Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 03:38 PM Apr 2014

Mandatory ‘shall-sign’ legislation for Class III NFA items sweeping the nation

http://www.guns.com/2014/04/26/mandatory-shall-sign-legislation-for-class-iii-nfa-items-sweeping-the-nation/



Over the past few weeks a number of laws have been passed that make it mandatory for local law enforcement to sign off on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ forms to allow legal gun owners to receive suppressors, short-barreled rifles and other National Firearms Act (NFA)-regulated items.

At stake is the process by which an individual applicant for a regulated item has to obtain the signature of a local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) on their ATF Form 4 before being able to complete a transfer. In some jurisdictions, the CLEO, be it a local sheriff or police chief, often will not approve the application for arbitrary reasons, thus denying the transfer and forcing would-be NFA item owners to set up a Gun Trust as a way around the process.

A number of states are streamlining the CLEO requirement by requiring these law enforcement officers to process these forms through a new breed of ‘shall sign’ or ‘shall certify’ legislation.

This month alone, legislation was signed into law in Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Arizona, all of which mandate that CLEOs shall sign off on the applicant’s Form 4 within a limited period of time, unless the applicant is found to be a prohibited person, i.e felon, mental defective, minor, domestic abuser, etc. Many of these new laws, such as the Arizona legislation, also require that those refused by a CLEO be advised in writing and mandate an appeals process.

(Excerpt, remainder of article at link)

Who says there's no good news these days? It's time to make suppressors and SBRs more readily available.
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mandatory ‘shall-sign’ legislation for Class III NFA items sweeping the nation (Original Post) Jgarrick Apr 2014 OP
'cause nothing says "self defense" like this sort of shit. Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #1
What makes supressors and SBRs "shit"? Jgarrick Apr 2014 #2
Like I said, the divide between gun-obsessed and the rest of us is insurmountable. Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #3
So...you've got nothin'? SBRs and suppressors just give you the heebie-jeebies? Jgarrick Apr 2014 #4
No I want every lunatic to have access to a high capacity weapon they can easily conceal Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #5
Pistols are already legal, and far more concealable than SBRs. As for suppressors, where do you get Jgarrick Apr 2014 #6
You do realize a suppressed weapon is still very loud hack89 Apr 2014 #11
You do know these GN's want to wear down even the most moderate change angstlessk Apr 2014 #16
GN? blueridge3210 Apr 2014 #20
I think she means "GUN NUT" Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #23
Oh. blueridge3210 Apr 2014 #24
Yes, but every now and then it is amusing to seem them do their well rehearsed dance. Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #22
As opposed to the well rehearsed chorus of "gun humpers", "fuck guns" hack89 Apr 2014 #28
What does a sound supressor on a gun do to make anyone safe? angstlessk Apr 2014 #7
Negate the need for hearing protection, and reduce noise pollution. Jgarrick Apr 2014 #8
Negate the need for hearing protection??? Hell I use earplugs angstlessk Apr 2014 #13
Suppresor-aided murders are like chupacabras with you people friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #17
Does the FBI/States use supressor data in their reports? angstlessk Apr 2014 #18
Then you have no empirical evidence that their use is a hazard... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #21
Let's see if I get this right gejohnston Apr 2014 #27
Yeah, on T.V.! And Guns of Navarone! Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #31
Thugs like supressors? hack89 Apr 2014 #9
to protect hearing and cut down on noise pollution gejohnston Apr 2014 #10
France, Norway and Finland..I say YAY!!! Let us follow their gun laws...from Wikipedia angstlessk Apr 2014 #12
The point (rather obviously) being that if countries with such draconian gun laws allow the sale of Jgarrick Apr 2014 #14
OMG...BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHO OWNS THE GUNS angstlessk Apr 2014 #15
One supposes answering the question you were asked might interrupt... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #19
being very involved in the NFA world...I can address this SQUEE Apr 2014 #35
so you are OK with 15 and 16 year olds legally buying guns? gejohnston Apr 2014 #26
Wow! I heard your questions before as a kid in the South. Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #30
Guns... the only consumer product Democrats fight tooth-and-nail... krispos42 Apr 2014 #34
I for one can wait until I can buy a suppressor with no more hassle than buying a firearm. Brown Coat Apr 2014 #25
One can only hope this catches on and wait times are diminished ileus Apr 2014 #29
Like these? Warning - gun pics! oldhippie Apr 2014 #33
Anyone can wear ear protection while deer-hunting, but... Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #32
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
1. 'cause nothing says "self defense" like this sort of shit.
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 04:32 PM
Apr 2014

The divide between the gun-obsessed and the rest of us grows daily.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
5. No I want every lunatic to have access to a high capacity weapon they can easily conceal
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 04:50 PM
Apr 2014

and the equipment to make it more difficult to know where they are shooting from. This will make us much safer.

 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
6. Pistols are already legal, and far more concealable than SBRs. As for suppressors, where do you get
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:00 PM
Apr 2014

your information about about how quiet they are...the movies? They don't make the gun emit an almost-silent "phut". They do muffle the noise to the point that hearing protection is not required. In many European countries they're sold with few or no restrictions. They're a safety device.

Tell me, how many of the millions of legally owned suppressors and SBRs owned in the USA have been used in crimes in the last 20 years?

I eagerly await your answer to this question.

hack89

(39,181 posts)
11. You do realize a suppressed weapon is still very loud
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:07 PM
Apr 2014

They are just not loud enough to damage the shooters hearing.

hack89

(39,181 posts)
28. As opposed to the well rehearsed chorus of "gun humpers", "fuck guns"
Sun Apr 27, 2014, 07:34 AM
Apr 2014

And all the other broad brushed smears trotted out as a substitute for reasoned discussion?

Does the burden of moral superiority weigh heavy on your shoulders?

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
7. What does a sound supressor on a gun do to make anyone safe?
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:01 PM
Apr 2014

Or high capacity clips? Those are things thugs love...do you love thugs?

 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
8. Negate the need for hearing protection, and reduce noise pollution.
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:06 PM
Apr 2014

Which is exactly what I put on my application under "reason for purchase" when I bought my first suppressor.

Those are things thugs love...do you love thugs?

How many gang members do you think fill out the necessary paperwork to acquire a suppressor?

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
13. Negate the need for hearing protection??? Hell I use earplugs
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:24 PM
Apr 2014

cause my husband likes to watch TV when I want to sleep...NO BIG DEAL!

IF I plan to shoot a gun, I KNOW I need hearing protection...on the other hand, if I want to murder someone, and not want to draw attention, I prefer a 'sound suppressor' AKA a silencer..

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
17. Suppresor-aided murders are like chupacabras with you people
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 06:44 PM
Apr 2014

You can produce no evidence they even exist, yet you stoutly insist
they're out there...somewhere.

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
18. Does the FBI/States use supressor data in their reports?
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 06:48 PM
Apr 2014

I do not think they do...therefore..no evidence of use of suppressor use

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
21. Then you have no empirical evidence that their use is a hazard...
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 06:56 PM
Apr 2014

...and verifiable evidence that they reduce noise pollution.

So why do you object to wider use of them?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
27. Let's see if I get this right
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 11:28 PM
Apr 2014

you think that once you get the CLEO sign off, get the finger prints, photo, write a check for $200, and send it off to the ATF for background check and processing, nine months later you get your tax stamp and registration and you get to go to the store and cough up about $1200 for the silencer you are going to use to off your business rival. Yeah right. It would be a lot cheaper just to go to Ace Hardware with 20 bucks and make your own. It would be even cheaper and easier to use a 2 liter soda bottle and duct tape. If you are going to commit murder, what is a federal gun law?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
10. to protect hearing and cut down on noise pollution
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:06 PM
Apr 2014

which is why they are required in many public ranges in France and some hunting areas in France, Norway, and Finland. In those countries plus New Zealand and UK suppressors are unregulated. Besides, all a thug has to do is duct tape a 2 liter soda bottle on the barrel.

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
12. France, Norway and Finland..I say YAY!!! Let us follow their gun laws...from Wikipedia
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:20 PM
Apr 2014

France

Main article: Gun politics in France
In France, to buy a weapon, a hunting license or a shooting sport license is necessary. Firearms are divided into eight categories that determine the regulations that apply to their possession and use. France also sets limits on the number of cartridges that can be purchased per year, depending on the purpose of the gun.

The total number of firearms owned by an individual is also subject to limits.[29] France has a limit on magazine capacity (3),and a "assault weapon" ban, other than that one needs a permit for category one semi-automatics.

Finland

Main article: Gun politics in Finland
The ownership and use of firearms in Finland is regulated by the country's Firearms Act of 1998. Weapons are individually licensed by local police forces, there is no limit on the number of licenses an individual may hold. Licenses are granted for recreational uses, exhibition or (under certain circumstances) professional use.

With the exception of law enforcement, only specially trained security guards may carry loaded weapons in public. There is almost no regulation of air rifles or crossbows, except that it is illegal to carry or fire them in public. Guns are divided into 13 firearms categories and four action categories; some of which are limited. Fully automatic weapons, rockets and cannons (so called "destructive" weapons), for example, are generally not permitted.

In November 2007 Finland updated their gun laws, pre-empting a new EU directive prohibiting the carrying of firearms by under-18's by removing the ability of 15- to 18-year-olds to carry hunting rifles under parental guidance. In 2010, after controversial high school shootings in 2008 prompted government review, a constitutional law committee concluded that people over the age of 20 can receive a permit for semiautomatic handguns. Though individuals have to show a continuous activity in a handguns sporting for last two years before they can have a license for their own gun.

Norway
Main article: Gun politics in Norway

Firearms in Norway are regulated by the Firearm Weapons Act,[94] with a new secondary law in effect 1 July 2009 providing more detailed regulation.[95]

 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
14. The point (rather obviously) being that if countries with such draconian gun laws allow the sale of
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:27 PM
Apr 2014

suppressors with little or no restrictions, how negative could the consequences of allowing a wider use of them here be?

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
15. OMG...BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHO OWNS THE GUNS
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:47 PM
Apr 2014

and I bet the suppressors...

You do know Clinton wanted to taggant all explosives, which could have included gun powder in bullets...which would lead to where the BULLET was purchased, even before finding the gun????

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
19. One supposes answering the question you were asked might interrupt...
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 06:49 PM
Apr 2014

...your somewhat factually challenged screed against the use of suppressors.

However, you might wish to give it a try

SQUEE

(1,320 posts)
35. being very involved in the NFA world...I can address this
Sun Apr 27, 2014, 11:39 AM
Apr 2014

You do know I have to register, go through a background check and have stringent storage, and user requirements regarding access to my SBRs and suppressors as well as a LONG wait to process my tax stamp payment... you are very uninformed on this area of ownership. Mt quietest can is running around 110 db, and that's with a subsonic round.. As for knowing when you will need hearing protection, should I need to defend my home, i am not grabbing my ear muffs to check my home...The report from a weapon in an enclosed space like a home is DEAFENING and actually painful...I shouldn't have to destroy my hearing to defend my life or my loved ones

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
26. so you are OK with 15 and 16 year olds legally buying guns?
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 10:39 PM
Apr 2014

BTW, on average, them and Germany know about an average of 30-50 percent of the guns. BTW, how familiar are you with NFA regulations? I'm guessing you are clueless.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
30. Wow! I heard your questions before as a kid in the South.
Sun Apr 27, 2014, 09:08 AM
Apr 2014

Some of my redneck friends used the same tautology when asking about my views of blacks.

Really, angst, are you that young?

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
34. Guns... the only consumer product Democrats fight tooth-and-nail...
Sun Apr 27, 2014, 11:17 AM
Apr 2014

... to keep dangerous.

Heat shield over the barrel to protect against burns? Nope; "assault weapon".

Comfortable, ergonomic pistol grip to let the user control the gun somewhat better? Nope; "assault weapon".

Quick-adjusting stock so the shooter can make the gun fit better, depending on stature and clothing? Nope; "assault weapon".

Light-absorbing, glare-reducing finish so that shooters can see what they are shooting at? Frowned upon... "military style".

Gunshot muffler to protect the hearing of the shooter and those nearby? Illegal in some states, 9-month wait and $200 tax elsewhere.

Brown Coat

(40 posts)
25. I for one can wait until I can buy a suppressor with no more hassle than buying a firearm.
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 09:38 PM
Apr 2014

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2014, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

It's only a mater of time for such common sinse legislation to come down the pipe.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
29. One can only hope this catches on and wait times are diminished
Sun Apr 27, 2014, 08:17 AM
Apr 2014

I'd love a SBR'd AR with a muffler in my collection.

This would open the door to getting a 300 blackout.



I also wouldn't mind a suppressor for my 22's


 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
33. Like these? Warning - gun pics!
Sun Apr 27, 2014, 10:29 AM
Apr 2014

Third and forth from left are 300BLK. Both can use the suppressor.



And you are right, they are a joy on a .22.


 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
32. Anyone can wear ear protection while deer-hunting, but...
Sun Apr 27, 2014, 09:21 AM
Apr 2014

you won't hear hoof-on-scree, a snort, or birds & squirrels making a ruckus (as often happens when big game approaches), and you won't hear a call-out warning from others if another person unknowingly sits in your compartment.

But a noise suppressor allows all this, and protects your ears.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Mandatory ‘shall-sign’ le...