If Trump does away with the ATF...

MP5 is a ton of fun on FA. Semi, it's pretty boring.

I'd also get a new-school American 180, if available.

Suppressors are great, I'd get many more.

But, living in WA, the elected leaders would ignore any of those federal changes and certainly look to restrict even more.
 
Most likely event is ATF is merged in to DEA. The focus is armed, violent drug trafficking organizations and gangs as well as repeat offender serious violent felons. Been a rumor within DOJ for years. Then the compliance aspect of ATF would be handled by non-special agent personnel, like DEA diversion investigators handle scheduled drug compliance now.

This was back in the ‘90s…before the FBI was politicized as it has been now…but there was talk of merging the DEA with the FBI. In a training session an FBI agent was asked about that. His response was “When you mix clean water with dirty water…you get dirty water.”

It’s difficult to imagine what horrors could result from merging BATFE with the DEA. It would take some strong leadership that would purge the bad and ineffective out of both.
 
Do away with BATFE and the NFA? I'll be singing along.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPIdRJlzERo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPIdRJlzERo[/ame]
 
This was back in the ‘90s…before the FBI was politicized as it has been now…but there was talk of merging the DEA with the FBI. In a training session an FBI agent was asked about that. His response was “When you mix clean water with dirty water…you get dirty water.”

It’s difficult to imagine what horrors could result from merging BATFE with the DEA. It would take some strong leadership that would purge the bad and ineffective out of both.

More like when you mix dirty water with dirtier, more contaminated water.
 
If the BATFE and NFA were to go away I’d be on the hunt for a M3 grease gun.
Me too.
My Dad was in the 25th Inf. Div. (Tropic Lightning) stationed on the other side of Oahu when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor.
He didn't come back to the states until 1945.
He carried a Garand through most of the Pacific battles, but later in the war got a hold of a grease gun, he said he wished he'd had it for all the jungle fighting.

I finally got a Grease Gun, but it is a Umarex replica that uses C02 cartridges to fire BB's.
An exact copy down to the weight, only difference is this BB gun has a selector switch on the bottom, safe semi and full.
And the BB version will fire with the dust cover closed or open.
High rate of fire, it's supposed to be around 1050 RPM.
The magazines hold 60 BB's, which you can go through in just a few seconds.
It's pretty accurate for being a smoothbore BB shooter, on semi auto I can nail a pop can every time at 20 yards.
The Umarex copy of the Thompson holds 30 BB's, and their copy of the German MP40 holds 52, despite being about the same length stick mags as the M3 Grease Gun.
 

Attachments

  • 20250127_075313.jpg
    20250127_075313.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 19
Would you get your 6-8 3/4" N frame .44/.41/.357 and put a rifle stock on it?

Not at all! Revolving Carbines, Rifles and SBRs are usually the least fun gun to shoot. Too much hot gas and unburnt powder comes out the cylinder gap!
A shoulder stocked big bore Desert Eagle or 10 mm Glock is a different story! Make mine in 50AE!

Ivan
 
It won't benefit his administration

Plus, he NEEDS a fall guy to take the heat.

Sure, he might blow off some steam but his first administration sealed my verdict - He interfered and had bump stocks summarily banned.
 
Nonsense. The explosive growth of the suppressor industry in spite of the NFA is proof that the only thing that is likely is easier availability and lower prices on suppressors.

Same with SBRs/AOWs... the "braced pistol" popularity has helped many folks to discover that compact, shoulder mounted defensive guns are very capable and utilitarian.

In fact, both fall under the "common use" standard at this point and removal from the NFA is likely, if the right case makes it to SCOTUS.

Personally, I attribute the growth of the suppressor industry to the following factors...

  • $200 isn't that much money anymore, so the Tax Stamp is extremely affordable.
  • Dramatically shorter wait. The turnaround on getting approved has never been faster.
  • Forbidden Fruit. Never underestimate the appeal of something that is heavily restricted.

In terms of practical application, Suppressors just don't offer very much and if you stack the cons against the pros, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. You get a moderate reduction in decibels — but not enough to completely mitigate the necessity of hearing protection — in exchange for increased footprint size of the firearm, increased weight, increased carbon/lead fouling which in turn requires more cleaning, increased wear due to the increased back pressure, and decreased overall reliability of the system.

In a similar way Short Barrel Rifles grant increased maneuverability, storage space, and concealability in exchange for a decrease in velocity/accuracy/terminal performance which increases with every inch you take off the barrel length, increased concussion, muzzle flash, and wear — not to mention decreased reliability — on rifles with gas-powered automatic actions such as the AR-15.

If there were no longer an NFA, then there would certainly be a surge in popularity for such items, but only until the excitement of ownership of a formerly restricted item wore off and folks began to recognize the numerous aforementioned trade-offs which make these devices less useful and more temperamental than they're believed to be.

Heck, I can picture some folks swiftly learning such lessons by going all-in and purchasing a fully automatic suppressed XM177 then taking it out to the range without earpro thinking that it's going to be fun to shoot.
 
I would probably want a couple of machine guns if they were legal. Maybe a Ruger .22 Charger with folding stock, 30 round mag, suppressor and some kind of 9m/m sub gun. I fired an UZI, it impressed me a lot more than I thought it would.
 
Since this has morphed into "what if NFA was repealed?" About the only item that would interest me would be a suppressor for a .22 rifle for pest control.
 
The Alcohol & Tabaco Tax agency was the first revenue stream for the federal government. It isn't going anywhere as it's still a major source of income.

Limiting it's scope in the Firearms realm is, as noted above, up to Congress. Reining them in wouldn't hurt. Also would have no noticeable impact on violent crime.
 
In order full autos to be legal both the GCA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934 would need to be repealed by congress. With such narrow majorities in both houses that is highly unlikely.
Plus, remember just who tried outlawing bump stocks via presidential decree 6 years ago

This pipe dream is a non starter
 
Last edited:
The Alcohol & Tabaco Tax agency was the first revenue stream for the federal government. It isn't going anywhere as it's still a major source of income.

Limiting it's scope in the Firearms realm is, as noted above, up to Congress. Reining them in wouldn't hurt. Also would have no noticeable impact on violent crime.

There is zero chance of Congress doing away with the ATF
None.
 
Last edited:
Maybe DOGE can "eliminate wasteful redundancy" and assign criminal investigation to FBI; alcohol, tobacco taxation to the IRS. Both agencies certainly have an overabundance of personnel currently. Joe
 
Back
Top