Massif Rocks!

Archive for the ‘2A’ Category

ATF Associate Deputy Director Suggests Lifting Many Firearms Regulations

Monday, February 6th, 2017

Earlier today the Washington Post referenced an 11-page white paper, written by a high-ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Ronald B Turk who is Associate Deputy Director (Chief Operating Officer) at the ATF.

What is so interesting about this document, Titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations” and dated 20 January, 2017, is its content. Turk suggests wide sweeping reforms for gun laws and most would be welcomed by gun owners and the industry which services them. However, this document was clearly marked “Not for public distribution” and was intended to stir internal government dialogue. Considering the source of the public disclosure (WaPo) we have to contemplate that its leak was intended to shock rather than inspire the public.

It’s topics would have never been considered privately, let alone publicly during the Obama Administration. Here is a list compiled by JF, a member of a Facebook group considered with NFA law.

1. New Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) Dealing Exclusively at Gun Shows (or internet)

2. Creating a better process to approve pending requests for AP Ammo from manufacturers

3. Importing Surplus Firearms from Foreign Countries

4. Variances for SOTs to transfer Post-1986 machine guns without Demo Letters

5. Stabilizing Brace, creating a more consistent ruling

6. Commission a study on “Sporting Purposes” to comply with modern needs

7. Create a database of previous ATF rulings

8. “Legalizing” Silencers, citing expense of regulation. Change definition on “Silencer Parts”

9. Interstate Sale of Firearms at Gun shows

10. Destructive Devices, distinguishing between launcher and munitions

11 & 12. Demand letters to FFLs involving guns used in crimes

13. Changing requirement of FFL recording keeping from 20 years to indefinite

14. Allowing greater use of NICS by FFLs

15. Requiring ATF director to be confirmed by Senate

16. Reviewing a long list of Regs for Removal/Amendment

The only one which will probably create outcry from gun owners is #13 which recommends extending ATF record keeping to indefinite from 20 years. Everything else has some up at some time or another as things gun owners and industry want. Obviously, this document isn’t an official ATF policy position, but it’s a great place to start a conversation when someone wants to discuss “common sense” gun laws.

ATF White Paper Cover

To read “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulation” click on image.

We have also shared a copy of this document in the event it is taken down by WaPo.

CDC Study: Use Suppressors To Reduce Noise Exposure

Tuesday, January 24th, 2017

The American Suppressor Association shared this press release with us. Anti-2A organizers have long wanted to use the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as source material to curtail gun rights. However, this report doesn’t follow their expected narrative.

The question of increased access to firearms Suppressors is indeed a public health question. Their implementation as a standard, over-the-counter device would not only help preserve the hearing of gun owners, but also their dogs used for hunting as well as nearby livestock and wildlife. Additionally, the use of suppressors would lower the profile of firearms ranges and lead to a decrease in spurious nuisance complaints.

Finally, with an increased market size, prices will come down and technological innovation will increase. Military and law enforcement will benefit from this boon, better protecting those serving, as well as the public.

With the reintroduction of the Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act, suppressors have been thrust to the forefront of the national political debate. According to many traditional gun control advocates, firearms are not loud enough to cause hearing damage. They make definitive statements, like this one from a recent LA Times article, that, “there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.”

To this end, they could not be more wrong.

In a study from 2011 entitled Noise and Lead Exposures at an Outdoor Firing Range – California, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found the following (see page 5):


If you still don’t believe that hearing loss is a public health issue associated with gunfire, and that suppressors help hunters and recreational shooters reduce their exposure to dangerous noise levels, there is likely nothing that we can say that will change your mind. Just know that the correct term for your opinion is willful ignorance.

Full CDC Study: CDC Study – California Firing Ranges

SHOT Show 17 – Crye Precision T-Shirt

Wednesday, January 18th, 2017

Each year Crye Precision offers a new T-shirt for sale, with proceeds to benefit various special operations charities. This is the 2017 shirt.

Meet ‘Infringed’ Author Alex Kincaid At SHOT Show

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

The Revised 4473 Is Coming

Friday, January 13th, 2017


Click to view .pdf

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:

  • Question 1 notes that in instances where the buyer has an initial as part of their legal name, “IO” needs to be included next to said initial.
  • Question 6 – ‘Gender’ is changed to ‘Sex’.
  • 10.b notes that both 10.a ‘Ethnicity’ and 10.b ‘Race’ need to be answered.
  • 11.e notes that marijuana is still unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it is legal in the state where the buyer resides.
  • 18.b is listed as ‘Supplemental Government Issued Documentation’, while its equivalent on the current 4473 20.b is listed as ‘Alternate Documentation’.
  • 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.

    ASA Announces Reintroduction Of Hearing Protection Act: A Bill To Remove Suppressors From The NFA

    Monday, January 9th, 2017

    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.

    Our readership is worldwide and we did a quick cursory analysis:

    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.

    -Thulsa Doom

    How Difficult Is It To Purchase A Firearm On Your DoD Installation?

    Thursday, December 8th, 2016

    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?”

    survey service

    Thulsa Doom

    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.