Defensive Carry banner

Proposed BATFE rules will make your semi-autos NFA

2K views 17 replies 13 participants last post by  Armed in TN 
#1 ·
New rule change propsed by ATFE will redefine pistol, making all self loading handguns Any Other Weapon, requiring the $5 application, the fingerprints, application through CLEO, etc. They are soliciting comments until May 9th.
Here is the proposed rule http://www.regulations.gov/TOPIC_27.cfm (scrool down to the firearm one), and how to comment on it. This is a backdoor attempt to regulate handguns, and get rid of semi-autos. I would myself say "tinfoil hat time", if I wasn't reading it on a government website....
 
#2 ·
I guess I read it different than you. I didn't see where it was changing normal pistols at all .Only ones that are not. like the Pager gun or the GermanWW@ belt buckel gun. Their just trying to close a loop hole Not reclassing our guns unless you own one of the above or something along those lines. I 'll read it again later when I have more time but for now I put my tinfoil hat back in the drawer I trust or gov to screw us but I don't think so at this time. Also NRA would be all oner this and same with GOA They watch for this stuff.
 
#3 ·
I understand your concern, but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. A semi-automatic pistol does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. If this is restoring pre-1988 language, then I think that clause refers to pistols capable of full automatic fire (more than one shot by a single function of the trigger). I could be wrong. From the proposed rule change:
Accordingly, the proposed definition of ``pistol'' in section
479.11 would read as follows:

(a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand,
and having--
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently
aligned with, the bore(s); and
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and
at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
(b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like
an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt
buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more
than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the
trigger.
I do agree that it is an attempt to regulate some handguns. I think the actual focus may be on pen guns and cell phone guns and full-automatic pistols.
 
#6 ·
I agree with Prospector. Not one thing wrong with Bowtie guns!

ANY form of "gun control" legislation should make your skin crawl. If you find yourself rationalizing and saying things like "well, they're not talking about the kind of guns that I use, so this law change is O.K.", I think you need to check your premises.

There will only be one TRUE outcome of this law adjustment. What will that outcome be? Will we be safer because all of the pen and belt-buckle guns will be off the street? Nope, the TRUE outcome is that the ATF will have more work to do and we will have less freedom. Pretty simple.

I know I kind of sound like an idealist. I guess that is what I am.
 
#8 ·
I'm totally against "any" restrictive language. If you are a law-abiding citizen and want a ".45 caliber bowtie" then by golly you should be able to wear one.
I like that! :biggrin:

And speaking of "loophole" :rolleyes: the gov't can call anything they want a "loophole" - including private sales of firearms. :12:
 
#10 ·
Prospector said:
If you are a law-abiding citizen and want a ".45 caliber bowtie" then by golly you should be able to wear one.
If I'm picturing what you're picturing...... You might wear one, but would you want to fire it? I keep thinging about the recoil, and where it's going to go! :11:
 
#11 ·
I don't think the recoil would be too bad if...

...the barrel were laid across behind the tie and to aim it you stood sideways to the target. Since the recoil would now be tangent to a circle, it would merely cause the tie to spin around your neck. Of course, you'd have to be careful to keep your chin up and your shoulder down.
 
#13 ·
armoredman said:
I hope you guys are right - i just see a possability of abuse. Thank you.
I didn't say there wasn't a possibility of abuse. There is always a possibility of abuse, particularly where the language is intentionally vague. I disagreed with your conclusion that the rule change reclasses all self-loading handguns as NFA. I VERY MUCH appreciate your giving us a heads up on this. As a result of your alert, I have an opportunity to offer my comments in opposition to the rule change. Thank you. Be assured I will return the favor.

BTW, I was wrong about the fully-automatic pistol interpretation. The original language, in context, applied to small pistols like pepperboxes and multi-barrel derringers that fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. They've left that phrase in without the accompanying discussion of small pistols. Interesting. Thanks, again.
 
#15 ·
clubsoda22 said:
technically getting a CCW permit is a "loophole" in the law that makes it illegal to carry concealed firearms. Loophole is synonomous with legal.
While it may seem like it sometime, I don't agree that specific CCW laws are a loophole. It's a different law and a deliberate exception to the law that makes it illegal to carry a concealed firearm.
 
#16 ·
Well I just went to the site and posted my comment on the proposed change. I was polite! I also compared any registration fee associated with ownership of firearms is no different than requiring a "poll tax" to vote....it is simply wrong.
 
#17 ·
Bumper said:
Damn I wish they would find something else to do. They could start by restricting the flow of illegals through our borders. :mad:
This is typical gubmit. Fan a tiny fire only to put it out. The illegal immigration problem is so far out of control, it will not be addressed with the vigor it should.

I LOVE the USA, am fortunate to be an American and proud to be Texan. I just really wish our officials would pick relevant fights.
 
#18 ·
michael t said:
I guess I read it different than you. I didn't see where it was changing normal pistols at all .Only ones that are not. like the Pager gun or the GermanWW@ belt buckel gun. Their just trying to close a loop hole Not reclassing our guns unless you own one of the above or something along those lines. I 'll read it again later when I have more time but for now I put my tinfoil hat back in the drawer I trust or gov to screw us but I don't think so at this time. Also NRA would be all oner this and same with GOA They watch for this stuff.
i have to agree with several of the others, if you are trying to rationalize what you think the others who make the laws are trying to do, you need tostep back and check your prospective. Canada stared outlawing guns one at a time and look at the mess their citizens are in. omnly the cops and crooks have guns there. and sometimes it is hard to tell the difference!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top