ATF to streamline SBR process?

[ChopperDoc]

They want your input.

Read article:

http://www.guns.com/2013/07/23/atf-requ ... plication/

[ssracer]

Here's my input....remove SBR and Supressor from needing ATF tax stamp approvals.

[ChopperDoc]

Here's my input....remove SBR and Supressor from needing ATF tax stamp approvals.

hahahahhahahhahhaaaaaa......

They laugh at your frustration with their bureaucracy and they fart in your general direction!

[ssracer]

Lol. While the digital payment idea is nice, I don't see that speeding up te process since my check was cashed about a week after I mailed it...then it was 5-6 months for everything else

[Wyldman]

Now 8 to 9 months for everything else.

[Niceguy]

Lol. While the digital payment idea is nice, I don't see that speeding up te process since my check was cashed about a week after I mailed it...then it was 5-6 months for everything else

I agree...Mine was cashed within a month.

[DDgunslinger]

If you have a government security clearance that is valid, I think your paper work should be pushed forward and approved. There really shouldn't be a wait time cause you've already cleared everything.

[ssracer]

I'd say the same for anyone who has already gone through the wait from hell once. You already have all of my info. As long as nothing has changed just run a BG check and be done.

[Toddinlou]

The whole idea that most people have of a "class III license" would be nice. One stamp all the NFA items you want.... I'm dreaming again.

[guncrank1]

The whole idea that most people have of a "class III license" would be nice. One stamp all the NFA items you want.... I'm dreaming again.

There is no "class three license"

[Toddinlou]

I know this but it's something you hear all the time discussing NFA items with people.

[Toddinlou]

I know this but it's something you hear all the time discussing NFA items with people.

[86 slo-vo]

The whole idea that most people have of a "class III license" would be nice. One stamp all the NFA items you want.... I'm dreaming again.

That would be nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[jackalo626]

If you have a government security clearance that is valid, I think your paper work should be pushed forward and approved. There really shouldn't be a wait time cause you've already cleared everything.

I don't like that idea as in specifically giving an easy pass to "govt friends" when there are many people who already have their info that shows they are ok such as concealed carry license holders for example. If I can walk into a gun store and buy a gun and ammo with my 5 min background check/nics check then there is no reason whatsoever that I can't walk in and buy a suppressor. Even if they kept the fun tax attached to it (which is bs to say the least) I should be able to walk in and get the object that doesn't actually fire the projectiles easier than the gun itself.

[Vividia]

I can SORT of get why SBRs were on the list at the time the list was written. But these days with the S&W 500 and the .50AE Desert Eagle, the Ruger Casull, and such, big things come in handgun packages that don't involve a tax stamp, so the list has become outdated as is. It should be revised to leave things like bazookas on the list, but remove SBRs and the like.

What I don't get is why suppressors were ever even on the list in the first place.

These things aren't like the movies where they are like dog whistles, or "where no one can hear you scream," so I don't see a huge crime wave happening with suppressed guns. You can still hear them, it's just partially to mostly muted. In Europe, of all places, aren't they common so as to reduce hearing loss specifically and environmental noise in general?

[WLJ]

Hey, how about paying attention to the "Shall not be infringed" part.

[Wyldman]

Yes, they are. In Great Britain and France, who have some of the most onerous gun laws on the planet, you can walk in to any hardware store and suppressors over the counter, no tax, no permit, zip.

Since when has the .Gov given 2 shits about "shall not be infringed"?

[1fastmach1]

I wish they would speed it up. I applied for my first stamp yesterday after work. I hear it's gonna be a 8-10 month wait. What a bummer!

[WLJ]

Thinking of SBRing the PS90

[jackalo626]

Hey, how about paying attention to the "Shall not be infringed" part.

Ultimately I believe all of the restrictions are illegal anyways but I am responding to the logic of them wanting to make it easier. Gun bought in 5 min and suppressor wait 9 months.... Ridiculous.

[Frailer]

The whole idea that most people have of a "class III license" would be nice. One stamp all the NFA items you want.... I'm dreaming again.

There is no "class three license"

I think that was his point.

The $200 "mother may I" fee each and every time I want to make/buy a SBR/SBS or buy a suppressor doesn't bother me *nearly* as much as the government insisting on complete background check each and every time. My TS/SCI clearance is still valid, KY runs a NICS check on me every single month (in addition to the background check they ran when I began teaching), I have my C&R license, and over the years I've provided the Feds with at least 10 fingerprint cards and three DNA samples. I've never even received a speeding or parking ticket forgoodnesssakes. I'm a certified "good guy"...OK?

Let's *do* come up with a new license: $300 (or $1,000) every three years and we get to make or buy all the toys we want. Sign me up.

[jmeister]

Another thing that really sucks is SOTs having to get Form3 approvals. Add another month or so if your dealer doesn't have what you want in stock.

[son of liberty]

YA YA YA , its a bitch and the wait sucks and it could be improved , How many of you sent them an Email


Gary.Schaible@atf.gov

[ssracer]

Thinking of SBRing the PS90

The only way those guns look right anyway

[Frailer]

YA YA YA , its a bitch and the wait sucks and it could be improved , How many of you sent them an Email


Gary.Schaible@atf.gov

Great idea. Done:

Dear Mr. Schaible,

With regard to the laudable efforts on the part of the BATFE to reduce paperwork, I contend that the proposed changes don't go far enough.

While I hold no strenuous objection to the requirement to pay a $200 excise tax on the transfer of NFA items, I find the requirement for a background check for each and every transaction to not only be onerous, but also a heinous waste of time and public funds.

Using myself as an example: [blah, blah...personal details...yada, yada] Would it really be a wise use of resources to spend months and untold dollars to vet me further before granting me permission to purchase a device that would allow me to participate in sports I enjoy without inflicting further damage to my hearing?

If we really want to streamline the system without compromising public safety, let's come up with a new "NFA Collector's License." I think an initial licensing fee and three-year renewal charge similar to those required of 01 FFLs wouldn't be unreasonable, even if the current excise tax were to be retained, and I feel certain it would reduce the administrative burden on your agency while providing cost savings to the taxpayer.

Many thanks for your time and consideration.