|
|
Post by Ten Eight on Nov 11, 2013 19:24:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Nov 12, 2013 1:33:31 GMT
Wow. I'd have to formally request an actual stamp or a letter stating that the E stamp is lawful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ten Eight on Nov 12, 2013 3:35:00 GMT
That's the problem. You can't do that. Several people who have received electronic stamps called the ATF to request an actual stamp, and were told that they couldn't have them. The law requires that the stamp owner possess an "adhesive stamp" in order for the stamp to be valid. They can't even follow their own rules. Stupid derps.
Go home ATF, you're drunk.
And stay home.
|
|
|
|
Post by omegaman on Nov 12, 2013 15:02:47 GMT
clownshoes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ten Eight on Nov 13, 2013 18:01:56 GMT
Interesting to see what comes of this. Also, the last day for comment on the proposed Rule 41P? is December 6th.
Personally, I think in spite of the obvious problems with this rule, and the implications, that this rule will go into effect. I think any stamps currently "pending" will be approved.
Hopefully, it will be challenged legally. This rule change really stands to decimate the NFA market, and those companies who make NFA products.
SBRs and suppressors need to be deregulated.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Nov 14, 2013 7:15:00 GMT
SBRs and suppressors need to be deregulated. Sadly I see the chances of that happening soon as slim and none. |
|
|
|
Post by homerj on Nov 15, 2013 3:59:37 GMT
I found the following article interesting, basically it argues that the NFA is unconstitutional as it it illegal to tax a constitutional right ie striking down newspaper taxes based on the 1st ammendment. In today's Washington I'm not optimistic that this would be probable but if this ever does make it that far I can't see how the NFA could stand. www.thebangswitch.com/the-unconstitutional-nfa/ |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Nov 15, 2013 11:18:45 GMT
The only reason it stands is because the guy who was initially charged under the NFA for a SBS didn't have the money to go to Washington, DC to defend himself in front of the Supreme Court.
Google it. Interesting read.
|
|
|
|
Post by homerj on Nov 15, 2013 17:42:58 GMT
There is precedent for reversals, I am suprised there have been no recent challenges (that I am aware of).
|
|
|
|
Post by nxp on Nov 15, 2013 18:28:13 GMT
SBRs and suppressors need to be deregulated. Won't happen. Dangerous Cash Cow is Dangerous. What needs to happen is to change the regulation of supressors to an AOW and allow the 5$ transfer, and move those to an "electronic" stamp so they can be approved within a month. There is NO REASON why supressors should be at the mercy of other NFA items, simply because of the motion picture industry and misconception. Europe and the Kiwi's got it figured out... NXP |
|
|
|
Post by Ten Eight on Nov 16, 2013 0:19:40 GMT
I found the following article interesting, basically it argues that the NFA is unconstitutional as it it illegal to tax a constitutional right ie striking down newspaper taxes based on the 1st ammendment. In today's Washington I'm not optimistic that this would be probable but if this ever does make it that far I can't see how the NFA could stand. www.thebangswitch.com/the-unconstitutional-nfa/This is a good article. I'd like to see Allan Gura? take this on. I think that is the name of the lawyer who successfully argued Heller v. DC as well as the Chicago ban in front of the Supreme Court. I think he'd be successful. |
|
|
|
Post by homerj on Nov 19, 2013 20:53:42 GMT
I wish he or anyone else would too. Part of the problem here I think is that there is still allot of mystique about NFA items from many shooters being discouraged by the tax. "Assault Weapons" are so popular and in demand that its easy for someone to take on any fight involving them but since NFA items arent nearly as prevalent neither would be the efforts to repeal this.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Nov 24, 2013 20:48:31 GMT
I fear the NFA is not going anywhere. NFA items are seen as the worst of the worst in the firearms world by the general public, and though rights are not supposed to be granted on an "as needed basis", the fact that there aren't many compelling arguments to "need" suppressors, fully automatic weapons, destructive devices, etc. will make overcoming the public's safety concerns (and thus the NFA) very difficult to do. It won't matter that almost zero crimes involve the types of weapons the NFA regulates; or that under close inspection there is a very strong case for the NFA being unconstitutional. Simply because of how dangerous these weapons seem to the public, and because it's very hard to prove a legitimate need for such items, we're kinda screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ten Eight on Dec 6, 2013 21:56:23 GMT
Welp, my 5.56 10.3" stamp that I filed on 9/6 via EForms came back today. Approved  . 3 Months total wait time lol. I'm bummed about not having a physical stamp though. They just send you an email with the approved, stamped form as a pdf. Hopefully, my 9" 300BLk stamp isn't too far behind. I filed them a week apart. |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Dec 6, 2013 22:09:30 GMT
Holy Crap! That's awesome! Pics.
|
|
. 3 Months total wait time lol. I'm bummed about not having a physical stamp though. They just send you an email with the approved, stamped form as a pdf.