NRA Backs Hearing Protection Act
Fairfax, VA – The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced its support today for the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 3799).
Sponsored by Congressman Matt Salmon (AZ-05), the legislation removes suppressors from regulations established under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
“Suppressors significantly reduce the chance of hearing loss for anyone who enjoys the shooting sports,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of the NRA and our 5 million members, I want to thank Rep. Salmon for his leadership on this important bill.”
Prevailing regulations requires buyers to send an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pay a $200 tax, and pass an arduously time consuming ATF background check. Under Salmon’s bill there will be no application, no tax, and buyers would be required to pass the same National Criminal Instant Background Check (NICS) as law-abiding guns owners.
As a leading voice in the industry, the American Suppressor Association has provided valuable insight to the creation of the Hearing Protection Act. “Suppressors benefit all involved in hunting and the shooting sports. It’s time to bring the law in line with modern technology,” said Cox.
It is currently legal to hunt with a suppressor in 37 states. 41 states allow private ownership of suppressors. Continue reading
X Products Can Cannon Ruled to be an NFA Item When Assembled
Fresh from the X Products LLC Facebook page is a notice from the company about the BATFE’s determination letter regarding the classification of their “Can Cannon” product.
The letter indicates that the BATFE has evaluated the product and determined that, by itself, the product – essentially an AR-type upper receiver with a big tube for a barrel – is not a firearm. However, when the user mounts the Can Cannon onto a lower receiver, he has created a short barreled rifle (SBR) if the lower is a rifle receiver or an “any other weapon” (AOW) if the lower is a pistol receiver.
The company’s letter states that they are in the process of finding a redesign that will not result in the creation of an SBR or AOW when the Can Cannon is mounted. Until the fix is finished and approved, however, Can Cannon owners should be aware that assembling the product onto a lower receiver will result in a Title II firearm that is governed by the rules of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and, without the proper making/transfer/registration paperwork, can result in the potential for hefty monetary fines and prison time.
This determination is not the end of the world, however. Aside from the X Products redesign, users are also able to just go with it and use this as an opportunity to start down the costly road of NFA ownership. Although the extra wait (months) and expense ($200) may not appeal to everyone, owning NFA firearms is easier than most people might expect. I suspect that what is needed here would simply be an ATF Form 1 Application to Make and Register a Firearm for the appropriate item (SBR or AOW) that you wish to create.
X Products is encouraging Can Cannon owners with questions or concerns about this matter to contac them directly
Perhaps Team GunLink may be in the hunt for a cheap Can Cannon when the market gets flooded by owners who do not want to bother with the additional work.
UPDATE: BATFE Determination Letter
X Products has now posted a copy of the BATFE determination letter describing the above findings. Read the full letter (PDF) by clicking the excerpt below.
41P Final Ruling Pushed Back to (at least) December 2015
A final decision on ruling 41P – the rule change that would add further impediments to owning NFA items such as silencers and short barreled firearms – has officially been pushed back. Again. Previously expected nearly a year ago, a decision was pushed back to the end of 2014 and then again to “sometime in May 2015.” More recently, the NSSF released a statement that a decision would likely not come for another six months at a minimum.
Yesterday, the NSSF’s prediction was officially confirmed as the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs website was updated to reflect a new final decision date of “12/00/2015,” meaning “sometime in December 2015.”
Keep in mind that this does not mean that 41P will go into effect in December or, for that matter, that a decision will actually be reached by that point. Several dates have been given as the final action date, yet those dates have come and gone with only more delays. In addition to addressing each concern raised in the 9,500+ comments received on the matter, the NSSF brought up a number of technological and implementation hurdles that would need to be addressed – perhaps no small obstacle given the history of eForm 4 implementation, management, maintenance, and (pending) re-launch.
Despite all of that, a decision will be reached at some point, whether it is in December or later. However, that decision could very well be to say that “this is all rubbish, let’s scrap the idea.” Regardless of when the decision comes and what it is, we maintain that there is no time like the present to jump into the NFA game and doing so with an NFA gun trust is an easy way to do it.
The abstract of the rule change reads:
The Department of Justice is planning to finalize a proposed rule to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, the rule would; (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).
Join the 41P discussion on the GunLink forums or add your comments below.
Yes, YOU can Own NFA Items Like Silencers, SBRs and Machine Guns
And it’s Probably Easier than you Think
I was shooting a suppressed pistol at the range this week when I heard the whispers from a few lanes down. Incidentally, one of the benefits of shooting suppressed weapons is that you not only retain the ability to hear whispers but you can hear them while you are shooting. “Why is that gun so quiet? A suppressor? Are those even legal to own?“
It’s a common enough question, and the answer is Yes. Well – a qualified “yes.” Per the map at SilencerCo’s www.SilencersAreLegal.com site, private civilian ownership of suppressors is currently allowed in 39 states. After shedding some light on how the process works and letting the whisperers run a few rounds through the suppressed .22, they seemed excited and were asking more questions, including ones about how to get started and how much it costs.
The ownership of suppressors (a/k/a silencers), along with other National Firearms Act (NFA) regulated items such as short-barreled rifles (SBR) and short-barreled shotguns (SBS), destructive devices, and, yes, even machine guns, is the subject of a lot of rumors, myths, and misinformation. Although heavily regulated by federal law, provided that you live in a state where their ownership is not prohibited, ownership of these items is perfectly legal.
Common Myths
Some of the more prevalent myths include that they are unequivocally illegal to own (they aren’t), you need a license to buy NFA items (you don’t), that the ATF can come barging in to look at your firearms whenever they feel like it (they can’t), nobody else can enjoy your NFA items even with you present (they can), and that playing the NFA game is expensive. Continue reading
Another 41P Pushback? Good News for NFA Enthusiasts.
According to yesterday’s NSSF Bullet Points newsletter, it looks like a final ruling on 41P – the rule change that would modify the process of transferring or making NFA firearms for legal entities – may get pushed back again.
The newsletter, under the heading “No Implementation Yet Seen for Notice 41P as Final Rule” reads: “NSSF has confirmed with ATF that the bureau is unlikely to publish Notice 41P (NFA Trusts) as a Final Rule for quite some time. This is in part because EPS resources are being diverted to help process the 310,000 public comments received in response to the armor piercing ammunition framework proposal. In addition, it seems ATF has not prepared to revise the NFA database so that it can track “responsible persons” for NFA trusts. The proposed rule would require the responsible person(s) on an NFA Trust be fingerprinted.”
As we previously reported, the BATFE received over 9000 comments on Notice 41P and is required to address each issue raised in those comments. With resources diverted to processing the gargantuan number of ammo ban comments, processing 41P comments – perhaps seen as a back-burner issue – may have stalled.
Short of flat-out discarding the entire 41P proposal, this lack of movement on the issue and further delay of a final ruling (if it ever even happens, instead of just quietly disappearing) is some of the better news that could come on the subject. Further delay of a ruling gives those wishing to own NFA-regulated items, such as supressors and short-barreled rifles, using a trust (which you can even get online) more time to establish that trust and get their required paperwork filed.
ATF Receives Nearly 9,500 Comments on Proposed NFA Trust Rule Change 41P
Responses include 100+ pages from David M Goldman, 17 from NRA-ILA
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) received 9,479 comments filed regarding docket ATF-2013-0001: Machine Guns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms: Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Corporation, Trust or Other Legal Entity with Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm.
The proposed rule change is summarized on its regulations.gov site as: “The Department of Justice is planning to finalize a proposed rule to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, the rule would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).”
In layman’s terms, what 41P does is require anyone obtaining an NFA firearm as a legal entity (e.g. an NFA Trust, LLC, or Corporation) to submit fingerprints, photographs, and proof of US citizenship along with their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer’s (CLEO) approval for each purchase or transfer. In many jurisdictions, this results in de facto ban on NFA firearms where the CLEO refuses to approve NFA transfers either because they are ignorant of NFA items or are outright anti-gun.
Among the comments received is a 17 page document filed by Chris Cox on behalf of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). In his comments, Cox references a number of other comments, including those filed by NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog’s David M. Goldman in his 55 page submission accompanied by another 88 pages of supporting exhibits. Cox goes on to point out their three main objections to the change:
First, its requirements are not authorized by the NFA and are therefore illegal for the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to impose. Second, the requirements could effectively block even those who are lawfully entitled to receive and possess NFA firearms from doing so under the very regime Congress created, and most states recognize, for this purpose. On the other hand, ATF has articulated no reason why the current regime has proven unworkable or how imposing these additional burdens on responsible, law-abiding persons would enhance public safety.
The comments appear to be overwhelmingly in opposition to the changes in 41P and articulate many reasons why the proposal should not be implemented. The BATFE must now review all of the submitted comments and replies before making a decision – which is expected to come in early 2015.
