Jump to content

Likely Gun Control - Forum thoughts


Recommended Posts

Eliminating the need for CLEO signoff? Yes which opened up NFA ownership to many people who could previously not get a sign off. You can still have a gun trust, however ATF requires proof that the responsible persons are in a position to own NFA arms. Some people used the trust to get around the CLEO sign off, which I am OK with since it was not an approval anyway, but a statement that they no of no reason you cannot possess. In the age of online records, this was archaic to me. Some used it as an excuse not to get fingerprinted or to be known to the ATF. This one makes no sense to me.

 

I figure the elimination of CLEO signature is more than the NRA will ever do for me for NFA arms.

 

Ron

Edited by ron_brock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eliminating the need for CLEO signoff? Yes which opened up NFA ownership to many people who could previously not get a sign off. You can still have a gun trust, however ATF requires proof that the responsible persons are in a position to own NFA arms. Some people used the trust to get around the CLEO sign off, which I am OK with since it was not an approval anyway, but a statement that they no of no reason you cannot possess. In the age of online records, this was archaic to me. Some used it as an excuse not to get fingerprinted or to be known to the ATF. This one makes no sense to me.

 

I figure the elimination of CLEO signature is more than the NRA will ever do for me for NFA arms.

 

Ron

You could use a trust or other entity to get around a CLEO who refused to sign so that was no real gain. Using a trust also had other advantages which included the ability for all trustees to possess the NFA item. This is important for those of us with older kids who like to take your guns and especially suppressors shooting without you. The fact that every time someone wants to purchase an NFA item every trustee has to file an application along with prints and pictures greatly increased the cost and aggravation for owning NFA items. It doesn't really affect me since I am an SOT, but more regulation is rarely better and these guys were the impetus for more regulation.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 

I want to see the current laws enforced. When they catch up and finally get with the program, then let's see what else can be done. I want ccw persons who have already had their backgrounds checked be allowed to carry any where. I want to see multiple armed guards in schools. Look how the schools in Israel and China are protected.

I like my bumpstock if your ok with getting rid of them, what toy do you have that some other person thinks should be banned. In other words Thompsons should be kept but a BAR should be done away with to pacify the left. Sound rediculous, I agree. Let's keep all out toys.

Yeah, but bumpstocks are a gimmick, ment to skirt around the rules, and I think most of us have known from the start that their days were limited.

 

 

Your missing the point. It is not a question of whether bumpy's are a gimmick, quasi legal or whatever.

 

The POINT is that they can deem they can change the definition/law to achieve a political end.

 

people like me, will never own a bumpstock, everything I want to have a happy switch, has a happy switch.

 

But I will fight a bumpy ban to the very end as it is setting a precedence which dearly needs to be snipped and nipped in the bud to keep from happening.

 

This is quite literally the "camels nose"

 

To answer where do "I" see this going.

 

In my nephews lifetime (no kids here), I would expect to see him see a full ban on anything other than perhaps single shots. I mean really, who needs more than one shot to truly be "sporting when your hunting" amiright?? And good lord, you certainly don't need one of them sniper scopey thingys either, that is hardly sporting. And seriously, if it is going to be a single shot, might as well load from the muzzle to, not like it is that much slower and really, that makes it even more sporting. People shoot deer every year with a muzzle loader, this just proves you don't need anything more than that. And while were at it, why not a flintlock.

 

Screw it. people can use spears. NOW THATS SPORTING right there baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I think we're already seeing the future. Calls for "unversal" background checks continue, and are instituted. All firearms transferees must pass the same background checks that dealers must now conduct. Doesn't seem too onerous, right? It certainly becomes so when state and local governments mandate stiff new business license requirements for firearms dealers, and effectively will no longer issue business licenses to applicants that deal in firearms. The result is (by design) that there are fewer and fewer dealers that can conduct the checks. No background checks, no transfers. We're seeing this play out in Illinois right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...