CNN Report - Loophole allows for easier purchase of high-powered weapons

[majormadmax]

Just saw this on CNN...

Exerpt...

Loophole allows for easier purchase of high-powered weapons

In the past, Ferguson says, he had no problems purchasing guns. But a few months ago, he decided he wanted a silencer. Under federal regulations, silencers fall into the same category of Title II weapons as rockets and machine guns.

Tough scrutiny comes along with this classification. Unlike with other guns, for each Title II purchase, a person must submit photos and fingerprints to the federal authorities for a background check.

Even if those checks come back clear, a local official like a sheriff or a district attorney gets to weigh in on the purchase. In some jurisdictions, this local official will simply deny the purchase. This happened to him, Ferguson says with a sigh.
Still, through a federal loophole, he got the silencer.

He bought it through his corporation and now holds it in a legal device called a National Firearms Act Trust, drawn up by a Florida estate planning attorney, David Goldman.

Federal authorities say the increasingly popular loophole allows people to get these weapons without the normal precautions. Last year, they received 17,000 such applications for purchases.

Enthusiasts attribute the popularity of the loophole to the part of federal law that allows local authorities to veto the purchase.

(Full story)

I don't like the term "loophole" in the title, because technically it isn't one; but at least the report was fairly factual. The biggest BS I saw was this...

But one former chief local law enforcement officer says he's only using the authority granted by the law.

J. Tom Morgan served as district attorney in DeKalb County, Georgia, for 12 years. For Morgan, the incredible firepower of some of the weapons in this class means a person must have a good reason for wanting one in his urban county.

"Just because someone liked the idea of having one, that didn't make sense to me," Morgan said. He denied all but one such purchase.

Which is exactly why the process needs to be changed. It shouldn't depend on one individual's personal bias to determine whether an individual gets approved or not. Unless there is a legal reason to deny someone's application, it should be approved.

Of course some will argue that this process shouldn't exist in the first place, but it does. However, it needs to be properly administrated, and I think removing the local chief law enforcement officer's "veto" authority is a step in the right direction! At a minimum, it should be like an 03 FFL application, where a copy is sent to the local authority and unless they notify the ATF that there are circumstances why the individual should not be approved, the license is granted. It should work similarly for Title II weapons!

Cheers! M2

 

[matefrio]

At a minimum, it should be like an 03 FFL application, where a copy is sent to the local authority and unless they notify the ATF that there are circumstances why the individual should not be approved, the license is granted. It should work similarly for Title II weapons!
Cheers! M2

The local LEO should NOT have a record of an item if you use a trust. BATF Informing them of it is a step backwards.

I think the next step is that the class 3 paperwork should be a "shall issue" permission where the local LEO must sign the paperwork if no valid reason is found you can't own that item.

Then make silencers an AOW dropping the tax to $5.

 

[majormadmax]

The local LEO should NOT have a record of an item if you use a trust. BATF Informing them of it is a step backwards.

I think the next step is that the class 3 paperwork should be a "shall issue" permission where the local LEO must sign the paperwork if no valid reason is found you can't own that item.

That's what I meant, for an individual application, they (the local chief LEO) should only intervene when there is a reason not to grant the license! Their approval should not be a requirement, which is how it is when applying for an 03 FFL.

If it were that way, more people would go that route instead of having to set up a trust (although there are still many aspects of having one that make it appealing, such as being able to pass it on to your children).

And an AOW is only $5 if you transfer it. To "construct" one, such as adding a front forend grip on a Draco, still requires the $200 tax stamp.

Cheers! M2

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I must have missed it, but I did not see anywhere in the story where "high-powered" weapons were mentioned except the title???

 

[majormadmax]

I must have missed it, but I did not see anywhere in the story where "high-powered" weapons were mentioned except the title???

Technically, under NFA a "large bore firearm" is "any projectile weapon with a bore diameter of greater than one-half inch (50 caliber), except for shotguns; but I could find no reference to any "high-powered" weapons...

 

[matefrio]

That's what I meant, for an individual application, they (the local chief LEO) should only intervene when there is a reason not to grant the license! Their approval should not be a requirement, which is how it is when applying for an 03 FFL.

If it were that way, more people would go that route instead of having to set up a trust (although there are still many aspects of having one that make it appealing, such as being able to pass it on to your children).

And an AOW is only $5 if you transfer it. To "construct" one, such as adding a front forend grip on a Draco, still requires the $200 tax stamp.

Cheers! M2

I should have said classify silencers as an AOW so the transfer tax is only $5.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Technically, under NFA a "large bore firearm" is "any projectile weapon with a bore diameter of greater than one-half inch (50 caliber), except for shotguns; but I could find no reference to any "high-powered" weapons...

Was there mention of "large bore firearms" anywhere, color me confused??

 

[Texas1911]

Was there mention of "large bore firearms" anywhere, color me confused??

The LEO makes reference to the firepower of the weapons, ie. MGs and large-bore, and it's alot catchier than silencer.

 

[lalonguecarabine]

"High Powered Weapons".
I SO hate when this sort of alarmist language is used.

 

[Angered_Kabar]

From the ATF Form 4:

7. Law Enforcement Certification (See instruction 2e)
I certify that I am the chief law enforcement officer of the organization named below having jurisdiction in the area of residence of
_________________________________.
(Name of Transferee)

I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would be place the transferee in violation of State or local law.

______________________________________________ ______________________
( Signature and Title of Chief Law Enforcement Officer) (Date)

____________________________________________
(Organization and Street Address)

_____________________________________________
(County)

_____________________________________________
(Telephone Number)


I would strongly disagree with any Chief LEO who denies a transfer because he doesn't like the idea of someone owning something. Just because they don't like it doesn't mean other people are Instant Criminals*

*Just add water!

 

[Bithabus]

It's not a loophole if the law is working as intended.

What is a "high powered" weapon anyway? Reporters throw the term around all the time. Sounds like a rail gun that uses too much electricity.

 

[SC-Texas]

This is typical Lib-Tard media!
Calling the law a "Loophole"!
Its not a loophole . . . . its the law!
Hell, the only real problem is that when the law was written only rich people could afford a trust and the $200.00 transfer tax and now us commonmen and women can afford both!

 

[DHTexas]

Did anyone else see this?

Loophole allows for easier purchase of high-powered weapons - CNN

 

[Dawico]

Re: Did anyone else see this?

Many members on here use this "loophole" regularly, and we even have a member that provides trusts.

This law allows citizens to circumvent the local LEOs ability to stop you from buying NFA items. "We can have all we want without buying stamps for them, but you don't deserve any." Their ability to choose for you is pure BS, and the trust "loophole" is a good thing for law abiding citizens.

 

[Bithabus]

Re: Did anyone else see this?

Thread on it here:

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/news-articles/24206-cnn-report-loophole-allows-easier-purchase-high-powered-weapons.html

 

[San Antone RR]

Re: Did anyone else see this?

Gonna merge these.

 

[DHTexas]

Thats almost as asinine as the "gun show loophole".

 

[Renegade]

Re: Did anyone else see this?

This law allows citizens to circumvent the local LEOs ability to stop you from buying NFA items.

That the local LEO can stop you, IS THE LOOPHOLE.

The only purpose of the CLEO signature is to verify there is nothing illegal; about you getting the item, not for him to be allowed yo pass arbitrary judgement. That is why when you move, you do not have to get anther signature at your new address.

 

[DHTexas]

I agree the state and federal government permit something but a local cop has veto power, thats absurd.