The Gun Point

Promoting the 2nd Amendment using the 1st Amendment

  • Subscribe to The Gun Point Newsletter
  • Get Social with TGP

NFA

State Opportunities to Repeal Bans on Gun Mufflers

by Leave a Comment

The Radical Firearms suppressor even held up to this 11.5-inch barreled .308 Galil ACE Pistol! IMG Jim Grant
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The same person who invented the muffler for the automobile invented them for guns.  Hiram Maxim, the inventor, called them “Silencers”.  An obvious reason they were not invented earlier is the inside of a gun muffler is more complex than a gun barrel. Early silencer designs were made of mild steel, making them subject to corrosion. A silencer for a gun using black powder would require a significant effort to clean after each use.

Smokeless/non-corrosive gunpowder did not become common until about 1900. At that point, gun mufflers became more practical. Increasing prosperity in society, brought about by technical innovation and the use of fossil fuels, made target shooting more economical for more people.

Hiram Maxim invented the gun muffler in 1902. It was moderately popular. President Theodore Roosevelt owned several and found them useful for target shooting and pest control.

The Progressive regime of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to make the interstate transportation and marketing of silencers prohibitively expensive in 1934.   There was no clear reason to do so in the legislative record. Placing prohibitive taxes on machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was the booby prize in 1934. The main aim of the proponents of the law had been to require registration and licensing of all pistols.
How states banned silencers is less clear. There was no upwelling of public sentiment to ban silencers. It appears there was a top-down push, perhaps to protect the federal law from challenges.  Texas passed its ban on silencers in 1973.  Iowa banned silencers in 1983. Wisconsin law banning silencers was hidden in a budget bill in 1991.
There has been pushback. Some states which banned silencers have allowed possession under federal law. Some states have removed their state bans altogether. Texas recently repealed its silencer ban and replaced it with an anti-commandeering law favoring silencers.
Silencers are legal to own in 42 of the 50 states.
Where you can legally hunt with Suppressors in 2021 by state.
The American Suppressor Association keeps track of state legislation. ATF has a good compendium of firearm laws by state.
States with outright bans on gun mufflers/silencers/suppressors are California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Delaware, and Rhode Island.  They account for 8.11% of the land area of the United States.  There are ongoing efforts in those states to allow for silencer ownership under federal law.
If Texas, whose silencer reform law goes into effect on 1 September 2021, is included, there are 22 states who do not regulate silencers under state law. They cover 39.5% of the land area of the United States.
The states which offer significant opportunities to repeal bans on safety devices are those which have ceded sovereignty over silencer regulation to the federal government.  There are 20 of them.
They are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. They cover 52.5% of the land area of the United States.

Nine of those states are Constitutional Carry states.  Several others are somewhat supportive of the Second Amendment. Those states seem ripe for legislation to repeal their state bans on gun mufflers/silencers/suppressors.
The ban on gun safety devices never made any sense.
The records show they are seldom used in crime. Millions have suffered significant hearing loss because of the medical blunder of the FDR administration.
Repeal of state bans accomplishes several things. It sends a message the federal ban is foolish and counterproductive. It removes a potential barrier if the federal law is reformed. It reaffirms state legislatures’ support of the Second Amendment. It limits the possibility for states to prosecute people for possession of safety equipment.
There are only a few federal prosecutions for illegal silencer possession each year. It appears the number is about 30 a year. If people make their own gun mufflers, and state prohibitions are repealed, the danger of federal prosecution becomes vanishingly small, unless the person actively seeks to become a test case, or brags about flouting the federal law on social media.
As with prohibition, when the public ignores the law, there is a good chance to repeal it. The ban on gun mufflers, also known as silencers/suppressors, is ripe for public scorn.
This correspondent recommends Second Amendment supporters use the ATF Form 1 to obtain legal permission to make their own gun muffler. Massive compliance is another way to attack the travesty of the federal ban.

About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

NFA Repairs Plus ATF Equals …Murky Waters Ahead ~ VIDEO

by Leave a Comment

NFA Repairs Plus ATF Equals …Murky Waters Ahead ~ VIDEO iStock-BrianAJackson
Iowa – -(AmmoLand.com)- Have you ever heard the reference, “murky water” before?

I typed in, “What does murky water mean?” into my Google browser.

Here is what I saw atop the page:

“A situation or circumstance that is foreign, unclear, or unfamiliar and which may be dangerous or difficult as a result.”  If murky water is how you’d describe some of ATF’s regulations, then the description of what surrounds the repair of NFA items might well be called, “clear as mud…”
In all the years since I decided to add an SOT (Special Occupational Tax Stamp) to my business, Controlled Chaos Arms, I have sought to know and understand the laws and regulations that surround me and my business as often as humanly possible.  I may be one of the only people in America that has actually read the NFA Handbook, from cover to cover.  ATF used to give you a copy of that publication at the time of your licensing, but I understand that is no longer the practice.  I hear that CDs or links to online hosting are now the gig for fresh FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealers.
[embedded content]
I remember the first 3-day gun show I ever attended in my home state of Iowa, with some of the suppressors I was hoping to offer to the Law Enforcement community like it was yesterday.  At that time, Iowa wasn’t an NFA-friendly state, and only LE could buy them essentially.  A few thousand people walked by commenting either how the suppressors I displayed were illegal or they were fakes.  I sighed a little each time, in hopes Iowa would change that silly restriction.  They did, of course, courtesy of the Iowa Firearms Coalition.
What stands out to me more is the argument I had with the show promoter, however.  He told me local ATF personnel had told him I had to either camp out overnight on a cot in my booth with all the NFA items I brought, or I had to load them all up and take them back to my ‘premises address’ for my FFL after the show closed each night.
Why, you ask?  Because the show promoter had been informed that if I left them in the locked and guarded gun show facility, just like thousands of other firearms there, it would “constitute an illegal transfer” by their estimation.
Have you ever heard of anything so crazy in your life?
It was then I knew this line of work would require extensive reading and the ability to recall NFA regulations from memory, along with the ability to prove it at any given time.  This prerequisite has proven to be very challenging over the years.  Worse yet, my brain isn’t wired in such a fashion that tomfoolery and shenanigans rate towards the top of vital information in which to categorize and easily reference.  Thus, self-contradictory regulations keep trying to leave my head, as they defy logic and my brain keeps trying to toss them into the ‘deleted items’ basket at any given time.
No NFA Repairs for You
I have fellow dealers and customers alike that at times need repairs made to their NFA items.  These are no different than any other metal object.  When you use it, it wears.  With enough use, it’ll eventually require maintenance.  Sometimes, they just break.  It truly is that simple.
Here’s the problem.

The ATF hasn’t consistently given me straight answers when I’ve asked direct questions about NFA repairs.  When you talk to some ATF folks, you’ll hear, “Well Michael, you’ll need to originate a Form 5 in order to do that.  Both in and out of your inventory.”  Or, sometimes you’ll hear, “You have an SOT, right?  If so, log it in and out with complete information like any other firearm.”  Those are two completely different ways to facilitate a person’s work.
In case you think this is a scenario where a few people aren’t that well versed on the rules, take a look at this letter from ATF dated, February 18, 2000, (embedded below) where ATF says, “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) does not consider the temporary conveyance of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repair to be a “transfer” under the terms of the NFA. Thus, an ATF Form 5 application is not required.”  That seems pretty clear to me.  You’d think so, right?
Well, you only have to read two paragraphs below in the same letter to see this, “In order to avoid any appearance that a transfer has taken place, ATF strongly recommends that a Form 5 application be submitted for approval prior to conveying the firearm for repair.”
Which is it?  Document thoroughly and do your work?  I don’t ‘facilitate a transfer’ when I work on any other weapon for anyone.  Why would welding up a damaged suppressor be magically different?
Or, ask permission to facilitate a transfer on a Form 5?  In ATF’s own words above in their own letter, they claim to “not consider the temporary conveyance of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repair to be a “transfer” under the terms of the NFA.”  So their solution to this nonexistent problem is to “avoid any appearance that a transfer has taken place” by recommending I submit a Form 5.
We’re trying to avoid a “transfer” according to the ATF.  I’m curious if anyone at ATF knows what Form 5 is by chance?  It literally is called the “Application for the Tax Exempt TRANSFER and Registration of Firearm.”
Let me get this straight.  Just like every weapon that comes in my shop, I must thoroughly document it both into and out of my physical possession and also record it all in my bound book.  No problem.  This in no way constitutes a transfer of ownership with any NFA weapon, just as is the same for all other firearms through my facility.  Gotcha.  But I’m also supposed to turn in an application (Form 5), to ask permission to transfer something, so I can repair it, then submit an additional application (Form 5) to transfer the NFA weapon back, all to avoid a transfer?
I am confused.  Are you?
I’ve been really fortunate.  The ATF folks I’ve worked with locally have been top-shelf people.  The inspectors and agents alike, some of which have become personal friends, have always been professional and courteous with me.  But I’ll say this with no shame…  These silly rules and regulations that get ‘interpreted’ based on the whims of who-knows-what are the pits.  When your livelihood and reputation are on the line, you need a simple and proper rule book for all parties to grasp and adhere to.  The duality we see in letters like the “February 18th, 2000 Special” as it has become known in the industry, is symptomatic of a systemic failure to honestly offer intent and context to the people bound by the often impossible mandate these letters contain.
It’s been a tough 20 years dealing with the ATF administrative swamp of ever-changing rules and multiple interpretations.  This is government bureaucracy folks.  I’d shrug my shoulders like so many others, but not following the “murky water” instructions leads to felonies, prison time, and fines average people can never repay.  We desperately need better from ATF when it comes to things like this.  This is an example of an impossible situation for FFLs.  What am I to do?  Which interpretation will my next inspection accept?  What’ll happen to me and my business if I choose the option they don’t prefer?  Are these obvious contradictions deliberate?  If so, why?
This is crazy…  Remember the definition of “murky water” I mentioned in this article’s beginning?  Well, I find myself in a situation or circumstance that is foreign, unclear, or unfamiliar and may be dangerous or difficult.  Help!
ATF Letter: Repair of NFA Firearms, February 18th, 2000 Special

About Michael Ware:
Michael is a Christian husband and father to two children. He owns and operates Controlled Chaos Arms, a premier custom weapons shop in the Midwest. He serves as Chairman of the board of Directors at the Iowa Firearms Coalition. The pursuit of truth drives him in research and his writing.
Michael enjoys shooting, hunting, and fishing throughout the Midwest and Rockies. An avid outdoorsman and tireless supporter of all Second Amendment virtues, he can be found in his gun shop, in a tree stand with his kids, or on Capitol Hill lobbying in support of Freedom and Liberty at any given time.

EPIC Failure ~ Short Barreled Rifles Were NOT Intended to be Regulated by NFA

by Leave a Comment

EPIC Failure ~ Short Barreled Rifles Were NOT Intended to be Regulated by NFA
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- In 1934, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) administration had been in office for one year. The Attorney General, Homer Cummings, was a strong proponent of national gun laws, which, he contended, could get around constitutional constraints by using the power to tax.

The Justice Department crafted a bill to create the National Firearms Act of 1934.

It was a major piece of legislation, arguably the first time the Federal Government had significantly infringed on the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment.

Attorney General Cummings was asked to testify before the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the House, which was considering the bill.
In the original bill, the focus was on pistols and revolvers, short-barreled shotguns, concealable firearms, silencers, and machine guns. Short barreled rifles were not included.
page 1 of H.R. 9066 hearing on 16 April 1934
This made sense. The media had hyped the dangers of gangsters roaming the nation and robbing banks, armed with pistols, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns. These firearms were demonized as “gangster weapons“, much America’s most popular rifle the AR 15 is called an “assault weapon” and demonized under the misleading name today.
There was no demonization of short-barreled rifles. Such items were commonly used for hunting, offered by major manufacturers, usually as a special order. Both Winchester and Marlin made thousands of rifles with barrels less than 18 inches long. Quackenbush made many thousands of popular short-barreled “bicycle” rifles.
The committee transcripts from April 16, 1934, (embedded below) record how short-barreled rifles were added to the National Firearms Act.
Image from wikimedia.org Short barreled Trapper model on top. Image rotated, cropped, and scaled by Dean Weingarten
Stupid Politicians Making Law on Things they Don’t Understand
A congressman from Minnesota, who was a member of the Ways and Means Committee, appears to be confused.
On page 13 of the committee transcripts, a curious exchange takes place.
Representative Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, asks Attorney General Homer Cummings if he may add “rifles” to the bill and raise the barrel length to 18 inches, to protect deer hunting rifles in his home state. Cummings is bewildered by the request. It does not make any sense.  Eventually, Cummings says it is acceptable to him, to gain the approval of Representative Knutson. Cummings needs the votes on the committee to pass the bill. From the hearing:

Mr.KNUTSON. General, would there be any objection, on page 1, line 4, after the word” shotgun” to add the words” or rifle” having a barrel less than 18 inches? The reason I ask that is I happen to come from a section of the State where deer hunting is a very popular pastime in the fall of the year and, of course, I would not like to pass any legislation to forbid or make it impossible for our people to keep arms that would permit them to hunt deer. 
Attorney General CUMMINGS. Well, as long as it is not mentioned at all, it would not interfere at all.
Mr. KNUTSON. It seems to me that an 18 -inch barrel would make this provision stronger than 16 inches, knowing what I do about firearms.
Attorney General CUMMINGS. Well, there is no objection as far as we are concerned to including rifles after the word” shotguns” if you desire.
After this exchange, Representative Knutson fades from the picture. He has a few questions later. On page 87, he makes sure that rifles with barrels over 18 inches are exempted from the bill.
Quinn Otto-Moudry makes the same observation in an article in The Cornell Review examining the NFA hearings, in September of 2020:
Knutson asked if there “would…be any objection…after the word “shotgun” to add the words “or rifle” having a barrel less than 18 inches?…It seems to me that an 18-inch barrel would make this provision stronger than 16 inches, knowing what I do about firearms.” (pg 13), adding that he did not wish to interfere with his constituents ability to possess deer hunting rifles. This line of reasoning is extremely odd given that the congressman was asking to add restrictions which would make it harder to acquire rifles.
In the remaining transcripts, the focus is on pistols, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns. Rifles are barely mentioned. Sawed-off shotguns are referred to repeatedly.
The record is clear. Today, we deal with the bizarre regulatory world where short-barreled rifles are tightly regulated and taxed, while pistols with virtually the same capability, only more concealable, are honored and recognized by the Supreme Court as protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
All because a confused congressman from Minnesota did not realize he was asking for exactly the opposite of what he claimed he desired.
Harold Knutson, of Minnesota: Short barreled rifles were added to the NFA all because a confused congressman from Minnesota did not realize he was asking for exactly the opposite of what he claimed he desired.
The FDR administration never asked for short-barreled rifles to be under tight control. The record shows they did not consider short-barreled rifles to be dangerous and unusual.
They simply accepted the confused request from a powerful committee member, in the process of passing the bill.
National Firearms Act of 1934 Committee Transcripts

About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

ATF IOIs Temporarily with the NFA Division are Not Hitting Target Metrics

by Leave a Comment

ATF Call: IOIs On Temporary Detail To The NFA Division Are Not Hitting Target Metrics iStock.com/monsitj-958626050
MARTINSBURG, WVA –-(Ammoland.com)- According to a leaked Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) leadership conference call obtained by AmmoLand News, Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs) that the ATF has assigned to a temporary detail with the Nation Firearms Act division have not been pulling their weight and are missing their target goals.

In regular times, the IOIs are responsible for visiting Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders and conducting industry inspections. These tasks include inspecting the FFL’s bound book to verify that firearms are correctly cataloged and transferred, checking that the dealers’ customers have correctly filled out the 4473 form and the dealer has processed it, answering FFLs questions about regulations, and making sure the FFLs are following all applicable firearms laws.

512,315 Nation Firearms Act Applications in 2020
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ATF has temporarily moved several at-risk IOIs who cannot work in the field to the NFA division to help process incoming NFA requests. 512,315 plus in 2020, according to ATF recent documents. The ATF leadership is not happy with these employee’s performance on their detail. The top brass at the bureau plans to have a conference call with the IOIs assigned to the NFA division detail to reinforce what they expect from ATF employees working in the division. The ATF leadership didn’t lay out the target metrics and how much the IOIs were missing these metrics.

The ATF leadership expects some or all of the IOIs to request a transfer after the conference call. The ATF leadership did not share the number of IOIs currently on the temporary detail with the NFA Division. While these inspectors are on assignment with the NFA division, the number of industry inspections has plummeted. To combat the lack of assessments made by current IOIs, the ATF will be hiring nearly 100 more IOIs to help do the ATF employees’ work that cannot or will not work in the field because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The call’s leadership did not give a timeline for hiring the new IOIs but stated that the human resources department has already approved the requisition request. The leadership requested that hiring managers clearly detail the reason for passing on any candidate.

The leadership is worried that someone will ask for the reasons for the rejections through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. AmmoLand News spoke with a few attorneys who deal with FOIA requests, and they believe that this information would not be FOIAable due to personel privacy concerns.

The conference call didn’t make it clear to where the ATF will reassign these at-risk employees. Some believe that the inspectors will want to take a temporary detail in a division that isn’t as visible as the NFA division. The ATF administration does not think that the IOIs on the detail will be able to return to the field for the foreseeable future due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The ATF leadership on the call also did not state if the NFA division positions left vacant by the IOIs that request a new temporary assignment will be backfilled or just left empty. Nor did they mention an improved plan to process and/or speed up approvals for the flood of NFA applications the agency is receiving from U.S. citizens. AmmoLand News is firing off several FOIA requests to try to fill in the gaps about the NFA division.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Does Size Matter? | Stabilizing Braces, Politics, & the 2nd Amendment – Episode 3 – The GunPoint Podcast

by Leave a Comment

Episode 1 – Does Size Matter? | Stabilizing Braces, Politics, & the 2nd Amendment [podbean resource=”episode=dzvux-bb147c” type=”video” height=”315″ size=”315″ fonts=”Helvetica” auto=”0″ download=”1″ rtl=”0″ skin=”0″ pbad=”1″] The GunPoint’s own legal expert, Brian Hardy, discusses size as it relates to NFA classifications, discusses politics, and the ongoing attack on the 2nd Amendment.  Check our our other Podcast [Read more…]

Shall Not Be Infringed

by 5 Comments

This organization came up recently and I think that it is useful to take a closer look. A short time ago several high-profile military men signed on to the “Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.” People like Mark Kelly, David Petraeus, Stanley McChrystal, Wesley Clark, and more all put their names and support behind their endeavor [Read more…]

Arsenal SBR’s and One model that is but is NOT . . .

by Leave a Comment

If you shoot AK’s you know Arsenal by name and reputation and you know the quality of their products the second you pick one up.  Arsenal Bulgaria celebrated 140 years of business and Arsenal Inc. celebrated 20 years of importing and manufacturing Arsenal products in the US.  With so much history and a product that [Read more…]