.........................
.........................
Last edited by 7.62NATO; 04-30-15 at 22:26.
Analogous to the brace. They are regulating a part as something that it's not.
Any brake could be considered a silencer then, as if you seal the side ports, it is a silencer. What's next, suppressor mounts are silencers? Buffer tubes are stocks?
ATF should get back to doing their jobs regulating illegal devices, and not behaviors and speculative situations. Not that I think they should be illegal anyways, but at least get back in their own lane.
/rant
I'm waiting for them to come out and just say possession of a firearm or firearm related materials suggests criminal intent, give us all your guns, do not pass go, go straight to jail.
Yes, I understood that Sig is fighting/appealing the ATF ruling, and that SCOTUS says the NFA is legal. The point I failed to convey, and perhaps it is beyond the scope of this thread, is that Sig is going after the "small fish". Obviously this is easier, and they have standing as it is their product that's the source of these 'controversial' rulings/interpretations by a (activist?) regulatory agency.
The trophy would be for the Congress, who implemented the NFA and could also repeal it, either in whole or part, to take action. I suspect repealing in whole would be the most difficult play, but repealing portions, such as the SRP rule or the Suppressor Role, is probably possible at some level, especially with increased CHL laws and states increasingly allowing suppressors for hunting. Personally, the ultimate argument, IMO, is that SBR's and suppressors are ALREADY LEGAL at the federal level, and really only require a 'permission slip' and, of course, a nominal fee. Regulations on transfer and transportation could (should) easily be scaled back to mirror firearms sales. The proposed law, IMO, should cover all 50 states/DC/territories, but I suppose States could/would challenge that they can impose their own restrictions like they already do in the socialist strongholds like CA/NY/MA/NJ/MD et al.
A concerted, multi-front effort would be key, with firearm owners/2A supporters, gun rights organizations, and firearms manufacturers applying pressure to their elected representatives. Sig, as a manufacturer of SBR's, has a dog in this fight, as would DD, BCM, Colt, Ruger, and ultimately all other long gun manufacturers.
To me, this is a serious 'no brainer", but one that really needs a serious catalyst. There are firearms makers in almost every state, an organization like the NRA or a group of the major firearms makers have the logistics and supporters to pull it off. Just need a strong catalyst.
Bookmarks