Bill to Stop ATF Rule 41P Passes House
By: Zach McCormick
6/6/15
According to an article posted on the American Suppressor Association Blog a recent funding bill passed the House of Representatives with an amendment that would block the much-reviled "41P" ATF proposed rule change. Naturally, this is merely the first step towards protecting the status quo as it pertains to NFA trusts (aka gun trusts) and there is still a long way to go before such protections become law.
As a brief refresher, the 41P proposal would, if enacted, created the title of "responsible person" and require that such a person be fingerprinted and would require that a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign off on each trust.
This CLEO provision may be the most offensive term due to the tremendous discretion that it places on these individuals. In areas where CLEOs are opposed to NFA ownership they simply refuse to approve any application. This has the effect of creating a total ban on what would otherwise be lawful possession of suppressors, short barreled rifles and the like.
What is more, contrary to some rumors, it is not permissible for a criminal to use the current trust framework to unlawfully acquire a firearm or NFA item due to the requirement that the FFL conducting the transfer complete an NICS background check immediately prior to the transfer. In fact, the notion that a criminal would go through the hoops of getting a trust to accomplish his criminal intent is so implausible as to be ridiculous.
A blog by attorney Zach McCormick covering topics ranging from angry anteaters to zombie zoologists.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Florida Says "Yes" To Hunting Suppressed
By: Zach McCormick
11/25/14
It is now legal to hunt using a suppressor in Florida according to the NRA's recent press release. With this change in the law, hunters may finally take advantage of a responsible and respectful method of protecting their hearing.
Someone might argue this is something that should never have even been prohibited in the first place...those people would be correct.
11/25/14
It is now legal to hunt using a suppressor in Florida according to the NRA's recent press release. With this change in the law, hunters may finally take advantage of a responsible and respectful method of protecting their hearing.
Someone might argue this is something that should never have even been prohibited in the first place...those people would be correct.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Bill Murray's "St. Vincent" = Time Well Spent
By: Zach McCormick
11/16/14
My Wife and I used to go to the movies all the time but frankly we haven't been drawn to anything lately. That changed last night when we saw "St. Vincent" where Bill Murray and his co-stars really hit a heartwarming little tale out of the park. Everyone did a good job and it all felt "real".
Good writing, cheerful at times but definitely echoing events that could've actually taken place.
Worth the price of admission in my opinion.
11/16/14
My Wife and I used to go to the movies all the time but frankly we haven't been drawn to anything lately. That changed last night when we saw "St. Vincent" where Bill Murray and his co-stars really hit a heartwarming little tale out of the park. Everyone did a good job and it all felt "real".
Good writing, cheerful at times but definitely echoing events that could've actually taken place.
Worth the price of admission in my opinion.
Friday, November 14, 2014
ATF Gives Approximate Date For Gun Trust Rule Change
In an article posted by the American Suppressor Association (ASA) on November 4th, 2014 it was reported that the ATF expects to rule on the so called "41p" rule change implemented by Obama's executive order.
It appears that, if the rule change is implemented (and I don't see how it won't be) then one of the primary benefits that gun trusts have provided may be taken away. Specifically, it is now more likely that it will be necessary to get a chief law enforcement officer's signature on any paperwork used to apply for the transfer and stamp.
This is of course simply one more consequence of ceding power to a government that has unquenchable thirst for the same.
As of now it appears that the ATF is predicting the matter will be "heard" around May of 2015. It may be that now is the time to get a gun trust lest it go the way of fully automatic arms pre-86'.
It appears that, if the rule change is implemented (and I don't see how it won't be) then one of the primary benefits that gun trusts have provided may be taken away. Specifically, it is now more likely that it will be necessary to get a chief law enforcement officer's signature on any paperwork used to apply for the transfer and stamp.
This is of course simply one more consequence of ceding power to a government that has unquenchable thirst for the same.
As of now it appears that the ATF is predicting the matter will be "heard" around May of 2015. It may be that now is the time to get a gun trust lest it go the way of fully automatic arms pre-86'.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Net Neutrality: A Band-Aid, Not a Cure
By: Zach McCormick
11/12/14
President Obama recently voiced his support for "net neutrality" (the notion that internet providers should not be allowed to prioritize or censor their users content for profit) and encouraged the FCC to support such measures. A proposal that is, not surprisingly, staunchly opposed by internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon etc.
The idea misses the bigger picture and affords only a temporary fix to a much more insidious problem. Put simply, the idea that information should be freely transmitted is good but the notion that business shouldn't be able to make money in a free market is bad.
Yet, its not quite as simple as that, because the major internet providers don't exactly live in a "free market". In fact one need only try and get one cable/phone company to give you a quote against another cable/phone company to realize that each has a governmentally enforced monopoly in its own arbitrary and anachronistic territory.
Hence, we would probably be better off with a true free market solution as opposed to intrusive government oversight. In the meantime, net neutrality is the best option we've got for keeping information flowing smoothly.
11/12/14
President Obama recently voiced his support for "net neutrality" (the notion that internet providers should not be allowed to prioritize or censor their users content for profit) and encouraged the FCC to support such measures. A proposal that is, not surprisingly, staunchly opposed by internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon etc.
The idea misses the bigger picture and affords only a temporary fix to a much more insidious problem. Put simply, the idea that information should be freely transmitted is good but the notion that business shouldn't be able to make money in a free market is bad.
Yet, its not quite as simple as that, because the major internet providers don't exactly live in a "free market". In fact one need only try and get one cable/phone company to give you a quote against another cable/phone company to realize that each has a governmentally enforced monopoly in its own arbitrary and anachronistic territory.
Hence, we would probably be better off with a true free market solution as opposed to intrusive government oversight. In the meantime, net neutrality is the best option we've got for keeping information flowing smoothly.
ATF Publishes 80% Lower Guidelines...Finally
By: Zach McCormick
11/12/14
I saw this on one of my favorite gun blogs "TheFirearmBlog.com" via "Ammoland.com" and I thought it was very useful for anyone who has considered either selling or purchasing an 80% finished lower receiver.
This of course on the heels of the recent ATF raids on retailers selling lower receivers that were 80% (or less) completed in violation of a judge's restraining order.
Its nice to see this agency finally bringing some clarity the issue.
11/12/14
I saw this on one of my favorite gun blogs "TheFirearmBlog.com" via "Ammoland.com" and I thought it was very useful for anyone who has considered either selling or purchasing an 80% finished lower receiver.
This of course on the heels of the recent ATF raids on retailers selling lower receivers that were 80% (or less) completed in violation of a judge's restraining order.
Its nice to see this agency finally bringing some clarity the issue.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Make the USA a DMZ
Police aren't soldiers and for good reason; soldiers fight an enemy and police should almost never be in a position to target their fellow citizens as if they were in a war zone. It is time to start de-militarizing our police officers so that we can once again enjoy their protection without fear of being harmed ourselves.
The events in Ferguson Missouri highlighted the issue of militarized law enforcement in this country. We saw first hand how arming and equipping police with military gear and then sending them out onto the streets can and will have catastrophic effects if the conditions are right.
It is sad that it took death and destruction to get people talking about what has been staring us in the face for some time now. However, though it is undoubtedly small comfort to those that have suffered, this may mark the turning point in America.
Before change can occur however, we have to identify the root of the problem. To do this certain questions need to be answered such as why cops have gotten so aggressive and why they feel the need to equip themselves so heavily.
The principle of preparedness is usually sensible and it seems that most police will say that they "need" their [true] assault rifles (ones that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull) and their military style body armor. They will point to how violent their world has become and how they do not want to take a risk by letting their guard down.
Their fears are probably warranted, but perhaps not for the reasons they realize. Police are in danger, but not because of a concerted effort by some nameless evil that thirsts for the blood of policemen. The police are in danger because they are being asked to enforce laws that the citizenry simply doesn't want enforced. The problem is the "War on Drugs".
Drug crimes are usually "possession crimes" where the mere act of possessing the item is the crime itself. This type of crime is manifestly unjust due to the fact that no harm comes from mere possession of almost anything. For example, cars can kill people but only when operated incorrectly. Hence, the mere act of owning the car does not cause deaths whereas the act of driving a car into a crowd does.
Drug crimes are prioritized for increased enforcement in this modern era in many cases, to the exclusion of the more traditionally recognized offenses such as theft or battery. This puts police on the wrong side of justice and they naturally bear the brunt of the publics' inherent aggression. This in turn has led them to espouse tactics that, by definition, place the police at odds with the public they are sworn to protect.
This leads to a lack of sympathy, fear and even anger within the law enforcement community and the gap between police and the citizenry widens further. Then, with both sides distrusting each other, even the smallest spark can start an inferno.
The drug laws need a drastic change, to the extent that they may need to be all but totally repealed. This will be initially unthinkable as just about everyone born in the last 40 years has been raised to believe that drugs are inherently bad. They may indeed be bad, but as grown adults, we must learn to control ourselves without crutch of having a law to criminalize it.
The reward that awaits us for taking such a mature move is unfathomably large; it will have the effect of freeing up huge resources across a wide spectrum. Overnight drug cartels will cease to exist and with them the crime that they create. Government spending on law enforcement can be cut by an order of magnitude and the national debt with it.
End the war on drugs and we make a DMZ from sea to shining sea.
The events in Ferguson Missouri highlighted the issue of militarized law enforcement in this country. We saw first hand how arming and equipping police with military gear and then sending them out onto the streets can and will have catastrophic effects if the conditions are right.
It is sad that it took death and destruction to get people talking about what has been staring us in the face for some time now. However, though it is undoubtedly small comfort to those that have suffered, this may mark the turning point in America.
Before change can occur however, we have to identify the root of the problem. To do this certain questions need to be answered such as why cops have gotten so aggressive and why they feel the need to equip themselves so heavily.
The principle of preparedness is usually sensible and it seems that most police will say that they "need" their [true] assault rifles (ones that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull) and their military style body armor. They will point to how violent their world has become and how they do not want to take a risk by letting their guard down.
Their fears are probably warranted, but perhaps not for the reasons they realize. Police are in danger, but not because of a concerted effort by some nameless evil that thirsts for the blood of policemen. The police are in danger because they are being asked to enforce laws that the citizenry simply doesn't want enforced. The problem is the "War on Drugs".
Drug crimes are usually "possession crimes" where the mere act of possessing the item is the crime itself. This type of crime is manifestly unjust due to the fact that no harm comes from mere possession of almost anything. For example, cars can kill people but only when operated incorrectly. Hence, the mere act of owning the car does not cause deaths whereas the act of driving a car into a crowd does.
Drug crimes are prioritized for increased enforcement in this modern era in many cases, to the exclusion of the more traditionally recognized offenses such as theft or battery. This puts police on the wrong side of justice and they naturally bear the brunt of the publics' inherent aggression. This in turn has led them to espouse tactics that, by definition, place the police at odds with the public they are sworn to protect.
This leads to a lack of sympathy, fear and even anger within the law enforcement community and the gap between police and the citizenry widens further. Then, with both sides distrusting each other, even the smallest spark can start an inferno.
The drug laws need a drastic change, to the extent that they may need to be all but totally repealed. This will be initially unthinkable as just about everyone born in the last 40 years has been raised to believe that drugs are inherently bad. They may indeed be bad, but as grown adults, we must learn to control ourselves without crutch of having a law to criminalize it.
The reward that awaits us for taking such a mature move is unfathomably large; it will have the effect of freeing up huge resources across a wide spectrum. Overnight drug cartels will cease to exist and with them the crime that they create. Government spending on law enforcement can be cut by an order of magnitude and the national debt with it.
End the war on drugs and we make a DMZ from sea to shining sea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)