Reports of AR/AK pistols being reclassified as NFA items

I seem to remember this coming up over a decade ago but, it is being reported that Obama has resurrected an attempt to reclassify things like AR/AK pattern pistols as NFA items. On closer examination this is indeed a resurrection of a proposed rule change that was dropped in 2005. A new “notice of proposed rule making” (NPRM) date has been added to the original document with a date of January 2016.

So it seems an old fight is about to get restarted. It has been widely reported the Department of Justice was going to move forward with new rules to enact gun control without Congressional approval. This appears to be just one effort to move in that direction. A new fight appears to be brewing.


Like the NFA petition on SBRs before it, there is now one for suppressors (silencers).

You can see the petition here. Or at The petition reads as follows:


Remove suppressors as an NFA regulated item.

Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item would eliminate the $200 tax stamp, eliminate legality and travel issues between states, reduce hearing safety concerns related to discharging firearms, and would help people be courteous neighbors when discharging firearms.

As of this writing, the petition has 17,943 signatures. We need 82,057 more by August 5, 2014. Please consider signing it. As I’ve mentioned with the SBR petition, I do not expect a repeal of the NFA all together. But, there is a chance to at least make our voices heard on repealing parts of it. Specifically, short barrelled rifles and shotguns as well as suppressors.


If you haven’t seen it yet, there’s a petition to eliminate the NFA tax stamp associated with short barreled rifles (SBR)

You can see the petition here. Or at The petition reads as follows:


Remove the need for citizens to register a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) with the ATF, paying a $200 tax stamp.

A rifle is a firearm with a barrel length greater than 16 inches. A Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) is a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. An SBR is less effective than a rifle but more effective than a handgun for self-defense. It is also more efficient for traversing close quarters to clear a threat from your place of residence such as a burglar, etc. As of right now, you can purchase a bull-pup rifle or rifle with a folding stock which is, in most cases, shorter in over all length than a SBR. The need to register an SBR (and Short Barreled Shotgun) is unjustified and the requirement should be removed.

They need 100,000 signatures by August 1. At present, the site indicates just 7,104 signatures so far. Please consider signing. It would be at least one step toward eliminating NFA registration all together. We may never see the entire NFA repealed but, it would be nice if we could at least eliminate NFA registration for rifles and shotguns.


Final ruling on ATF41P pushed back to 2015

So it looks like the final ruling on ATF41P has been pushed back to 2015. Translation; for the time being at least, NFA items can continued to be transferred to a trust or corporation.


DOJ/ATF RIN: 1140-AA43 Publication ID: Spring 2014
Title: Machine Guns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Corporation, Trust, or Other Legal Entity With Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm
Abstract: The Department of Justice is planning to finalize a proposed rule to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, the rule would; (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).
Agency: Department of Justice(DOJ) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 27 CFR 479
Legal Authority: 26 USC 7805
Legal Deadline:  None

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 09/09/2013 78 FR 55014
NPRM Comment Period End 12/09/2013
Final Action 01/00/2015
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No
Agency Contact:
Brenda R. Friend
Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE.,
Washington, DC 20226
Phone:202 648-7070

NRA-ILA | Arizona Governor Signs Pro-Gun Bill Last Night as Legislature Adjourns

Last night, Governor Brewer signed into law House Bill 2535. This NRA-supported legislation improves the process for obtaining a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) certification when a signoff is required for the transfer of a firearm or other item regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA).

via NRA-ILA | Arizona Governor Signs Pro-Gun Bill Last Night as Legislature Adjourns.


We need this legislation in Texas. With the pending NFA rules changes from the BATFE, this would go a long way toward preventing 2nd Amendment hostile chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) from arbitrarily denying signatures to citizens.

A CLEO signature does three things. It certifies that the applicant lives in the CLEOs jurisdiction; the CLEO has no knowledge the applicant will use the firearm unlawfully; and the CLEO has no knowledge the applicant is prohibited from owning the weapon. There’s no inherent liability to the CLEO himself or the local government but, that is often the “reason” given for refusing the signature.

While Texas is generally a gun friendly state, the larger municipalities and some counties aren’t always so friendly. As an example, the current Harris County Sheriff and Houston Police Chief will generally refuse to provide CLEO signatures. That’s not saying CLEO signatures can’t be had in Harris County but, it’s not often through those “obvious” channels. It would be nice if it were a violation of state law for these men to refuse signatures to non-prohibited persons. Heck, make it a felony. Wouldn’t that be something, a police chief in general population all because of his political bias.