“Recently, the NFATCA took the lead on an issue that could have far-reaching consequences in the NFA and Sporting communities,” the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association reports.
What issue?
It was learned that ATF was seeking to create a definition of small arms ammunition under the aegis of the Safe Explosives Act. The definition was being created as an opinion letter and had no input from the firearms community.
Why is a revised definition needed? What is the impetus behind this effort to increase the Bureau’s regulatory control reach? And why exclude the people who it would compel compliance from under force of law?
What’s the immediate danger?
[I]t could have arrived as a declaration that all ammunition above .50 caliber would now be classified as an explosive.
That means that there would be a whole new slew of regulations and licensing requirements—including potentially for currently-owned property. Why?
NFATCA tells us they learned of this and “arranged for a meeting” with ATF brass and its representatives, along with representatives of “NRA, SAAMI, Safari Club International and the NSSF.”
A “working group” has been established. A pledge of sorts to “make certain that ‘we get this right’” has been made, and we’re told to expect progress updates.
So: crisis averted, our leaders are on the job and we can go back to sleep now, right?
Not so fast. Let’s take a closer look.
NFATCA relies on good relations with ATF in order to pursue their interests, and in many cases, their livelihoods. It could be argued that certain “gun control” laws are beneficial to their leadership and their members, as the Orwellian “Firearms Owners Protection Act” of 1986 made full-auto firearms manufactured afterward unavailable to the general public, thus artificially—and greatly—inflating the “value” of pre-ban guns through simple supply and demand.
We also know that NRA has a history of negotiating compromise as well as of support for “gun control,” including NFA ’34 that started this particular ball rolling in the first place.
Likewise NSSF partners with the Department of Justice, both on promulgating a lock up your safety program and with ATF on “prohibited person” enforcement.
Add to that SAAMI and Safari Club and we’ve got collectors, lobbyists, the industry and hunters taken care of. Anybody missing?
Well, uh, yeah. I don’t see anybody there representing my interests with my quaint “shall not be infringed” naiveté. I don’t see anyone making sure they “get this right” for those of us “extremist hatriots” who believe in the Second Amendment as articulated by the Founders.
And two things make me think I won’t.
First are these sentiments from NFATCA board memberDan Shea:
There are a few misguided crusaders on the pro-gun side who cross the line; probably the most dangerous people there are to us because they will sacrifice anyone and anything to their generally misguided and usually self-serving agendas.
"Self-serving," Mr. Shea? The liberty I’m going after will apply to all. Sorry, I’m just not a member of your exclusive five-plus-figures firearms club. Still, “misguided” is one of the nicer critiques. People in my circle have been disparaged as everything from “principles freaks” to…well, I can’t post that here.
And then there’s this disturbing development: A post—a very moderately-worded one (and new circumstances make it so that you’ll just have to take my word for that)—by firearms designer Len Savage expressing concern over this, was deleted from the Subguns.com message board thread discussing these developments.
It seems the “community” is closing ranks and wishes to maintain exclusive access. Welcome to the “Streisand effect,” guys.
Now—and I want to make this clear—nothing says this “working group” won’t end up doing a terrific job that we’ll all walk away happy and grateful from. None of this takes away from the fact that their insider access brought this issue to the fore in the first place, and that their specialized knowledge can be instrumental in eliminating or reducing the consequences of proposed rulings.
But I’d prefer this be done in the light, thank you very much, as I don’t see anyone in this happy few, this band of brothers, championing my concerns—particularly when some of the honchos doing the negotiating are also out there telling their followers that “misguided crusaders” are “the most dangerous people there are to [them],” presumably meaning they deem their relationship with ATF more benign.
And there’s one other danger we don’t discuss often enough: Maybe, sometimes, it’s best to let the feds come up with the most draconian abuse on their wish list, instead of helping them make it more palatable. Maybe it’s best to let their reach exceed their grasp instead of helping them craft regulations that will outrage fewer Americans, and be less challengeable in court, or less motivating in terms of fostering defiance and resistance, and demands for reining in unelected, power-usurping bureaucrats and their enforcers.
Just maybe.
------------
Force multiplier help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc.? (Also note media “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
"Maybe, sometimes, it’s best to let the feds come up with the most draconian abuse on their wish list, instead of helping them make it more palatable. Maybe it’s best to let their reach exceed their grasp instead of helping them craft regulations that will outrage fewer Americans, and be less challengeable in court . . . "
Don't be silly, David--let the Vulcan Chessmasters handle it (just kidding).
Yeah, maybe it's time to watch another kiss bum outfit step on their....
Ahem... I was tired of reading TSA stories anyway.
They can have my 4 bore and .700s one round at a time.
Maginalize, demonize, then ban. This is Josh Sugarman's Assault Weapon fiasco all over again. These folks think that because ownership of over-.50 cal weapons is thin, the rest of us won't step up to the plate. And as recent history (remember Jim Zumbo?) on hunters' lack of support for "black rifle" owners shows, many of "us" won't.
But frankly, I'd have a whole lot more respect for BATFE, VPC, the Brady Bunch, et. al. if they would try to take a decent sized bite out of the cookie instead of constantly trying to nibble crumbs off the edges.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
FWIW, Closing ranks happened a while ago, it actually ended my dealings with a number of SOTs on the "dark compliant side" who thought friendship with a threeper was a liability to them after doing thousands of dollars of business over the years as money to them seems to be thicker than friendship, and probably blood. OTOH, when that happened, I realized just how golden Len Savage is. He's the real deal and he's in his field because he likes it, not to profiteer or be a member of an exclusive club. My take anyway.
At $5+ bucks a round for the 'Big Bores' it makes no logical sense to target these firearms. Only a few people can afford to feed these things to get 'good' at them.
Especially since they are almost always used in long range competitions...
Of course, it 'could' be because it's the one class of firearms that could put a real hurting on traitors of their oath, cowering in an armored vehicle.
I get real nervous when folks negotiate on my behalf and then tell me about it after the fact.
That is the gist of what Savage wrote that got his comment deleted by the Subguns administrator. And Len even prefaced his comment acknowledging that the negotiators at times do good. So the moderator is not enforcing any standards violations, but is instead intentionally suppressing the discussion to not allow questioning the shaping of things by secret clique.
You can say that again!
Ray
Semiautorifles.com
Yup! My thoughts exactly. Lot of that kinda stuff going on. Presto! It's magic! You didn't know? Course you didn't! We didn't tell you!
I've added a link to this page from mine:
http://gardenserf.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/shooting-a-hole-in-the-ammuni...
Any guns over .50 cal being stored at Lexington or Concord?
Did King George send Gage,Smith,Pitcairn to try to confiscate those?
Same issues, different day.
Buckle up.
.
The right of the poeple to keep guns under xx Caliber and yy Magazine Capacity and zz Powder, and to beg to openly/conceal with permit except at work/school/government buildings (the people's buildings) shall be regulated and restricte; for their own good.
.
In honor of the administrative peons, I'm heading out to the deer blind this late afternoon with one of the .577s. Not explosive at all, but it does make nice big holes.
I don't recall the "legality" of civilian possession of 20mm ammo/weapons (as in, are we serfs permitted to own such?) but if so it would still only affect a few individuals. Perhaps it is a quick and dirty way of denying the 37mm M-79 style weapons to anyone who has one or has modified a 40mm to use under their AR. I seem to recall a little bit of a flurry of activity along those lines a while back.
Since when does any government agency look for "public input" before making a decision or handing down the law?
Happens all the time, Rod, and I've written about bad things being averted because enough noise was made on several occasions over the years. The recent EPA rejection of the lead ammo ban proposal comes to mind. Google: public input federal.
What a crock. The NFATCA was founded to be a club of NFA big shots that sell the rest of us out to make sure their 6-8 figure NFA collections remain 6-8 figure NFA collections. About the same time it started, a much more lose collection of people who don't work out of their own self interest was also formed:
http://www.nfaoa.org
Great work David, as usual.
We need to know the avenues being attacked, and you seem to consistently find them for us.
Thank you,
Sam
III
Hey David,
Along Len Savage's line of thought, I immediately reverted to professional Historian (my academic training from an AA, BA, and a couple years toward my MA in Germany Military History kicking in on Automatic):
Does anyone remember the Munich Pact in 1938 with Daladier, Hitler, and Chamberlain and the Pole? (can't remember his name, what the Poles did to the Czechs really left a bad taste in my mouth and I honestly believe I disassociated any specificity to that country's leaders of the time).
Everyone else decided what was best for the Czechs, put it all down nice and neat on official government letterhead papers, signed on the dotted lines, shook hands, and THEN told the Czechs what had been decided for them.
50-60 million corpses later (depending on how you count), the rest of us found out what happens when we let the "Powers that Be" do things behind closed doors.
Superb article and one I'm filing in my "Keeper" sub-directory.
Cheers
The fed's word twisters have been nibbling away at our cheese a nibble at a time for decades. They have chipped away at that which shall not be infringed and have played self interests against self interests because they know they can, and we have allowed them to get away with it. They went after machine guns and hunters and precision target shooters didn't complain because hunters and target shooters weren't affected by those decisions. When they went after handguns and other self defense weapons such as swords, dirks, bowie knives and switchblades there was no hue and cry from most gun owners because after all, at least in most states, they pretty well left our shotguns and rifles alone. Declaring an airsoft BB gun a machine gun was actually considered a joke by some because airguns and BB guns are considered "toys" by most serious shooters.
Folks, the feces is surely dripping towards the fan and we "misguided crusaders" had dang well better stand up, step up, and be counted no matter our particular specific interests.
[W3]
Your article said, "all ammunition above .50 caliber would now be classified as an explosive."
Isn't a 12 ga. shotgun something like .77 cal? Even a 20 ga. is larger than .50 caliber. This flat statement doesn't specifically exclude shotgun ammo, and there is an almost unimaginably large number of 20 ga. and larger slugs out there. They can't differentiate between smooth bore and rifled bores, because of all the rifled bore guns out there, and the rifled slugs.
How could they possibly outlaw that? Without picking up those slugs one at a time?
That's what NFATCA wrote--I was quoting them. In terms of what this means and what it could affect, I think that's the issue. Just like with the earlier columns I did on pistol grip shotguns being destructive devices or the 50,000+ machine guns that aren't required to be registered, or the ruling declaring certain "airsoft" guns "firearms" that was quietly rescinded within days of being issued--when conflicting decisions are made that are arbitrary, unchecked and essentially left to the whim of the bureaucrat doing the dictating, it would seem anything is possible.
By "ammunition above .50 caliber" did they mean only fixed ammunition? Or are all of our original and reproduction firearms from the Revolution and Civil War going to be reduced to wall hangers?
I seem to remember the New York state government stepping into "it" in just such a fashion. Their law banning firearms over .50 caliber, aimed at Ronnie Barrett in particular, also banned all of those Brown Bess and Charleville .69 caliber muskets from the revolution and all of the .58 caliber Springfields and .577 caliber Enfields from the Civil War. Their response? OOPS! They had to amend their new law before the ink was dry.
And "Ole Ronnie",shamelessly exploiting a loophole in the law,just offered his products in .416 Barrett.
Don't you just love watching experts at work? "Shoulder thing that goes up" anyone?
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Well, this column has been linked to over at subguns.com nfa board.
It's been up a bit less than 2 hours. Lets see how long it stays up after the mods see these comments!
They took it down. But it's OK, because that just shows their agenda is to suppress this information from their members. And it's also OK because I have screenshots that I'll post tomorrow, which will only cause more attention to that which they're trying to squelch.
I hope the members there like being told only what's approved for them to know by their leaders. Why an adult would put up with that is beyond me. Maybe it's time for the ones who are to start a new forum.
History Repeats Itself: Owning a gun is meaningless without available ammunition.
In 1994, a Congressman suggested forcing gun stores to sell only “biodegradable ammunition” with a 1-year shelf-life stating—in case of insurrection; so that ammunition accumulated by people would become useless within 1-year. Then someone pointed out, forcing biodegradable ammunition on the public would open the door for foreign black-market ammunition to be sold in the U.S.
Obviously if government forces people to buy only register ammunition, that has marked shell casings, which Obama currently is trying to do under a UN agreement, foreign black markets will develop in the U.S. to sell illegal ammunition; that will lead to police swat raids on ordinary Citizens' homes seizing illegal bullets just like drug raids and perhaps seizing cars and homes where government finds unregistered ammunition. Because of the short supply of ammunition, stored ammunition is being used up. If government succeeds with his small arms agreement with the UN, subsequently the majority of Americans will only have access to buy traceable registered ammunition and eventually how much?
In 1994, the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno proposed introducing legislation that would allow U.S. Government “summary forfeiture" of unregistered firearms. DOJ intended to eliminate government's high costs of forfeiture proceedings required to confiscate guns (by baring gun owners from being able to prove) their confiscated weapons were legally registered or did not come under the “technical definition” of a gun that must be registered; the Justice Dept proposed gun legislation included the words “premises containing illegal weapons” written like drug asset forfeiture laws. Immediately gun owners expressed concern the words “premises containing illegal weapons” would open the door for DOJ to criminally or civilly forfeit gun owners’ homes since most gun owners keep their guns at home. Had that legislation passed, it is foreseeable Americans would be afraid to own or keep guns in their house. It is foreseeable a similar federal law could be passed to prosecute Citizens that can't prove they bought (unregistered ammunition) before news laws/regulations were passed requiring ammunition to be registered.
Mr. Codrea,
I'm curious- did you contact the administrator of subguns.com regarding Mr. Savage's post?
of course not, that would be a logical extension of responsible reporting... instead of pseudo-radical hyperbole, and just plain "making stuff up". I think this is what Shea may have been talking about when referring to "self serving".
A Non: Nope. They did it and they just deleted another post. What more is there to know that you think is important to know?
Another Reader: Grow up.
David unless I’ve missed it where’s the exemption for shotguns?
A 12ga Shotgun is 72 caliber. Plus what about all of these old antique firearms and one of kind what I call elephant guns. (I think someone referred to the 600 nitro express as an example)
At the beginning of your article I thought the NFATCA was the good guys trying to stop the change.
So why does the NFATCA want or support the re-classification of ammo over 50 caliber?
It looks to me like they are going to turn people away like collectors and sport shooters, unless they plan on profiting from it in some way
Sort of like the NRA supporting “Permitted” conceal carry laws.
Sounds good until you realize they make money supporting “permitted conceal carry” instead of “constitutional conceal carry”
I say someone needs to follow the money.
By the way why do we need to compromise on anything right now and who’s going to enforce this new change in the law some TSA type from the ATF.
Mr. Codrea,
So are you too busy to bother asking why this particular post was deleted, or do you have a personal agenda? I've seen Mr. Savage post there before, do you think it might be worth the effort to wonder why?
Where you banned from subguns.com?
"A Non: Nope. They did it and they just deleted another post. What more is there to know that you think is important to know?"
No, not too busy, I just don't care why because I saw the post before it was deleted and there is no legitimate excuse for doing so. And yes, you bet I have a personal agenda. You don't? And no, I never joined subguns to be banned from it.
Those firearms are first-generation warfare with numbers and plenty of muscle power being required while second generation warfare which allowed every-person in the line of sight to be killed, so large groups of people are no direct threat to the Government which can use belt-fed machine guns and other tools of Second-Generation warfare.
That issue of constitutionality not about modern day insanity instead it was about those incapable of moral judgment being banned from firearms ownership, such as the incapable of moral judgment BATFE. The anti-constitutional position will involve people without capability of moral judgement being the only ones allowed by law to own arms, that is only with the intent of causing the greatest amount of harm possible.
Those people which are part of a constitionally defined militia would stop home intrusion, by the means which does require the shortest route to functional competency known as firearms. While also preventing those people which decide to burn and loot to be limited to those which ignore consequences of their action, such as ignoring the possibility of being shot.
If Russia actually invaded Alaska this would mean no beaurcrat desiring to enforce the use of Microsoft, so people like myself could actually spend legetimatly earned money on legetimate items again, instead of having organized crime doing their self-proclaimed goodness. This would allow me to purchase a made for PC-BSD computer system which would teach the specifics required for the business workstation such as Desktop-BSD. That structure I'm referring to is determined by the Free-BSD License and Free-BSD.
The anti-freedom want to suck every cent out of people then preach how a person which doesn't work, specifically for them, souldn't eat. This situation is where if I worked above the board then I would need to pay out of no money kept the IRS, the situation is that of any refusal to allow things to rot carrying the threat of death by torture arranged by caring-beauracrats.
David, this looks like a slight-of-hand misdirection to me. I believe the goal of this proposal would ultimately be to reclassify gun powder as an explosive instead of an accelerant. Imagine the implications?
The most important first point to make (for me) is that there is not a single place in the regs where small arms ammunition is defined. Period. EPS tried an end run to create one without industry/public input. This would include those orgs that represent significant portions of the public.
Shotgun ammo has historically been exempted from these types of things, but the "usual and customary" working definition seems to be fluid. Who knows what ATF would have come up with in an interpretation had the EPS opinion made it through?
NFATCA got involved and took the lead because NOBODY ELSE KNEW IT WAS GOING ON.
The money? Sheesh. The NFATCA didn't want there to be perhaps another 100,000 needless FFL licenses just to be able to have a few rounds of .50 BMG or a few chalk rounds for the 40mm launcher. Licenses, inspections, regulation, transport restrictions, all for an org (ATF) that cannot seem to take care of what all is on their plate right now. The idea was stupid two years ago and it is still stupid. NFATCA got Melson to put the brakes on this thing and get some light shined on it.
Secret deal? Hardly. There is no deal other than to stop the EPS effort and work in public light. What public interest items do you think are NOT being addressed?
Public cognizance and input.And everything that implies. I thought I'd stated that up front.
I think that kwisatz was pretty clear. The public was not aware of it and ATF was trying to cram something down our throats. The stupidity has been stopped for now and several very large groups that do represent many millions of folks are now supporting efforts to prevent ATF from doing this secretly.
He did ask what YOU wanted represented in the effort. What is that?
And I think David was being pretty clear.
The clean version of "The Three Most Often Told Lies In the English Language" goes something like this.
1. One size fits all.
2. The check is in the mail.
3. I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help you.
We're in an environment where distrust of our government has reached levels not seen since perhaps the late 1700's. And you know how that turned out. For the Federal Government to be attempting to "help" or "clarify" behind closed doors whether it be on health care or ATF regs only adds fuel to the fire and will cause an inevitable dust up like this one.
If they can't do it in the light of day, parhaps they shouldn't be doing it at all. Some of us are not asleep any more.
CLEAN UP YOUR ACT!
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Rex,
Amen. Government sleaze is at an all time high. So NFATCA does bring it out in the open, brings the leaders of several respected organizations to the meeting, gets the director to stop the private process, secures an industry/community working group and yet the NFATCA is suspect. I dunno. Sounds like there are a lot of axes trying to be ground here and I am confused as to what the real issue is. Hell, Chris Cox from your NRA was there representing you. What I would still like to know is the answer to the kwisatz question. What specific public concern needs to be voiced that is assumed to not have been brought up at that meeting?
You cannot invite "the public" to every meeting of government. It's just not practical to spend all that money on meeting space! That's why representatives are used.
When EPA wanted to entertain a lead ammo ban petition, they posted the exact specific wording so everyone knew what was being proposed out for public comment--no "meeting space" was needed and the firestorm of outrage helped kill it. I want to see things for myself, consult with lawyers and other activists I know, including groups besides NRA and Mr. Cox, maybe pressure my actual representative, etc.
As opposed to finding out what was decided after the fact.
Still waiting for you guys to let me know when we can start shooting the communists and their subversives in the Obama Admin and Congress.
Jeez, and here everybody was waiting for you.
Head scratchin goin on here. ATF tried to do this in private. They got called on the carpet in front of their own director and have now agreed to do it in public. Maybe you would have preferred that nobody blew the whistle? NFATCA is pushing for a very public process including all of the public review that is REQUIRED in the rule making process. It has to start somewhere.
What would you like to see in it? Further, would you like for me to explain how the rule making process works alongside Chevron?
Nah, you just keep scratchin'. And some of us will dig without you if you don't mind, or even, apparently, if you do.
Coming from the standpoint that anyone who interferes with the God-given individual inalienable, untransferable rights acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights is an enemy and a criminal, doubly so if they are members of an organization sworn to uphold said rights:
(God gave individuals rights, individuals created government to protect those rights - I didn't say it, the Declaration did.)
While sympathy and possibly even some measure of support is called for for those who try to reason and work with criminals to make the criminals stop being criminal, there's no explaining away the criminality of the BATFE.
Participating in the criminals' activity in an attempt to further encumber the free exercise of God-given rights is not excusable.
I am an American. Myself and all others who lay informed claim to that title are "the militia". Our God-given right to keep and carry weapons of military utility shall NOT be infringed.
Yeah, kwisatz, we all need you to to recite pertinent provisions of the Federal Register Act. Jeeze.
It's nice to know that armchair keyboard legal experts are out there to enlighten the hoi polloi. BTW - I thought that David covered that when he explained that the EPA actually followed procedure regarding the proposed lead ammo ban.
2bukchuk - your statement "(y)ou cannot invite "the public" to every meeting of government. It's just not practical to spend all that money on meeting space! That's why representatives are used" illustrates that only certain experts like kwisatz understand the Federal Register Act - 44 U.S.C. ch.15. The FRA, which provides that proposed new rules and regs, changes to existing rules, newly implemented rules and notices of meetings and adjudicatory proceedings be published in the Federal register - which is updated daily.
Thus, the people have access - when agencies actually follow the law- to proposed rule-making and regulatory changes and proposed changes. That was clear in one of David's comments above.
Anyone who abides by the tortured logic that looking out for interests of the few and tossing the many to the whims of government agents is not much of a student of history. If it suits folks to belong to a Fudd organization that looks to protecting Fudds doesn't understand that taxes, once implemented are rarely revoked, and that rights bartered away are rarely reinstated.
David has been in the unenviable position before of trying to defend himself in various forums, only to be banned, or even "banned for life."
In sum, it appears that some forum administrators operate under the theory of "if you don't like the message, quash it. If it may change the mind of forum members, ban the poster.
And some of these folks purport to be on the side of liberty, supporting the Bill of Rights.
In my view, some are insecure potentates, lording over their cyber-kingdoms, ready to stifle information that doesn't conform with their views on compromising to benefit the few at the expense of everyone's rights.
They can keep their forums. The Truth is out there, thanks to journalists like David Codrea and others.
Thanks--I appreciate the kind words. And for the record, I've scoured the ATF site for word of this in their rule-making notices and press releases and also the Fed Register and come up empty. Likewise, I have not seen a comprehensive position analysis from the folks we're told we should just shut up for and let drive. There's also plenty of background stuff I have not yet come forward with because I am investigating and it would be premature--I did link to a piece in my column today (11/30) that has relevance, and my source tells me will be some legal docs will be released soon,and I'm trying to track down a tip about how this whole thing may have been started by a "gun rights attorney" asking why this ammo has not been so classified--will it pan out? All I can do at this point is follow leads--that's the problem with trying to piece together information in the dark...but the whole thing is definitely more convoluted and involved than just a simple reclassification story, and my position, that gun owners have an interest in not being spoon-fed after-the-fact controlled information releases has not been changed by the special interests defenders' noise-making.
One other interesting observation: "Kwisatz" comes from Frank Herbert's "Dune," and refers to the Kwisatz Haderach, the prophesied and awaited messiah/super time-space master, so I have to wonder if that might explain some of the apparent disdain for the capabilities of non-insiders I seem to be picking up from his tone...
An Atreides cannot be trusted to tell you the time of day. I'll send Raban over to straighten him out immediately.
Someone once said that when one free man loses a right then all free men lose that right. If they take away the right to have calibers over .50 when in the future will .30 be too much and then over .22 and .177? They are nibbling away because they know there are not many above the .50 range and most won't care. But once the precedent has been sent reducing the size of the round classified as explosive is much easier. As of right now my .60 plus caliber black powder rifle would be illegal under these rules and have to be registered or surrendered. A massive outlawing of guns would create a revolution but soemthing like this would work unless a lawsuit is filed the moment they try to impose it regardless of caliber size.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!