New ATF proposals

[walnutred]

Received this email from the NMLRA today. I've not seen it discussed so I'm passing it on.

Dear Members of the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association,

I hope this message finds you well. We are reaching out to shed light on a matter that demands our immediate attention and swift unified action.

As passionate advocates and enthusiasts of muzzle loading rifles, our community faces a significant challenge posed by the ATF's Proposed Rule 2022R-17. This proposal, if enacted, could potentially impose stringent regulations and constraints on our cherished hobby and the tools we hold dear.

The proposed rule stands to impact various aspects of our practice, potentially altering how we acquire, possess, and utilize muzzle loading rifles. Its implications could limit our freedoms and restrict our ability to engage in activities that have been an integral part of our heritage and passion.

It's crucial for us to stand together and voice our opposition to this rule. By unifying our efforts and expressing our concerns through a collective voice, we can make a substantial impact and safeguard the future of our hobby.

Here are a few steps we can take together:

Oppose this rule on the ATF website.
Visit Regulations.gov and submit an electronic objection to the proposed rule. See below for a sample objection.
“RE: ATF 2022R-17, proposed rule
I am writing to object to several provisions of the proposed 27 CFR Part 478. The presumptions set forth that one is engaged in the sale of firearms and needs an FFL for doing things such as renting a table at a gun show, placing a price tag on a firearm, keeping records of purchase and sale prices of guns, and selling guns of the same manufacture or like new, is not proper and contrary to the provisions of law that specifically provides for occasional sales for gun collectors and hobbyist.

Sales and purchases by non-dealers were not prohibited by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Had that been the intent of the BSCA it would have so stated. It is not proper to take actions by regulation that go far beyond what Congress provided in law.”

We also suggest that you also send a copy of your objections to your federal representatives, their contact information is available in the links below.
Links that provide contact information for your US Senators and Representative

U.S. Senate: Contacting U.S. Senators
Find Your Representative | house.gov
Send this email to your family and friends to get their support against this proposed rule.
Read the highlighted Rule here, https://ogca.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ATF-proposed-regulation-highlighted-new.pdf
I urge each of you to join us in this critical endeavor. Together, we can defend our rights, protect our passions, and preserve the legacy of muzzle loading rifles for generations to come.

Your participation and commitment to this cause are invaluable.

Thank you for your attention and support.

Sincerely,
NMLRA Board of Directors


If you would prefer not to receive further messages from this sender, please Click Here and confirm your request.

 

[robvious]

PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS.... NOW...
comment period ends December 7th....

 

[five 0]

Comment sent

 

[walnutred]

Thanks, it should be obvious that this proposed regulation does not just apply to ML firearms.

 

[glowe]

I do not believe it has anything to do with Muzzleloaders, so nothing changes with them.

What I get out of the almost impossible to decipher documentation is that the BATF is considering widening the requirements for licensing to include for-profit individuals selling firearms, but not restricting anyone’s right to buy and sell?? They reference those selling firearms online without a license. I did not know that anyone could sell a firearm online without an FFL???? I thought this was already illegal?

They state that there are 1.31 million unlicensed persons selling, trading, or bartering firearms today. ATF states, based on the best, very conservative assessment from SME experts, that 25 percent (or 328,296 unlicensed individuals) may be engaged in the business with an intent to profit. In sum, based on these limited sources of information, ATF estimates 328,296 could represent an estimate of unlicensed persons that may be engaged in the business and would be affected by this proposed rule.

Bottom line is that it scares the hell out of me to think that gang members, convicted felons, molesters, etc. can still, in this day and age, just put down their money online or at Gun Shows and simply walk off with an arsenal of firearms.

 

[walnutred]

Glowe, I may be wrong but the way I read this is that if the ATF gets this passed all firearms sales will have to go through a FFL.

 

[fordson]

Glowe, I may be wrong but the way I read this is that if the ATF gets this passed all firearms sales will have to go through a FFL.

That’s what is behind this latest push: Universal Background Checks……

 

[walnutred]

That’s what is behind this latest push: Universal Background Checks……

And the only way to verify this is universal firearms registration to track transfers. I know this is already a fact in some states but not where I live.

 

[Tu_S]

Glowe, I may be wrong but the way I read this is that if the ATF gets this passed all firearms sales will have to go through a FFL.

You have to go through all the documents that are referred to in 2022R-17 to understand what is going on.

If you read through everything you will find that a rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is muzzle loaded is considered an "antique firearm" not a "firearm", and have very different rules because of it.

As with many of the things that get thrown out on the Internet these days about gun laws, whoever decided this is an issue for muzzle loaders didn't bother going through all the details in the associated documents that define the rules being changed, and decided on their own that antique firearms and firearms are the same thing.

While I do see some problems with how things are now for "personal" sales and transfers, with how it's written I cannot support 2022R-17 as it's just another poorly thought out rule. However, it has no impact for buying and selling antique and C&R guns.

 

[glowe]

That’s what is behind this latest push: Universal Background Checks……

The primary focus seems to be aimed at sellers who make the sale of firearms a routine business, with or without an FFL. I believe it is part wider licensing effort, but not UBC. It also may have something to do with income that is not recorded or taxed.

 

[Muley Gil]

With the BATFE, all it takes is a stroke of the pen to make muzzle loaders firearms. Many of these Federal agencies don't follow the law and feel that THEY can interpet laws any way they want.

Comment sent.

 

[Racer X]

With the BATFE, all it takes is a stroke of the pen to make muzzle loaders firearms. Many of these Federal agencies don't follow the law and feel that THEY can interpet laws any way they want.

Comment sent.

Many of the Administrative agencies have overstepped their mandates in recent years. This is why Chevron Defference is on the SCOTUS calandar. The cases happen to be fissheries cases. Like I said, Many Admin agencies are overstepping and "legislating".

 

[Well Armed]

I wonder how many of those muzzle loading fanboys fought against bumpstocks, braces, etc??? I recall back during the bumpstocks era A LOT of what some call "fudd" gun owners supported the ban. I remember a few were warning them that if they ban bumpstocks, it will be just a matter of time before they get around to banning something you care about.... And here we are....

I will comment on the proposal anyway even though it will not affect me one bit if the proposal passes. We should all know by now that it's will pass irregardless of what comments we leave.

 

[A10]

FTATF. They used to be partners, now not so much.....

 

[glowe]

I am not a Fudd gun owner, but defiantly was against bumpstocks?? All I know is if we do not clean up the issue of strangers selling strangers firearms on the street, in gun shows, and apparently illegally online, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Bumpstocks got us more bad press than they were worth, brought to you be some "entrepreneurs" that without a doubt put potential profits ahead of common sense. Also have to state that I think many people are too critical of the efforts of the BATFE, and disagree with the premise that they are all crooks and crusaders against the 2nd Amendment.

 

[biku324]

You have to go through all the documents that are referred to in 2022R-17 to understand what is going on.

If you read through everything you will find that a rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is muzzle loaded is considered an "antique firearm" not a "firearm", and have very different rules because of it.

As with many of the things that get thrown out on the Internet these days about gun laws, whoever decided this is an issue for muzzle loaders didn't bother going through all the details in the associated documents that define the rules being changed, and decided on their own that antique firearms and firearms are the same thing.

While I do see some problems with how things are now for "personal" sales and transfers, with how it's written I cannot support 2022R-17 as it's just another poorly thought out rule. However, it has no impact for buying and selling antique and C&R guns.

Thank you - facts matter.

 

[Well Armed]

I am not a Fudd gun owner, but defiantly was against bumpstocks?? All I know is if we do not clean up the issue of strangers selling strangers firearms on the street, in gun shows, and apparently illegally online, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Bumpstocks got us more bad press than they were worth, brought to you be some "entrepreneurs" that without a doubt put potential profits ahead of common sense. Also have to state that I think many people are too critical of the efforts of the BATFE, and disagree with the premise that they are all crooks and crusaders against the 2nd Amendment.

It's people like you and who thought like you is the reason why they're banning everything else right now. You think trying to appease those who hate guns via banning gun owners from owning things with the force of law for no other reason than "optics" and trying to make make the antigun public happy is a fools errand. Once bumpstocks were banned, explain to me how and when the bad press gun owners get from Democrats and the mainstream media was affected in any way, shape, or form? Banning things and taking away freedoms because of optics and you don't like the way something looks is a trait that the antigunners and Democrats in government typically have and it's the reason they use to ban firearm features and accessory that have zero effect on crime.

Bumpstocks were around for many years, did not contribute to crime, and was used by only one gun owner in a crime out of a population of over 330 million over the course of several years. You support banning it while making felons of your fellow gun owners over night so that those who hate guns would be happy. How did that work out? Once they banned bumpstocks, the banned trigger, ammo, pistol braces, 80% receiver kits aka "ghost guns," now we have the current Proposed Rule 2022R-17. Once they get that, the same people you're trying to appease will go on to wanting to ban something else, when they ban something else, then they'll go after another thing, rise and repeat.

The same precedent that was set when the ATF bypassed congress by reinterpreting the plain text of law so that they could ban bumpstocks is the same precedent they're using to go down a never ending list to ban anything and everything gun related that they can get away with. I guess some gun owners have learned nothing from the U.K., Canada, Australia, and other countries that went down a simular rabbit hole on their quest to ban guns....

FYI: All to your dismay: bumpstocks are still legal in some states as a federal judge, rightfully so, ruled the ATF's ban was unconstitutional. The pistol brace ban you likely support too because it "brings bad press" has been losing in court ad nauseam and was stop in it's tracks via a universal injunction. The "ghost gun" ban has been losing in courts too.

Last, you've been watching too much mainstream television because there are no illegal gun sales online like the media falsely online. People who sell illegal guns do NOT go to gun shows that are crawling with law enforcement to sell black market firearms either by any significant percentage. What are use even talking about? And, I guess because you're against "strangers selling strangers guns" you're against private firearm sells too? Seems like you support most of the "common sense" gun control laws the left wants to put into place.

 

[biku324]

At the end of the day, when enough people believe that our guns are enough of a problem that they push Congress and state legislatures to act, the Second Amendment could meet the fate of 18th. There's no Constitutional rule to keep that from happening.

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

[mrcvs]

It's people like you and who thought like you is the reason why they're banning everything else right now. You think trying to appease those who hate guns via banning gun owners from owning things with the force of law for no other reason than "optics" and trying to make make the antigun public happy is a fools errand. Once bumpstocks were banned, explain to me how and when the bad press gun owners get from Democrats and the mainstream media was affected in any way, shape, or form? Banning things and taking away freedoms because of optics and you don't like the way something looks is a trait that the antigunners and Democrats in government typically have and it's the reason they use to ban firearm features and accessory that have zero effect on crime.

Bumpstocks were around for many years, did not contribute to crime, and was used by only one gun owner in a crime out of a population of over 330 million over the course of several years. You support banning it while making felons of your fellow gun owners over night so that those who hate guns would be happy. How did that work out? Once they banned bumpstocks, the banned trigger, ammo, pistol braces, 80% receiver kits aka "ghost guns," now we have the current Proposed Rule 2022R-17. Once they get that, the same people you're trying to appease will go on to wanting to ban something else, when they ban something else, then they'll go after another thing, rise and repeat.

The same precedent that was set when the ATF bypassed congress by reinterpreting the plain text of law so that they could ban bumpstocks is the same precedent they're using to go down a never ending list to ban anything and everything gun related that they can get away with. I guess some gun owners have learned nothing from the U.K., Canada, Australia, and other countries that went down a simular rabbit hole on their quest to ban guns....

FYI: All to your dismay: bumpstocks are still legal in some states as a federal judge, rightfully so, ruled the ATF's ban was unconstitutional. The pistol brace ban you likely support too because it "brings bad press" has been losing in court ad nauseam and was stop in it's tracks via a universal injunction. The "ghost gun" ban has been losing in courts too.

Last, you've been watching too much mainstream television because there are no illegal gun sales online like the media falsely online. People who sell illegal guns do NOT go to gun shows that are crawling with law enforcement to sell black market firearms either by any significant percentage. What are use even talking about? And, I guess because you're against "strangers selling strangers guns" you're against private firearm sells too? Seems like you support most of the "common sense" gun control laws the left wants to put into place.

Right! I think bumpstocks and a few other things should be banned. But, you simply CANNOT do that! Because once you start doing that, it becomes a VERY slippery slope! If you start banning even one thing, then it becomes a matter of “what else?”. The folks succeeding in banning even one thing will just keep on going and are persistent. That one banned item becomes many, and many can turn into all.

 

[black1970]

Well Armed is RIGHT. glowe is WRONG. Trump banned bump stocks and he knew he couldn’t do it. So did the BATFE but they went right along because it fit their agenda. The courts had to intervene and rightly so. As much as I like Trump he was not a King. Any fool should know that a President can’t declare an inaminate object illegal just by saying so. A law should be passed by Congress to ban anything INHO.