[Studentofthegun]

I think there are some NFA owners out there that like the idea of being in an exclusive "club" so to speak. If a picture ID and fingerprints are required, why not CLEO signoff? I mean, if paperwork with a sheriff signature on it makes everyone feel better, why not have the CLEO signature be required? What I'm saying is that this logic is a slippery slope.

The reason is because a suppressor does nothing to change the fundamental function of a firearm. It doesn't make it more lethal. If a person owns a gun, they should also be able to have accessories for it, and that includes a shorter barrel and/or a suppressor. As for machine guns, how often are they used in crime anyway? Hardly ever. Anyone willing to jump through the hoops for a trust, and wait that damn long, ought to be able to own it. Not to mention the fact that based on the cost of full auto weapons, I somehow doubt that a person able to buy a Mac 10 for $6,000 is going to be knocking over a liquor store any time soon. And that's a "cheap" machine gun.

This "exclusive club" mentality when it comes to certain aspects of firearm ownership has got to end. We should be helping people get NFA items so that if and when anti-gunners try to put further restrictions into place, there are more people fighting to maintain those rights. There are already too many gun owners that don't seem to care about NFA items because they can't afford them or are daunted by the process. Those folks don't come out in great numbers to defeat measures like 41P because many of them feel like it doesn't affect them.

Ol' Ben Franklin had it right when he said "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

I, for one, intend to spread Black Rifle Disease and NFA ownership as much as possible. And maybe even a little Garanditis while I am at it. Gun owners need to look out for one another. That's what brothers and sisters in freedom are supposed to do.

 

[Studentofthegun]

I don't know, I thought you said it pretty well, cell phone or no cell phone.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Let me add some perspective behind my comments.

First, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional for firearms to be regulated. There is longstanding precedent, supported by both conservative as well as liberal members of the court, and the liklihood that this will ever change is about zero.

No one is debating that point with you. Rather, we are debating whether or not we should be willing to accept additional regulation of trusts. Specifically, you're talking about adding regulations to trusts that are not currently in place. The thought behind that, as you've said, is that you want additional controls on people who would buy guns. My point is that when it comes to guns specifically, that should, by definition, not include suppressors. There should be some sort of distinction between what is a gun and what is an accessory.

I also see where you are coming from when it comes to regulation of firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals. I would simply say that your argument, however, is an appeal to authority, i.e. a false argument. I do not care that a so-called "conservative" was in favor of a gun control measure. Regardless of how the courts want to redefine provisions of the constitution, you and I, as gun enthusiasts and critical thinkers, should understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, especially when it comes to additional writings of the founding fathers. I think their meaning is clear, and whether or not that right has been slowly infringed upon over the years is irrelevant. We should do whatever we can to stop further regulation, especially if repealing the existing laws is not feasible. For if we continue to capitulate, eventually we will lose everything. The anti-gun movement understands the concept of incremental infringement, even if some of us don't.

Thus, as much as we would wish otherwise, we will never win the "shall not be infringed" argument in full. There will always be a degree of infringement - whether we like it or not - and we can't change it.

Even if we can't change it, it doesn't mean we should automatically accept new regulation. To do so is to admit defeat.

We can however, play an important role in keeping that infringement as minor as possible. Making our voices heard - and being reasonable with our arguments - is important. Passion and participation is important as well. Supporting the orgs that represent us in this area - whether it be the NRA, GOA, or GRNC, is also important as the larger their memberships and funding, the more influence that they have at the political level.

I agree with you that we should support various organizations. But I feel compelled to point out that on the one hand you say: "keep that infringement as minor as possible", and on the other you are willing to extend regulation of individuals to an area where that level of regulation did not previously exist. Thus, by definition you are arguing for an expansion of the law.

For 80 years NFA firearms - in particular MG's and suppressors - have been within the envelope of what the Fed's consider a valid infringement. Only a small proportion of the firearms community owns them (which thankfully has been increasing in recent years); they are a long way from being mainstream and that's not going to change any time soon. I wish that it were different - but I do not see a reasonable way to get most American voters on board in the near future about supporting significantly reduced regulations in this area. Perhaps in 30 - 50 years if the recent trends in growth of firearms ownership and use for self defense, as well as concealed carry continues to expand until it become mainstream. Perhaps then we can see real progress in terms of broadening NFA rights.

I humbly suggest that you are wrong about suppressors and the like not being mainstream. We just got a state law passed that allows suppressors to be used for hunting. Suppressors are something that I never used to see being used at the range by other people, but that has changed over the past 3 years. Look at the sales numbers concerning suppressors. The increase is there. Nothing has changed about the process for a very long time, but now it has begun to get traction.

And just when that traction starts to take hold, you want to increase the amount of regulation on trusts? If you truly want the ownership numbers to change, then why support more hoops for people to jump through to obtain those items? is the cost and wait time not daunting enough? I would say so.

What I feel will negatively impact this progress is if some type of highly visible tragedy takes place that involves NFA items. If that were to occur, I think that the rights and privileges that we currently have regarding NFA items will be drastically curtailed. Keep in mind that the NRA rolled over once on this topic back in 1986 when they agreed to the elimination of new MG production and importation in order to get congress to pass FOPA. That, more than anything, is what has led to the drastic increase in the cost for MG's. Suppressors are fortunately still fairly reasonably priced.

Not to play the devil's advocate, but if you got your way our rights would be curtailed without any sort of tragedy taking place. I guess it comes down to this: Do you think further regulation will avoid crime? It seems as if that is what you're saying. I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.

Bluntly speaking, I don't want to see us lose the rights that we already have re NFA items, and hope that long term we can see continual improvement of those rights. But that means that we have to be smart and think in terms of a campaign, instead of just a battle.

Do you think that if we accept further regulation of trusts, groups like the Brady Campaign are going to be sated? Are they going to somehow back off because we self imposed that rule? I am a business man, and there's a very important lesson I have learned as a result of my experience. And that rule is "Never negotiate with yourself". In other words, don't start reducing your price before you get to negotiations. Likewise, don't start accepting further regulation before you're even engaged in the legislative battle.

You say that we must think of this in terms of a campaign. Let's talk about that for a moment then. You seem to be saying that we must try to preserve our rights. But we must also be willing to consider further regulation. However, so long as we are a voice at the table, we can keep that intrusion as minimal as possible. Again, that's what you seem to be saying. Unfortunately, what you are advocating is a strategy that will ultimately result in a full defeat. Look ahead over the next few decades. Assume for a moment that in each negotiation, we accept some small concession. Over time, our position eventually deteriorates, because when it comes to compromise, it really means that we get additional regulation. They don't often lift regulation at the federal level. Most of the time the regulations increase and even if we only lose a little, over time that starts to add up. Unless they bring something to the table "compromise" is just a buzzword that means we give a little and they give nothing.

So no, i don't support any additional regulation. We've given enough ground already.

If a felon successfully obtains a MG or suppressor via a trust, and then uses it in a highly public event, our current rights will most likely be severely and negatively impacted and we (NFA owners) will lose the public opinion battle as well as experience a certain curtailment of our existing NFA rights. I don't want to see that happen, and that is where I am coming from with respect to my comments and opinions.

Once again, you are making the argument here that laws are able to stop criminals. Do you think criminals go through the trouble to pay thousands of dollars to obtain machine guns? Or is it more likely that they modify a semi-auto weapon? Aren't you aware that modifying a semi-auto weapon is already illegal? Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.

Should we be so afraid of losing a legislative battle that we go ahead and accept self inflicted regulations of firearms? What about AR-15s? Should we require fingerprints and photo IDs for every one of those purchased? If not, why not? Semi-auto weapons are also deadly when employed by evil people. How much regulation are you willing to accept here? How far should we go?

That's the slippery slope I'm talking about. Further regulation does not prevent crime. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. That's the sort of thing the Brady Campaign and the VPC keep telling us. I expect to hear that sort of thing on the internet. I'm surprised to hear it on a gun forum from a fellow gun enthusiast. I find that depressing beyond verbal description.

Should the LEO's processing of paperwork for trust submittals be "shall issue"? 100% yes as long as the proposed trustee is not a felon.

I appreciate the satire in some of the responses. As we all know, a suppressor will not silence the noise of a bullet when it goes supersonic. Thus, an .223 with a suppressor would not be a very stealthy weapon...

A subsonic round - on the other hand - is a different story.

Yes, but it doesn't make it more lethal. Are you saying that fingerprints and photo IDs should be required for suppressors too, even though they aren't technically "guns"?

In closing, I'd like to thank those who disagree with me from not flaming the hell out of me... I originally debated with myself about sharing my thoughts on this thread (I figured that they would not be popular...), and only chose to do so because I thought that the discussion would be beneficial.

It is beneficial so long as you consider the alternative point of view. You know, this year I've send about 1500 emails and made about 400 phone calls to fight against gun control measures and support pro-gun bills like the one that was passed earlier this year in NC. It pains me to see that some of the people I'm apparently working against are also gun owners like yourself.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Gun owners represent a broad spectrum of society, and some are more responsible than others. I think that many of us cringe when we read about an event somewhere where a gun owner does something unwise (such as leaving a loaded firearm where a neighborhood kid can access it). Although it can be argued that the NFA registration process is not effective due to the actual act of registration, I wonder if it's been effective because the people who do go through the hassle of registration take extra steps to keep the items secure? I for one keep a much tighter control over my NFA items versus non NFA firearms.

So let me get this straight. We've finally made some progress and you now acknowledge that NFA laws don't stop criminals from using illegal machine guns. That's wonderful news, except that now you're trying to come up with some other reason to justify NFA regulations. But this time, your reasoning, with all due respect sir, is in my opinion a bit more flimsy, i.e. that people secure their NFA items better, therefore they aren't used in as many crimes. I don't know about you, but I store ALL of my guns in a secure manner.

It seems to me that you're coming from this discussion from a perspective of "what's ideal", and I"m coming at it from a perspective of "what's practical from a political standpoint". I commend you on your ideals, and am glad that you and many others in the 2A community have them, as that is helping to lead the expansion of our rights.

I'm sorry, but you haven't made your case as to what is practical from a political standpoint. Perhaps you could start by responding to the points I made in a previous post. Can you provide some sort of proof that further regulation of NFA items means it will discourage anti-gun activists from seeking even more regulations? If you could provide an example where anti-gunners have decided that further regulation was unnecessary it would surprise me. I would contend that their goals aren't just registration, rather they want to completely do away with the gun culture. In other words, they aren't satisfied that you have had lots of NFA items for over 20 years and that you have been a good fellow. Their end goal is for you not to have any of those items at all, i.e. Feinstein's "Mr. and Ms. America, turn them in". Your policy essentially equates to appeasement, but you can't appease those people. They use emotion to sway the middle of the road folks, and they keep saying that we "have to do something".

You've also not addressed the points I made about incrementalism when it comes to "compromise" as a strategy.

What concerns me though is where our rights are on thin ice politically. Thanks to pro 2A voters, as well as the NRA's lobbying influence, we have a slight pro-2A majority in congress. But of this majority, what percent do you think are true believers? Personally I think that it's only around 20% or so. The other 40% that support our cause do so primarily for political reasons; ie in order to get the vote of pro 2A voters as well as the NRA's support. We still have about 60% that are very unsupportive to our cause.

So your concern is that we're really far behind on the numbers so the best tactic is to throw them a bone periodically and simply slow down the inevitable curtailment of our right to bear arms? Can I ask a humble question? Where did you get those numbers? You've asked us for evidence, and I think it is only fair that you do the same. For the record, I refute your numbers and would offer this as proof that your 60 percent number being "very unsupportive" is wrong:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/13/1-year-after-newtown-support-for-stricter-gun-control-has-disappeared/

Last year the Newtown shooting, with it horrific slaughter, lead to an immediate national movement for gun control. But that was short-lived, and opposition to gun control is currently very strong. Indeed, it appears to be the strongest in decades.
A recent CNN poll finds the highest level of opposition to any new gun control measures since CNN started asking about it in 1989. Rising from only 28 percent opposed to new gun control measures then to 50 percent today. And it's not the only poll with such findings. Gallup finds that opposition to stricter laws has risen from 19 to 50 percent.
What's more, these polls don't reflect that most people in favor of gun control don't have strong feelings about it. Monthly Gallup polls from June to October this year reveal it's just not viewed as a pressing issue.

Apologies sir, but I'm not buying your numbers.

Of the mainstream public, we have seen an improvement in pro 2A supporters; particularly amongst women. That's a very good thing. However, from my own personal discussions over the years I am of the opinion that probably half of the pro 2A community are not comfortable in unequivocally supporting NFA ownership. Many of them are not even aware that it exists.

Now imagine that someone goes out and commits a highly visible event with an NFA item. If it were a home made device, the argument could, and would be made that no regulation would have prevented it, and we probably won't be too negatively impacted by the event. That's why I'm not arguing about where criminals with stolen weapons; to me that's a given and it's not germane to our discussion.

Now imagine that someone who has a criminal background obtains an NFA device by becoming a co-trustee on a trust with a large number of trustees, and then commits the atrocity. I think that the media will have a field day in pointing out that the criminal was able to obtain access a legally purchased NFA item through a "loophole" in the system. They weren't using a stolen weapon - they were using one that had government oversight yet that government oversight did not prevent the criminal from getting it (like most gun laws...) I think that our enemies in the anti gun community will bend over backwards to keep this issue visible, that we wont have broad support from the mainstream 2A community, and the politicians will move quickly to further restrict our rights and/or privileges.

I humbly suggest that you don't understand the long term goals of the anti-gun crowd. Again, you think you can prevent even isolated incidents via legislation. I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic. You can't legislate away bad things happening. But let's take your scenario and look at it really closely:

A person with a criminal history obtains an NFA weapon via a trust.

Ok, the first thing to ask yourself is whether that is already illegal. Write it another way: A person with a criminal history obtains a weapon. Forget the trust and the NFA part. Is that against the law? Yes, it is. So what difference does it make that he got it via a trust? He could have made a face to face transaction for a weapon and then converted it a hell of a lot easier than getting it as a trustee.

Consider for a moment that the guy DID get it via a trust. Is it reasonable to believe that the guy is going to go through all the effort to get the weapon by paying however many thousands of dollars for it, waiting months and months, and then turn around and do something illegal with it? Why wouldn't he take the cheaper and easier way out and come up with a homemade solution? While I empathize with your concern, it simply isn't logical. There are already laws on the books that make possession of the firearm by a criminal illegal, whether the thing was a machine gun or a single barrel shotgun.

To me, this is the crux of my discussion and has been from the beginning - how to prevent difficult to defend events that can lead to a loss of our current rights.

Will all due respect sir, you haven't proven that more regulation makes gun control less difficult to defend against, especially when the ultimate goal of our adversaries is to see that you don't have access to a semi-auto rifle with certain characteristics at all. I think that is clearly evidenced by the blurring of the line between full auto and semi-auto weapons in news reports and online postings/prints from anti-gun groups. They aren't concerned about what laws are already in place or what is or isn't legal for civilians to own. They don't care because what they actually want is to curtail possession by everyone, not just criminals.

The sooner your realize their true intentions, and the fact that self imposed regulations on our part will do nothing to thwart them, the sooner you'll see where the rest of us are coming from. The fact that so many people on the board are making a lot of effort to convince you otherwise should, hopefully, convince you to check your premises.

What I worry about is if we vastly remove the regulations on NFA items, if/when a tragedy occurs that involves an NFA item we may end up being "dead right".

I'm not saying the following is necessarily true of you, but every other person I've ever met that owned NFA items that felt the way you do about regulation had the mindset of "I've got mine, and I don't care what you have to do to get yours". In other words, it was the exclusive club mentality. That said, I've only ever met a couple of NFA item owners that felt the way you do.

You want to save the sport? You gotta grow the sport. Simple as that. The best way to deal with the ignorance about NFA items is to bring others into the fold. Are you actively helping other people get trust paperwork together? Are you telling other shooters how they can get suppressors and SBRs? Are you giving them words of encouragement that though the wait is long, it is worth it? If you aren't, then maybe that is something you should consider.

You know how you fight anti-gunners? You fight their efforts by lighting up the phone lines of politicians. You clog their email accounts with pro-gun comments. You let our elected representatives know that if they don't oppose gun control efforts they are going to pay for it in the primary. You give your money to the ones that promise to fight for your rights.

Going into battle using reason and logic might feel pretty good. You might even win a few arguments here and there. But if you really want to make a difference, you grow your numbers. You get your friends to buy suppressors and SBRs. You increase the pool of people who own and understand those items. Those people then have skin in the game.

You don't ask for more regulation for the purpose of appeasement. That's a bad double whammy. It does nothing to appease the anti-gunners and it discourages people who might have otherwise joined your ranks.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Just made a pretty large post in response to Mr. Scsmith42's private message. It wouldn't do to repost it here unless Mr. Scsmith42 is okay with it because it involves quotes from this private message. The other option is I can remove his part and just leave mine, but that might not make a whole lot of sense without the context.

I will humbly submit that Mr. Scsmith42 is not a bad fellow and does not harbor any ill will, even if what he seeks amounts to curtailment of a basic right to most of us here. And just maybe the prescription here is encouragement akin to Jimmy V's 'Don't EVER Give Up!" instead of comparing him to the enemy.

There are times that I am making calls and writing articles and I just get discouraged and just want to say the hell with it, let the whole dang rotten mess fall down and let the decent folks start all over again. So much of what we are doing economically and legislatively in this country simply isn't sustainable. Sometimes the defeatism seeps in and I need someone to snap me out of it. Maybe that's what is needed here instead. Just a thought. Then again I could be wrong.

SOTG

 

[Studentofthegun]

This has been a good discussion, and I would like to thank the others for sharing their thoughts in a logical and reasonable manner. I will admit that their arguments are compelling, and upon reflection I concur that their position is right and that the one that I took earlier in this thread is not. I regret that I got caught up in "trying to win a debate" and allowed myself to lose my perspective during our discussion, which was not real smart either...

Don't beat yourself up. Everybody who posts with some frequency on internet forums has done the same thing many times.

After considering their arguments and thinking things through, I realize that I was not forthright earlier in fully explaining my thoughts, and they are this.

There is a very, very small percentage of gun owners - less than a fraction of a percent, that I'd rather not see owning NFA weapons. Primarily these folks are not mentally stable yet have not been adjudicated so by a court. The problem is, who gets to decide who gets NFA items versus who doesn't? That is a very slippery slope, I will admit.

The current NFA process for individuals is a bit intimidating and I think serves as a deterrent for this small percentage of folks. For individuals, in addition to local background checks it also involves an FBI background check. I don't know if the Fed check looks into mental stability or not when they are doing whatever the Feds do in conducting a NFA background check, but for 80 years there has been a lack of abuse of NFA firearms by individual owners, so something is working. Although over the many years that I have been around gun owners I have met a couple of folks whose mental stability I might question, none of the situations involved NFA weapons.

The trust option for NFA ownership allows a person to possess NFA items without any background check, and thus removes the deterrent of the local and Fed checks. This is what makes me concerned.

I'm a bit confused. I thought we'd already established that NFA items are almost never used in crimes, and certainly people that own NFA items almost never commit gun crimes. Are you aware of crimes that are being committed by people that acquired their guns via a trust versus having acquired them as an individual? I'd be interested in seeing an article, study, anything that shows that is the case.

For the most part, criminals are the kind of folks that want to take the path of least resistance. If they were industrious, they probably would have gotten a real job like the rest of us. The NFA process for trusts isn't something a criminal is likely to go through either. If they have no qualms about breaking the law, why would they bother with drawing up paperwork, getting it notarized, paying the $200 tax stamp, and then waiting several months? They'd just whip one up in the garage. Or if not the garage, maybe the kitchen:

That particular item was seized in a traffic stop. Thread here: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=115345

Even if a felon did manage to go through the entire process and obtain a suppressor via a trust, which I think is highly unlikely, they are breaking the law the moment they pick up the host weapon. As I mentioned in one of my PMs, there are already laws on the books prohibiting that.

The problem is, as others have pointed out, that restricting the rights of the 99.99% of "good" gun owners in order to deter a fraction of a percent of questionable ones only serves to punish everybody else. The proposed ATF changes will add additional regulations to the trust option, and opens up the door for CLEO abuse.

For the rest of the gang reading this, in my PMs to Scsmith42, I made the connection between the concept of universal background checks and requiring background checks for NFA items. If we were to accept the notion that background checks serve as a deterrent for NFA items, the same logic should apply to all firearms. Of course, as Scsmith explains above, that punishes the law abiding gun owners and it does nothing to deter a criminal who decides to get creative with Easy Cheese.

There is an old adage that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, as opposed to opening ones mouth and removing all doubt. My comments in this entire thread serve to very publicly prove the wisdom of that advice…

You're not a fool and I take issue with you referring to yourself as such. It is easy to find people that claim to change their minds when presented with the facts. It is exceedingly difficult to find people that actually live up to that claim. Most people just dig their heels in, but not you. That makes you alright in my book, for what it's worth.

 

[Studentofthegun]

Gotcha, I understand what you're saying now. I'm running a fever today and feel like total crap so I am not sure if I'm even making sense at this point.

 

[Studentofthegun]

One little problem with expanding this club (other than suppressors, sbr, etc) that little "executive order" Ronald Reagan signed in 1986 stopping all import and manufacture of NFA machine guns to civilians. The club can only be so big to begin with. We need to do all we can to reverse this executive order then you will see prices get more in line that the common man can afford to be in the club.

I would simply echo wolffie's comments above and would only add that perhaps expanding the club with regard to SBRs and suppressors is a good place to start. Getting everything we want all at once is going to be very difficult. Getting everything we want over several years is entirely possible. After all, reason and logic is on our side. And I think the first step is to get people interested in NFA items, and grow the ownership as much as we can. That will result in more people who have skin in the NFA game, so to speak.

I suspect that one of the most important things we have going for us in NC is that hunting with a suppressor is now legal. Wearing hearing protection for hours on end waiting for a deer to show up isn't exactly comfortable. It sure is nice being able to hunt without trashing my hearing (.300blk with 220gr subsonic is not a bad deer round). Using a suppressor for hunting just makes sense. Even European countries that are usually backward with regard to firearms recognize the utility of suppressors. I think this aspect of suppressor usage is going to open the minds of many hunters who aren't really "gun guys" per se. That's only going to help us when it comes to changing hearts and minds about NFA items.

 

[Studentofthegun]

I think when you entered the NFA world may have some impact on your thoughts.
I went the personal MG route back about 20 years ago, and the prints and photo and
CLEO sign off were the only way most of us knew then.
So, the main trustee or LLC owner needing prints and photos does not seem crazy to me.
The signature is just a ban in many areas by another name and I do not concur with it.

Are you saying that since you jumped through certain hoops, everyone else should do the same? What if someone bought a pistol back in the Jim Crow handgun era in North Carolina? How would you feel if someone said that getting character references didn't sound so crazy because, last time they bought a handgun 20 years ago, they had to supply said references?

Please consider the logic here. Your generation is not the only one that should get to enjoy NFA items. If you want to save it, you gotta grow it.