Bad news for Form 1 cans...ATF shuts down SDTA

[S4f]

In the event the hpa fails,Maybe just streamline the process for obtaining legal suppressors, most people that I'm talking to wait 12 months to obtain their stamp,should be something like 90 day max wait law,are any of you guys doing any better on the wait time?

 

[11B CIB]

In the event the hpa fails,Maybe just streamline the process for obtaining legal suppressors, most people that I'm talking to wait 12 months to obtain their stamp,should be something like 90 day max wait law,are any of you guys doing any better on the wait time?

During the "lull", I got a can in 54 days I believe. This was from pending to approved....my log on "another" site is inaccessible to me. My longest wait time was 11 months, and that was before the 41F push

 

[S4f]

During the "lull", I got a can in 54 days I believe. This was from pending to approved....my log on "another" site is inaccessible to me. My longest wait time was 11 months, and that was before the 41F push

That's the fastest I've seen I know 4 people who are at the 10 month mark and still waiting, 2 have done this before their wait last time 12 months,this is ridiculous,their has to be a process to speed this up sorry for hijacking the thread.

 

[BigWaylon]

That's the fastest I've seen I know 4 people who are at the 10 month mark and still waiting, 2 have done this before their wait last time 12 months,this is ridiculous,their has to be a process to speed this up sorry for hijacking the thread.

Wasn't me...but I know a guy that's had multiple forms signed on the spot by NFA examiners at SHOT show. Hard to beat that for speed.

I've ranged from 90 days to 11.5 months in the last several years.

 

[GymB]

So in order to avoid having them subject to the NFA if they happen to be misused by criminals, we could leave them subject to the NFA so they won't be used by criminals.

I know you can do better.

Guns are used to commit crimes, and people have a right to defend themselves and to bear arms, society has determined that the proper balance is to run background checks on people buying guns and to do some other things, things that are generally ineffective but that's not important. Different groups keep pushing the balance around, and if all of a sudden guns were no longer being used by criminals then those wanting less gun control would probably make great strides.

Today suppressors are rarely used by criminals. Frankly I don't think criminals are very smart, but they also have to deal with concealment and presentation, both of which suffer when a suppressor is bolted on. This may also be in part because the increase in the number of suppressor-ready guns is a recent event, It doesn't really matter, what matter is that they aren't used in crimes today and so there is a reasonable argument that freedom has been diminished based on unfounded fears and that we should correct this injustice.

Sounds great, take suppressors off the NFA, and everyone reading this buys a few more, man it would be great.

Now I theorize that in a few years criminals will commonly be using suppressors. You and I know that they probably aren't going to be doing anything new, they are committing the same crimes, but maybe there is an increase in crime and a reduction in successful prosecutions. If that happens then the left will push harder for additional gun control, and we might end up with suppressors but with full registration, or me might lose suppressors and be required to sell only through FFls. We sure as hell won't be making progress on getting anything else off NFA.

So my thinking is about how to take a step forward and be positioned to take another step forward while reducing the risk that we take two steps backwards in a few years. My first idea was keeping the cost high, but registration is another option as is harsher sentencing guidelines. It's a straw man, take a poke at it if you like.

 

[The Green Heron]

I know you can do better.

Guns are used to commit crimes, and people have a right to defend themselves and to bear arms, society has determined that the proper balance is to run background checks on people buying guns and to do some other things, things that are generally ineffective but that's not important. Different groups keep pushing the balance around, and if all of a sudden guns were no longer being used by criminals then those wanting less gun control would probably make great strides.

Today suppressors are rarely used by criminals. Frankly I don't think criminals are very smart, but they also have to deal with concealment and presentation, both of which suffer when a suppressor is bolted on. This may also be in part because the increase in the number of suppressor-ready guns is a recent event, It doesn't really matter, what matter is that they aren't used in crimes today and so there is a reasonable argument that freedom has been diminished based on unfounded fears and that we should correct this injustice.

Sounds great, take suppressors off the NFA, and everyone reading this buys a few more, man it would be great.

Now I theorize that in a few years criminals will commonly be using suppressors. You and I know that they probably aren't going to be doing anything new, they are committing the same crimes, but maybe there is an increase in crime and a reduction in successful prosecutions. If that happens then the left will push harder for additional gun control, and we might end up with suppressors but with full registration, or me might lose suppressors and be required to sell only through FFls. We sure as hell won't be making progress on getting anything else off NFA.

So my thinking is about how to take a step forward and be positioned to take another step forward while reducing the risk that we take two steps backwards in a few years. My first idea was keeping the cost high, but registration is another option as is harsher sentencing guidelines. It's a straw man, take a poke at it if you like.

i thought your thinking couldn't get worse. I was wrong.

 

[GymB]

i thought your thinking couldn't get worse. I was wrong.

Dude, either engage in the conversation or not, but what exactly do you get from just being an ass?

 

[The Green Heron]

Dude, either engage in the conversation or not, but what exactly do you get from just being an ass?

Wow!
So you want me to spell it out for you huh?

You are the typical "believe in the 2A....But" gun owner. That is of course if you believe any of what you have written.

Stopping short of full restoration of a second amendment right because "maybe we better keep some common sense restriction" or f@#$ me..."keeping the cost high, but registration is another option".
People like you my friend are the reason we keep hearing about "common sense gun laws".

​​​​​​You cannot compromise with people who do not believe in the 2A. I have some bad news for you, if you are serious about what you have written here, you still believe "some people" should have to give up a little liberty to gain a little. High prices and registration are where we are now. So..what is being gained? If they are not going to be an unregistered item then what is the point? A gun owner who asks for regulation to look good to a gun grabber is fooling himself and a Quisling

We have a chance to demand the whole ball of wax, we should demand nothing less and hope for the best. If you think low balling on supressor, will gain points for more negotiations on the entire NFA, you must be really young, or not paying attention for the last 4 decades. Playing coy will not impress the left.

You think I'm an @$$ now, but wait till you meet me.

 

[GymB]

Wow!
So you want me to spell it out for you huh?

You are the typical "believe in the 2A....But" gun owner. That is of course if you believe any of what you have written.

Stopping short of full restoration of a second amendment right because "maybe we better keep some common sense restriction" or f@#$ me..."keeping the cost high, but registration is another option".
People like you my friend are the reason we keep hearing about "common sense gun laws".

​​​​​​You cannot compromise with people who do not believe in the 2A. I have some bad news for you, if you are serious about what you have written here, you still believe "some people" should have to give up a little liberty to gain a little. High prices and registration are where we are now. So..what is being gained? If they are not going to be an unregistered item then what is the point? A gun owner who asks for regulation to look good to a gun grabber is fooling himself and a Quisling

We have a chance to demand the whole ball of wax, we should demand nothing less and hope for the best. If you think low balling on supressor, will gain points for more negotiations on the entire NFA, you must be really young, or not paying attention for the last 4 decades. Playing coy will not impress the left.

You think I'm an @$$ now, but wait till you meet me.

But the draft bill stops short of full restoration of 2a rights, so by supporting it you're negotiating with the gun grabbers, why aren't you going for the whole ball of wax?

 

[The Green Heron]

But the draft bill stops short of full restoration of 2a rights, so by supporting it you're negotiating with the gun grabbers, why aren't you going for the whole ball of wax?

Are you thinking about what you say before you write?
Was this bill proposed by a gun grabbing representative?

You have the nerve to call me an @$$, and then you volley with this garbage. Gtfo

 

[GymB]

Are you thinking about what you say before you write?
Was this bill proposed by a gun grabbing representative?

You have the nerve to call me an @$$, and then you volley with this garbage. Gtfo

Why does it matter who proposed it, the fact is that it's a compromise relative getting everything. I'm just contemplating other possible compromises and their effect on the recovery or loss of freedom in the future. You're so excited at the opportunity to bully someone that you don't realize that you're supporting a compromise while screaming that you won't compromise.

BTW, I did not call you an ass.

got an early flight, nite nite.

 

[The Green Heron]

Why does it matter who proposed it, the fact is that it's a compromise relative getting everything. I'm just contemplating other possible compromises and their effect on the recovery or loss of freedom in the future. You're so excited at the opportunity to bully someone that you don't realize that you're supporting a compromise while screaming that you won't compromise.

BTW, I did not call you an ass.

got an early flight, nite nite.

I'm sorry you felt bullied.

 

[DangerRuss]

Dude, either engage in the conversation or not, but what exactly do you get from just being an ass?

BTW, I did not call you an ass.

 

[JohnFreeman]

if all of a sudden guns were no longer being used by criminals then those wanting less gun control would probably make great strides..

It's hard to imagine anyone believes this. Particularly on a gun forum.

So, let's register all suppressors (and guns) so that crime will do down, so we'll have less control on guns.

Seems legit.

 

[bspitt]

I know you can do better.

Guns are used to commit crimes, and people have a right to defend themselves and to bear arms, society has determined that the proper balance is to run background checks on people buying guns and to do some other things, things that are generally ineffective but that's not important. Different groups keep pushing the balance around, and if all of a sudden guns were no longer being used by criminals then those wanting less gun control would probably make great strides.

Today suppressors are rarely used by criminals. Frankly I don't think criminals are very smart, but they also have to deal with concealment and presentation, both of which suffer when a suppressor is bolted on. This may also be in part because the increase in the number of suppressor-ready guns is a recent event, It doesn't really matter, what matter is that they aren't used in crimes today and so there is a reasonable argument that freedom has been diminished based on unfounded fears and that we should correct this injustice.

Sounds great, take suppressors off the NFA, and everyone reading this buys a few more, man it would be great.

Now I theorize that in a few years criminals will commonly be using suppressors. You and I know that they probably aren't going to be doing anything new, they are committing the same crimes, but maybe there is an increase in crime and a reduction in successful prosecutions. If that happens then the left will push harder for additional gun control, and we might end up with suppressors but with full registration, or me might lose suppressors and be required to sell only through FFls. We sure as hell won't be making progress on getting anything else off NFA.

So my thinking is about how to take a step forward and be positioned to take another step forward while reducing the risk that we take two steps backwards in a few years. My first idea was keeping the cost high, but registration is another option as is harsher sentencing guidelines. It's a straw man, take a poke at it if you like.

I agree with the chicken…er I mean The Green Heron – JimB you seem like the classic “I believe in the 2A…but" crowd.

Let’s be perfectly clear. A gun, suppressor, knife, machine gun, car, hammer, or whatever inanimate object has NEVER committed a crime. They have never cause anyone to commit a crime. They have never caused an uptick in crime rates. It really is that simple, so why should they be regulated, kept expensive, or whatever. Let’s go with your argument, except about houses:

Local public housing has much higher crime rates than the more expensive suburbs. The country club has almost no crime: Conclusion – Expensive houses cause less crime, cheap rental units cause far too much crime – let’s make public housing as expensive as the local country club - thus we solve the crime issue!

I know you are gonna say. “I don’t believe this but we have to keep balance (your words) with the anti-gun crowd”. Honestly its people such as yourself who has done more to restrict gun rights in this Country than any 100% anti-2A nut job. There is nothing wrong with informing these people that they are WRONG – Period end of story! Your giving an inch to achieve “balance” leads to a foot, then a yard, later on a mile – IMO – either you support the 2A 100% or you don’t. There is no article, nor amendment in the US Constitution that limits what type of “arms” we can bear.

When there was only 4 people on Earth – there was a 25% crime rate when Cain killed Able----We should have outlawed stones when we had the chance! Think of all of the “stoning” deaths that could have been prevented!

 

[Zedhound]

I agree with the chicken…er I mean The Green Heron – JimB you seem like the classic “I believe in the 2A…but" crowd.

Local public housing has much higher crime rates than the more expensive suburbs. The country club has almost no crime: Conclusion – Expensive houses cause less crime, cheap rental units cause far too much crime – let’s make public housing as expensive as the local country club - thus we solve the crime issue!

i am going to troll for a minute or atleast make a tinsy change to this. public housing sees more violent crime, country club sees more white collar crime.

so correct me if im wrong but that makes your conclusion wrong.

 

[bspitt]

i am going to troll for a minute or atleast make a tinsy change to this. public housing sees more violent crime, country club sees more white collar crime.

so correct me if im wrong but that makes your conclusion wrong.

Ill agree with that - but for sake of this argument - lets specify "gun crime" since that's the subject - So the conclusion is now: "Cheaper housing causes more Gun Violence, more expensive ones reduce gun violence" - Either way - Its a stupid sarcastic conclusion - but one that follows liberal logic.