistol brace issue with permanent legal correction will be a great way at chipping away at the infringements that the NFA are.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - LRRPF52 - 01-17-2023
Here is the Prohibition/Depression-Era former DNC Chair and then Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings intent on the NFA and permits or papers:
" And I am assuming in all this, of course, that the criminal elements are not going to obtain permits and they are not going to obtain licenses, and they are not going to be able to bring themselves within those protective requirements. Therefore, when we capture one of those people, we have simply a plain question to propound to himwhere is your license; where is your permit? If he cannot show it, we have got him and his weapons and we do not have to go through an elaborate trial, with all kinds of complicated questions arising. That is the theory of the bill.
"Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it; but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to com ply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.
MR. McCLINTIC: I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?
ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: We were afraid of that, sir.
MR. McCLINTIC: Afraid it would conflict with State laws?
ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspresidentialhistor...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspresidentialhistory.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2FHomer-Cummings7.25.19-840x510.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=117ddb50aa836e2e880f69779c021c785838be812bef8ac9d83c977cd5f67902&ipo=images)
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - lazyengineer - 01-18-2023
LRRPF52 Wrote:Here is the Prohibition/Depression-Era former DNC Chair and then Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings intent on the NFA and permits or papers:
" And I am assuming in all this, of course, that the criminal elements are not going to obtain permits and they are not going to obtain licenses, and they are not going to be able to bring themselves within those protective requirements. Therefore, when we capture one of those people, we have simply a plain question to propound to himwhere is your license; where is your permit? If he cannot show it, we have got him and his weapons and we do not have to go through an elaborate trial, with all kinds of complicated questions arising. That is the theory of the bill.
"Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it; but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to com ply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.
MR. McCLINTIC: I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?
ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: We were afraid of that, sir.
MR. McCLINTIC: Afraid it would conflict with State laws?
ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.
This is the way.
The fight on this one isn't Common Use, and it's not Arbitrary and Capricious. The fight on this one, and the part that is profoundly new in our lives, in our fathers lives, and even in our Grandfathers lives, is we have a a brief window of the USSC actually recognizing and instructing the courts to uphold the Constitution, as written, in philosophical consistency of the time it was written - specifically when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (Bruen). That has never happened before. The actuary table for Clarence Thomas isn't great - we have maybe 10 years. And in this particular case, there is no legitimate reason to ban SBR's, since such arms did exist in military usage, even then.
Now is the time to strike. That said, in this moment of the path, people have individual decisions to make, and the outcome is not certain. The cases will come before the courts regardless of what people individual do, and if folks have a discomfort to run a 12" Armbraced Grendel in their theater; well - do what you think is right for you.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - Jake TN - 01-18-2023
Here is a question for the masses. Would a majority of gun owners support SBRs and suppressors being removed as NFA items on the condition they could only be purchased or transfer ownership through FFLs. Would have to figure out a way to deal with individually manufactured suppressors, but that could be fairly simple. Enough to move the ball in the right direction and both sides of the aisle are not 100% happy.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - LRRPF52 - 01-18-2023
Jake TN Wrote:Here is a question for the masses. Would a majority of gun owners support SBRs and suppressors being removed as NFA items on the condition they could only be purchased or transfer ownership through FFLs. Would have to figure out a way to deal with individually manufactured suppressors, but that could be fairly simple. Enough to move the ball in the right direction and both sides of the aisle are not 100% happy.
The majority have been demanding that SBRs and suppressors be removed from the NFA for many years now.
When I was growing up, older folks would scoff at such things and say, All I need right here is my thurdy ought six, son. Dont need no silencers or semi automatics.
Well, I sure could have used suppressors growing up and for all my live fires in the military. The tinnitus I suffer though every day has been a constant and pretty severe reduction in my quality of living, since Im a musician from a family of musicians.
Had I grown up in Finland shooting suppressed rifles, it wouldnt have been a big deal. They didnt have regulations on them, and they are very easy to purchase and own.
I have personally seen them on shelves at sporting goods stores right next to bait, tackle, boating equipment, and waiders.
The whole SBS/SBR thing is pointless since the pistol ban was removed anyway, but you really see that the NFA was meant to ban everything except hunting rifles and shotguns.
I encourage anyone who hasnt yet to read through the 1934 NFA Hearings themselves. You will be shocked at how shameless AG Cummings and Assistant AG Keenan presented their legislation, openly recognizing that it was unconstitutional.
They were inspired by the Al Capone conviction of October 17, 1931 where they couldnt get him for racketeering, gambling, prostitution, and murder, so they got him on tax evasion charges for not reporting and paying taxes on his income.
They got the bright idea that they could apply this logic to violating the Bill or Rights with the same approach, as if people were a criminal class by default.
AG Cummings constantly refers to the criminal class in his testimony before the House.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - biodsl - 01-18-2023
Jake TN Wrote:Here is a question for the masses. Would a majority of gun owners support SBRs and suppressors being removed as NFA items on the condition they could only be purchased or transfer ownership through FFLs. Would have to figure out a way to deal with individually manufactured suppressors, but that could be fairly simple. Enough to move the ball in the right direction and both sides of the aisle are not 100% happy.
Yes. I would own multiple suppressors today if not for the NFA. It's ludicrous that PPE requires a tax and permission to own.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - lazyengineer - 01-18-2023
biodsl Wrote:Yes. I would own multiple suppressors today if not for the NFA. It's ludicrous that PPE requires a tax and permission to own.
Which was about to happen, with Congress getting ready to remove from the NFA registry. And then, someone of completely unknown and mysterious philosophical leanings that no one will ever know (after the scrub), machine-gunned down a bunch of conservative country music fans that were predominantly MAGA; and that ended that.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - LRRPF52 - 01-19-2023
NFA Hearings, May 15, 1934, page 136
(Several hours of discussions about bank robbers, gang murders, kidnappers, hardened gangsters, interstate transport of weapons, and taxation preface this discussion.)
Assistant AG Keenan: Really, what we are after is the crook who has not registered, and we do not believe he is going to register.
Mr. Hill: The law-abiding citizen probably might not register; what are you going to do if he does not register?
Asst AG Keenan: If the law-abiding citizen does not register, and does not get into any kind of difficulty that would cause him to come to the notice of the police, and there are not going to be snooping squads going around from house to house to see who does and who does not possess arms; this is a practical piece of legislation.
Mr. Vinson: You get the benefit under Section 5, paragraph (b), in regard to the presumption.
Mr. Keenan: The presumption is applied to the gangster.
Mr. Vinson: That presumption is there, but that does not touch the question of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing; that does not touch the constitutional power.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - ARMYEOD - 01-22-2023
I can carry a 30 round pistol (loaded) in my vehicle. I cannot carry a loaded SBR in my vehicle. This is a big deal.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - CMoor - 01-22-2023
I guess it depends where you live... I have only been asked if I have papers on a MG once in 40 years... And that was at a range in Reno. Where I live in Arizona now my guess is none of the Leos care at all they see so many NFA items around here. I think they just assume you have them legally or some just honestly don't care because they understand the laws are stupid and for the most part do nothing to affect crime.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - CMoor - 01-22-2023
Jake TN Wrote:Here is a question for the masses. Would a majority of gun owners support SBRs and suppressors being removed as NFA items on the condition they could only be purchased or transfer ownership through FFLs. Would have to figure out a way to deal with individually manufactured suppressors, but that could be fairly simple. Enough to move the ball in the right direction and both sides of the aisle are not 100% happy.
This would apease the left by giving them something that will only affect the law abiding citizen and do nothing to control the criminals. It is the same as all gun laws it will do nothing but burden good people so, why bother... It would just be more un-constitutional gun registration that will do nothing but take money from those who will submit to it.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - ARMYEOD - 01-22-2023
Let's just go to a different level. Here is a premise;
The ATF is an agency of the US Government, right.
The US Government is illegitimate and there is NO USA. No border; no sovereignty. The US Constitution and laws are not obeyed or enforced by the people who want you to think they are the US Govt.
So why comply with anything the ATF or any other agency or group purporting to represent the USG. There is NO USG.
Good luck.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - Happy2Shoot - 01-23-2023
ARMYEOD Wrote:Let's just go to a different level. Here is a premise;
The ATF is an agency of the US Government, right.
The US Government is illegitimate and there is NO USA. No border; no sovereignty. The US Constitution and laws are not obeyed or enforced by the people who want you to think they are the US Govt.
So why comply with anything the ATF or any other agency or group purporting to represent the USG. There is NO USG.
Good luck.
What in the world are you talking about? You are also glowing.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - LRRPF52 - 01-23-2023
ARMYEOD Wrote:I can carry a 30 round pistol (loaded) in my vehicle. I cannot carry a loaded SBR in my vehicle. This is a big deal.
Yup, and in SCOTUSs Heller decision, they have sided with you.
When exercising that inalienable right, you have the following actual US laws in your favor:
2nd Amendement
4th Amendment
Heller decision
State laws supporting self protection and upholding the 2A.
ATF and any other rulings or opinions are contrary to all of the above, placing the citizen in a burdensome position of vulnerability and disadvantage from a practical and legal standing.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - LRRPF52 - 01-23-2023
ARMYEOD Wrote:Let's just go to a different level. Here is a premise;
The ATF is an agency of the US Government, right.
The US Government is illegitimate and there is NO USA. No border; no sovereignty. The US Constitution and laws are not obeyed or enforced by the people who want you to think they are the US Govt.
So why comply with anything the ATF or any other agency or group purporting to represent the USG. There is NO USG.
Good luck.
While that seems to be the direction many politicians and activists are headed, we still have many instruments in place to fight this with confidence using the courts and actual US law, case precedents, State AGs declaring it null and void, local Sheriffs sating it will not be enforced in their counties while the lawsuits build momentum.
I would like to move to a place where the ATF is totally eviscerated and abolished, starting at many State levels.
This might be the beginning of that, because they have over-stepped their power in a substantial way this time, negatively affecting millions of Americans.
Its a great time to highlight the criminal behavior of the ATF, and educate people on their illegal origins, unconstitutional practices, and offensive presence among a free people.
Their foundational legislation being described as unconstitutional by the US Attorney General who submitted it to Congress is an interesting place to start.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - ARMYEOD - 01-24-2023
I am in the same boat. I own one suppressor. I find it revolting that we have to pay a tax and register a hollow tube.
Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4? - ARMYEOD - 01-24-2023
I stand by my opinion and analysis. I am a retired vet of 30 years. Been around the block. I am fairly well educated. The sad thing is that this "country" has been infiltrated and subverted by bad people and bad ideology.
Seems like "Americans" think that it can't happen here. Is is happening here. Folks in Russia, Germany, etc. watched their countries go down the tubes. We are going there.
As a retired military officer, I took that silly Oath of Office. I still must live by that Oath. You know, something about defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.