1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

A classic example of BATF bureaucracy....

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Brian in Oregon, Nov 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    BATF declares kitchen scouring pads and fiberglass as NFA firearms.

    For those who do not know what NFA is, it stands for the National Firearms Act of 1934. This required, amongst other things, a background check, fingerprints, a local sheriff or chief of police signoff (permission) and a $200 tax stamp to manufacture or transfer a machinegun or silencer.

    There are many suppressors (silencers) out there which have a packing material in them for sound deadening. Like, basically, steel wool or fiberglass. The idea being similar to a "glass pack" muffler for hot rods. Eventually this packing material gets clogged full of carbon or lead, and has to be replaced. Replacement of this material was usually done by the owner and was no big deal.

    Until now.

    Some bureaucrat at BATF has decided that this packing - steel wool or fiberglass - can not be replaced without a tax stamp for manufacturing a new NFA firearm, in this case a new suppressor. Even though there is no serial number on steel wool or fiberglass. Further, the BATF letter addressing this says you cannot "stockpile" steel wool or fiberglass for repair purposes, meaning you can only have them on hand after receiving approved paperwork. The implication is anyone who owns one of these style suppressors should not have steel wool or fiberglass in the house.

    This means before replacing a part THAT ROUTINELY WEARS OUT you have to fill out the BATF paperwork, get fingerprinted, have a local sheriff or chielf of police give you permission to replace the packing, then send the paperwork and two passport photos along with a $200 check to BATF and wait three to nine months to receive permission to proceed.

    Utter nonsense dreamed up by a bureaucrat.

    So what implications are there for other gunowners?

    Whether other NFA firearms will be subject to requiring paperwork for manufacturing a new NFA firearm be filed first is unknown, but it is worrisome. For example, parts wear out in machineguns. But new machineguns could not be made after May of 1986 (the NRA's FOPA'86 outlawed them). So it is possible that once a machinegun breaks or wears out, it might be unrepairable. Keep in mind that an attempt was made to declare semi-autos as NFA firearms in the early 1990s.

    This is just a classic example of the horsecrap many of us have to put up with, and you can bet dollars to donuts that left unchallenged your firearms will wind up with a bureaucrat dreaming up whimsical regulations affecting their use, ownership or repair.

    This is why when it comes to fighting anti-gun laws and regulations we need to be on the same page.
     
  2. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    So B-in-O, are telling us there are folks out there shooting silenced weapons so much they wear-out their silencers?
     
  3. grntitan

    grntitan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    17,190
    Location:
    IL(The gun friendly Southern Part)
    Mrs.Keet Maybe they should outlaw stupidity then you would be concerned as that would affect you personally.
     
  4. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    mrskeet410, quote: <i>"So B-in-O, are telling us there are folks out there shooting silenced weapons so much they wear-out their silencers?"</i>

    What exactly is your motivation in asking that question?
     
  5. daddiooo

    daddiooo TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,004
    Location:
    GEORGIA
    Brian,

    He takes issue with everything you post. Always answers a question with a question.
     
  6. bill2

    bill2 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    429
    Brian,
    You have a P.M. Bill2
     
  7. BigM-Perazzi

    BigM-Perazzi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,542
    Location:
    HELL, MICHIGAN
    Silencer on your gun, to make it quiet for the environment, illegal.

    Muffler on your car, to make it quiet for the environment, legal.


    Go figure....
     
  8. Crickets

    Crickets Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    189
    Interesting. This is not isolated to one area of regulation. This administration is all about "setting precedent" with bureaucratic decisions rather than through the law that's written. In construction we are seeing it all over the place under the OSHA Standards. They are picking obscure rules and applying them to normal work conditions. If its accepted (not disputed) by the party receiving the citation then they use it as precedent for another citation on a more common standard that ordinarily would not stick. One recent citation I had to deal with was completely false, but they issued it with a $0 fine assuming no one in their right mind would go through the effort of contesting a $0 fine. Well I did contest it because if I accepted it, it would set a pretty significant precedent to that standard. Went all the way past the informal conference to the point of getting a court date, then OSHA asked the judge to allow them to withdraw their citation (very unusual). They knew if it went to court and the the judge made decision in our favor they would loose the opportunity to set that precedent. Talking to people in the know at OSHA- the administration has been putting a lot of pressure on the regional and state offices to find "creative" ways to apply the standards to create bigger "gray areas" that can be used to "expand" enforcement. I think Brian is seeing the logical extent of the rule. They chose silencers because - lets face it, how many people does it really effect, who's going to fight it? Next step is to apply the same logic to other weapons, they get push back but now they have precedent. Taken to the logical extreme it could go a lot further.
     
  9. grntitan

    grntitan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    17,190
    Location:
    IL(The gun friendly Southern Part)
    Thank You Crickets. Now if you can just get that thru the liberal idiots head who made the asinine statement above.

    They get an inch they will take a mile. Just because i don't have one does not mean i don't care about the rights of others too. Some people just don't get that.

    I do know people who it would directly affect and they would fight it but it can't happen on their own. It takes all of us gun owners to act as one to fight the stupidity.
     
  10. Crickets

    Crickets Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    189
    liberals embrace government as a blessing and welcome all they can get.

    conservatives tolerate government as a necessary evil that needs to be checked.
     
  11. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Crickets, you have keen insight. That is precisely why I posted this. Suppressor owners are indeed one of the smaller subsets of gun owners, but this WILL set a precedent.

    United we stand.

    Divided we fall.
     
  12. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Well, I guess Mrs. Keet is not going to tell us what her motivation was. Must have been fishing for something.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.