ATF now says no sharing - does this mean no more range rentals or big shoots like Big Sandy?

[Suck My Glock]

While the new brace rules had everyone's attention,...ATF changed a bunch of other rules as well. Including whether you can let anyone else shoot your stuff. ATF now says you can't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ7W28YnLYA

 

[QuietM4]

Seems very inconvenient for those of us who always bring a federal law enforcement agent with us everytime we shoot our NFA items....

Another completely unenforceable "opinion".

How is any potential customer looking to by any SBR, suppressor, etc going to be able to handle them before buying? How is any EMPLOYEE of an FFL going to able to handle such item....an FFL usually only has one or two "Responsible Persons" listed on their FFL, and it's not the employees at the range or sales counter.

 

[XJThrottle]

They really want to get their D's knocked in the dirt by the Supreme Court.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Nothing new here. Title 2 firearms must be under the control of the responsible party. Personal, means you, Trust means trustees, LLC, Corp, etc., the designated parties.

I love everyone who thinks they are getting a freebie but have no idea what comes along with it once it is in the NFA registry. Like: try to sell it,

Seller: yeah, you get to pay me $1,800 for my AR SBR and I keep the firearm for a year while ATF decides if you are good enough to own it.

Buyer: what if I decide to back out in that year???

Seller: You can't back out unless I get evidence that you cancelled your application.

Buyer: Screw you, I'll build my own.

 

[Tenring]

uke-huge:

 

[xerts1911]

 

[xerts1191]

https://bearingarms.com/ryan-petty/2023/01/26/atfnfa-guidance-on-non-owners-n66642


OOPS OUR BAD, NOT WHAT WE REALLY MEANT

 

[YNOTAZ]

That just demonstrates how lopsided the ATF is. The NFA rule has been in place since 1986 yet they answer it the way they did, on cherry picked question to make their key points.

ATF is not to be trusted.

 

[Tenring]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJI5WFQ4xNs

 

[cool arrow]

ATF is not to be trusted.

agreed, hard no...

 

[Boriqua]

I remember some of the cool stuff I got to try at some of the OLD AZS group shoots! So no more I guess?



___________________



__________________________

 

[admin]

ATF admitted that FAQ question was incorrect. It's no longer on the FAQ.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJI5WFQ4xNs[/media]

 

[kawgomoo]

Show me the LAW that says "no sharing".... What are you even complying with?

 

[XJThrottle]

Show me the LAW that says "no sharing".... What are you even complying with?

You clearly didn't follow any of the links posted..

 

[QuietM4]

Show me the LAW that says "no sharing".... What are you even complying with?

Another pointless instigator joins the forum...are you by chance an Accountant?

 

[kenpoprofessor]

Show me the LAW that says "no sharing".... What are you even complying with?

Another pointless instigator joins the forum...are you by chance an Accountant?

LOL, that ain't instigation, that's just good sense and logic, duhhhh.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[admin]

Those who are trolling and only trying to elicit responses from people are going to ear themselves a timeout. I'm quickly growing weary of this.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Show me the LAW that says "no sharing".... What are you even complying with?

The issue is not "show me the law", the issue is what TF is the ATF deciding the law is.

"Show me the law" that applies to:
Bump stocks
Pistol braces
80% lowers
Solvent traps
Forced reset triggers.
And frankly AR15 100% lower receivers.

Unless you have the money and time to fight the Fed, you damn well better watch what they are saying and doing and enlist the help of organizations that have the political pull, money, and time to fight the Fed. If not, you may be allowed to own a 2" Swiss army knife.

 

[BigNate]

I truly hesitate to say this - because this sort of overreach is NOT a good thing - but the more of this sort of stupid crap that they (the ATF) does, the more pressure there will be to move related cases through the courts so that SCOTUS can (hopefully) continue the process of slapping them down. After spending too much time reading / watching opinions of liars (lawyers) on 2A issues, I'm cautiously hopeful that SCOTUS is going to use the ATF as a vehicle for rolling back the Chevron Doctrine (the administrative law principle under which executive branch agencies have been quietly self-expanding the scope of their authority).

The current crop of cases revolve around the ATF banning bump-stocks, braces, etc. and the hope that the court will say something like:
"Hey ATF - congress empowered you to manage the sale of firearms across state lines - they did not empower you to regulate the the sale of parts, materials, ammunition, etc. If the people of the nation want you to regulate those things, then congress needs to make law empowering you to do so. You can't simply determine that "firearms" includes parts, ammunition, etc... You don't get to make new law - sorry."


Fingers crossed...

 

[Gatsby]

The have said exactly that to the EPA in the West Virginia vs EPA case

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf