Worried?

[Ga Shooter]

Just a quick question. With the political landscape being what it is today are any of you worried that "stamped" weapons or suppressors may be the first to be collected? What about drawing the extra attention from the BATFE with a file, etc? I would like to suppress both of mine after I get the new lowers from Grant but I am not sure that is a good idea. What are your thoughts?

[markm]

are any of you worried that "stamped" weapons or suppressors may be the first to be collected?

Nope.

[DRich]

Agreed. This is a non-issue to me.

[Iraqgunz]

If you are concerned about that then you need to sell all of your guns, go underground and not buy anything gun related on the net.

Just a quick question. With the political landscape being what it is today are any of you worried that "stamped" weapons or suppressors may be the first to be collected? What about drawing the extra attention from the BATFE with a file, etc? I would like to suppress both of mine after I get the new lowers from Grant but I am not sure that is a good idea. What are your thoughts?

[Ga Shooter]

I only sell guns to upgrade. Never will I give up my guns. I just know a couple of agents and they tell me they look real close at anyone who wants NFA weapons or acces.

[SHIVAN]

An FBI background, by design, is a "close look" at someone.

The content of this thread reminds me of other websites far too much. Maybe it can redeem itself shortly???

[SWATcop556]

I'm not worried abut this. There are ways to track what you have in your gun safe other than the NFA.

[Ga Shooter]

As a former FFL holder I have been checked out by BATFE and FBI in the past. I had been told by some people, not ATF, that if you get multiple stamps that they assign an agent and go out of their way to try and get your stamps revoked. I did not know if this was true. With the amount of NFA guns I have seen recently I was doubting that information, which promted my question. Thank you for the answers.

[Army Chief]

I would think that, if anything, these weapons might actually be more protected than their non-NFA equivalents. The historical precedent here is not confiscation; it is simply to stop approving new NFA applications for a particular class of weapon after a given date. That is how the machinegun "ban" was enacted, and given the tremendous impact it has had on reducing wanton machinegun violence on our nation's streets since 1986, [cough, cough] it seems reasonable to presume that our legislators might be content to use a similar strategy in the future.

The risk, then -- at least as I see it -- is not that existing NFA weapons would be confiscated, but rather that the window of opportunity for manufacturing and/or registering them could potentially close at some point. Availability wouldn't necessarily go down, but the prices would inevitably rise to the point where relatively few aspiring owners would be willing or able to make that kind of investment.

If you really think about it, this has pretty much been the approach since 1934 when the NFA brought us not restriction, but simply a new form of taxation. From a legislative standpoint, why risk political capital on an unpopular ban when you can let economics take care of the problem over time?

What you have is probably safe. What you want may or may not be obtainable by the time you get around to filing the paperwork for it. A wise man wouldn't wait for the storm clouds to begin re-forming on the Congressional horizon.

AC

[dbrowne1]

As a former FFL holder I have been checked out by BATFE and FBI in the past. I had been told by some people, not ATF, that if you get multiple stamps that they assign an agent and go out of their way to try and get your stamps revoked. I did not know if this was true. With the amount of NFA guns I have seen recently I was doubting that information, which promted my question. Thank you for the answers.

I know plenty of people who own multiple NFA items. I have yet to hear of anybody being bothered by the ATF or any other G men because of this.