Archive for the ‘2A’ Category
In a few days time, January 16th to be exact, the latest iteration of the form 4473, also known as the Firearms Transaction Record, goes live. The full list of additions and alterations can be read at the link below, but here’s some of the standout changes, with most of them occurring in Section A, the buyer’s section:
All in all, the changes are relatively minor; a bit of clarification here, some streamlining there, etc. Look forward to seeing this form pop up at your local FFL starting the 16th.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the reintroduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) and Rep. John Carter (TX-31). This historic piece of legislation, which was originally introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) in the 114th Congress, will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015, which was the original date of introduction.
“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “We are thrilled for the opportunity to work with Representatives Duncan and Carter, who have reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act in this new Congress. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working on the Duncan-Carter bill, alongside the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common- sense legislation.”
Also known as silencers, suppressors are the hearing protection of the 21st century sportsman. Despite common Hollywood-based misconceptions, the laws of physics dictate that no suppressor will ever be able to render gunfire silent. Suppressors are simply mufflers for firearms, which function by trapping the expanding gasses at the muzzle, allowing them to slowly cool in a controlled environment. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. In addition to hearing protection, suppressors also mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and hunting lands.
Unfortunately, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA regulates the transfer and possession of certain types of firearms and devices, including suppressors. Currently, prospective buyers must send in a Form 4 application to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax per suppressor, undergo the same background check process that is required to purchase a machine gun, and wait months for the ATF to process and approve the paperwork. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use.
The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act will fix the flawed federal treatment of suppressors, making it easier for hunters and sportsmen to protect their hearing in the 42 states where private suppressor ownership is currently legal, and the 40 states where hunting with a suppressor is legal. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.
Thursday’s On Base Weapon Purchase Poll Results with a Demographic Bonus: Who and Where are the SSD DoD Readers Who Participated?Monday, December 12th, 2016
Last week, SSD ran a poll covering purchase of privately owned firearms on DoD installations.
The results broke down as follows:
How difficult is it to purchase a firearm on your DoD installation?
1) Nothing more than a 4473, money, and DoD ID card with exchange privileges. However, I may have to produce a set of PCS orders to that state if I don’t have a driver’s license or other state ID to prove I’m a resident. 52% (106)
2) 4473 plus locally generated/invented forms from the garrsion or major command 8% (17)
3) 4473 with additional restrictions from the command in the form of approval memorandae required from Commanders 6% (13)
4) 4473 plus provost marshall or installation law enforcement authority for mandated registration. 6% (12)
5) My installation exchange or sportsman’s club does not sell firearms. 27% (54)
Roughly, 50 percent of respondents get no more grief than an off-post purchase, roughly a quarter don’t have the option of purchasing on post, and a quarter face varying levels of impediment on the part of the installation command or Exchange.
Total votes: 202 There were seven double votes from the same IP noted, so that makes for 195 truly unique votes. That’s a 97.5% integrity rate, meaning there was no obvious effort at “stuffing the ballot box” noted. It’s entirely possible two different people could’ve ended up on the same IP.
We suspect the hits from Malaysia, the UAE, and Australia are probably satellite internet providers for deployed servicemenbers. The hits in the UK and Germany are near US forward basing locations. CONUS, heavy concentrations around Ft. Huachuca, AZ represent Army NETCOM (aka NIPR) votes and the large cluster in Kansas is default geographic center of the US to which many unmapped IPs default. We also noted we have a heavy active readership in the I-25 corridor from Fort Carson, CO to FE Warren AFB in Wyoming.
Thanks to everyone for the constructive comments and votes.
What does it take to buy a gun at your Exchange or MWR facility?
What do US servicemembers in good standing and legal gun owners have in common?
1) Not felons
2) Not convicted of domestic abuse
3) Legal residents of the United States
4) Not drug addicts
5) Not mentally ill
6) Not fugitives from justice
In addition to the “Nots”, all US servicemembers have had at least rudimentary training in firearms and inculcation into a mindset of if-then decision making. Some are better than others; not everyone is a Tier Zero special operator but most should be expected to responsibly own and operate a weapon. In theory, this should make them entirely acceptable gun candidates for responsible firearms ownership under the Second Amendment and even the most ardent of gun controllers have a hard time generating a valid, sound counterargument. If you can be trusted with a M-4 with 210 rounds of ammunition under high stress conditions for 15 months at a stretch while deployed, surely buying a shotgun shouldn’t be a multi-day ordeal of paperwork. All decisions have consequences.
Nonetheless, the purchase of firearms varies widely from installation to installation. Some just require proof of exchange privileges, proof of residency (PCS orders or Driver’s License), money, and a 4473 filled out. Others attempt to involve Command authority to an onerous level of mother-may-I-permissions with a rank based hierarchy of permissions. Fort Stewart in 2014, for example, required a memorandum from the Commander for Soldiers E-5 and below.
Take the poll. Remember, the focus of the poll is the PURCHASE, not the carriage or storage of weapons on base.
Comment professionally about YOUR purchase experiences at various installations. SSD wants to know “How hard is it for Joe to buy a gun at your installation?”
Thulsa Doom is a long-time reader and occasional contributor to SSD. He is recently retired from the Army and has been stationed on Army, Air Force, and Navy installations with both cerebral and retard-strong Army and Joint assignments. A rifleman, historian, linguist, analyst, master of the electromagnetic spectrum and man-about-town, he currently resides in the Eastern United States and works as a DoD contractor.
Black Creek, GA – November 1, 2016 – Daniel Defense, manufacturer of the world’s finest firearms and accessories, is rallying voters to support the preservation of our Second Amendment rights this Election Day. In a campaign that includes an open letter from Daniel Defense Founder & President Marty Daniel, and a video featuring music legend Charlie Daniels, voters are encouraged to consider the importance of the Second Amendment and defending it by getting out to vote on November 8th.
“The Second Amendment guarantees our right, as U.S. citizens, to keep and bear arms, yet it’s under a constant barrage of attacks,” Marty Daniel writes in his open letter. “Many incumbents and challengers believe this important amendment is outdated and should be ripped from the Constitution, the very foundation of what makes this country a beacon of freedom to the entire world. But we cannot allow this to happen.” Daniel wraps up his letter by imploring voters to ask themselves one important question before casting their votes this year: “If our fundamental right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, were to disappear tomorrow, will you be able to say you did your part to stop it?”
Icon Charlie Daniels (with an S; no relation to Marty Daniel) also makes a strong case for the Second Amendment in the four-and-a-half-minute video in which he stars. “It’s very simple what the Second Amendment says,” he explains. “We have a right to keep and bear arms. Doesn’t say anything about what caliber we can have; doesn’t say anything about how many we can have.” Daniels sums up the importance of voting in favor of Second Amendment rights with the following statement: “If we elect people who want to take our second amendment rights away from us, we’re at their mercy. Every country that’s ever been taken over by a totalitarian government has been disarmed first.”
This year’s election has proved to be one of the most contentious in U.S. history, with candidates from both parties achieving record “unfavorable” ratings. But despite widespread divisiveness and voter apathy, it promises to be one of the most significant as well, given the very different directions candidates—presidential candidates, in particular—would like to see the country head. To read Marty Daniel’s open letter in its entirety, visit:
In this installmemt, veteran US Navy SEAL and NRATV Commentator Dom Raso discusses how the policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other enabler politicians have left our southern border unprotected, creating an opportunity for ISIS to work with the Mexican cartels to smuggle a nuclear device into America. “If we refuse to even utter the words ‘radical Islamic terror,’ then, through our own inaction, we are enabling the slaughter of innocent people,” Raso says.
“Nowhere is this issue more apparent than at our southern border.” To highlight his point, Raso references an article in Dabiq, ISIS’ magazine, that details a scenario where ISIS uses its billions of dollars to acquire a nuke through corrupt Pakistani officials and pays the cartels to sneak it in through the southern border into America. Speaking about politicians, Raso pulls no punches when talking about how they have comprised the safety of the American people: “all these politicians care about is what their friends in the international community think of them, the same international community that has been utterly devastated by ISIS.”
Check out the full article at www.nratv.com/series/commentators/episode/commentators-season-6-episode-19-how-isis-could-get-a-nuke-across-our-border.