Mass shooting - San Bernardino

[Boiler 47,515]

Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II. The sale and purchase of NFA is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.[22] The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[23] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents. There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include: Lomont v. O'Neill,[24] Westfall v. Miller,[25] and Steele v. National Branch.[26] In response, Tennessee and Alaska have passed state laws which require the CLEO to execute the NFA documents.[27][28]

NFA items may also be transferred to corporations (or other legal entities such as a trust). When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, a signature from local law enforcement is not required, and fingerprint cards and photographs do not need to be submitted with the transfer request. Therefore, an individual who lives in a location where the chief law enforcement officer will not sign a transfer form can still own an NFA item if he or she owns a corporation. This method has downsides, since it is the corporation (and not the principal) that owns the firearm. Thus, if the corporation ever dissolves, it must transfer its NFA to the owners. This event would be considered a new transfer and would be subject to a new transfer tax.[29]

US National Act Stamp, affixed to transfer forms to indicate tax paid.
The tax for privately manufacturing any NFA firearm (other than machineguns, which are illegal for individuals to manufacture) is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all NFA except AOW's, for which the transfer tax is $5 (although the manufacturing tax remains $200).[29]

All NFA weapons made by individuals must be legal in the State or municipality where the individual lives. The payment of a $200 "making tax" prior to manufacture of the weapon, although a subsequent transfer of AOWs after they are legally "made" is only $5. Only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder licensed as a "Manufacture of Firearms" or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) can manufacture NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) but they pay a larger annual tax which ranges from $500 to $1000 to cover manufacturing.[30]

A Destructive Device manufacturing license or Type-10 FFL holder can manufacture destructive devices making-tax free. However a type-07 license costs $150 for three years –– whereas a Type-10 destructive manufacturing license costs $3000 for three years. Both licenses still require the payment of the $500 (reduced-rate) Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT, (or the $1000 full tax) per year to conduct manufacturing of NFA weapons that they are respectively qualified to manufacturer. The SOT "reduced rate" applies to a business whose sales are less than $500,000 per year.[31]

Transferable machine guns made or registered before May 19, 1986 are worth far more than their original, pre-1986 value and items like registered "auto-sears," "lightning-links," trigger-packs, trunnions, and other "combination of parts" registered as machineguns before the aforementioned date are often worth nearly as much as a full registered machine gun. For instance, as of September 2008, a transferable M16 rifle costs approximately $11,000 to $18,000, while a transferable "lightning-link" for the AR-15 can sell for $8,000 to $10,000. New manufacture M-16s sell to law enforcement and the military for around $600 to $1000.

Upon the request of any ATF agent or investigator, or the Attorney General, the registered owner must provide proof of registration of the firearm.[32]

In a number of situations, an NFA item may be transferred without a transfer tax. These include sales to government agencies, temporary transfers of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repairs, and transfer of an NFA firearm to a lawful heir after the death of its owner. A permanent transfer, even if tax-free, must be approved by the ATF. The proper form should be submitted to ATF before the transfer occurs. For example, lawful heirs must submit a Form 5 and wait for approval before taking possession of any NFA item willed to them. Temporary transfers, such as those to a gunsmith or to the original manufacturer for repair, are not subject to ATF approval since they are not legally considered transfers. The ATF does, however, recommend filing tax-free transfer paperwork on all such temporary transfers, to confer an extra layer of legal protection on both the owner and the gunsmith.[29]

[Teddy B 17,252]

Here's my list of what I think would be feasible and still allow every law abiding citizen to maintain their gun ownership.

I think that first and foremost we need a nationwide system of gun laws, not state to state.

I think that is a constitutional issue but I live in a fairly highly regulated state, so I assume that would mean that the rules would be less restrictive.

The rules would be the same across the board and include the background checks and waiting periods I suggested. Your state would adjust as necessary

Mandatory waiting periods, criminal and mental health background checks.

Well I have to go through Criminal now so that leaves Mental. I just do not understand how that would work. Could you explain?

Each perspective gun buyer would have to undergo a mental health background check. If a person has any history of mental health problems or takes medication for such a problem, no gun for you.

I would like to see smart guns become mandatory.

Not something I would be interested in, would see a major increase in second hand values.

Why would you not be interested?

Put a limit on how many guns a single person or a household can own unless someone is a dealer or collector with special licensing.

Why? You can outside of the films only fire one at a time.

Because nobody needs an arsenal. Usually it's people who go on rampages that have them.

Ideally (but I know it will never happen) I would like to see some sort of restrictions or bans put on semi-autos.

That contradicts your opening sentence. I am pretty quick with a bolt action and Revolvers are still OK, so what are you looking to achieve?

It does not contradict my opening sentence. You still keep your guns, maybe not all of them, but you still can have guns. You will need to adjust somewhat, that's what gun control is. You may be quick with a gun, but the majority of folks probably are not. I am looking to achieve a decrease in the amount of deaths by rapid fire when someone decides to go on a killing spree. Yes, I know a lot of the posters here are regular Rambos and can fire their guns really fast, but I'm sure when the truth be told, most people can't fire a non semi-auto as fast as they can a semi-auto.

[smilesammich 10,727]

You could buy a nice car for the same money and there are hardly any out there. Plus all the federal restrictions in buying one.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the subject?

whatever, only said uzi because of roygbp. you know what i meant and you're simply trying to shut me up by calling me ignorant. i'm not new to the rodeo, i don't have to have a vast knowledge of weaponry or be able to name types of guns and which states they're legal in to have an opinion.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Anyone can obtain most anything if they want it bad enough. The point is that obtaining materials to make a bomb, then assembling that bomb and successfully placing it somewhere without being seen and detonating it, is a much more difficult task than obtaining a gun, pointing it and pulling the trigger.

This line of thinking that if guns are harder to get it won't change anything because someone will just use something else, is not logical or rational. The more difficult something is to do, then fewer people will attempt doing it and fewer people will be able to carry it out. Any chimp can aim and fire a gun, not many chimps can obtain the materials to make a bomb, build it and successfully detonate it in a place where it will do a lot of damage.

You ever made a bomb ?

[Teddy B 17,252]

You ever made a bomb ?

Just last night after eating cabbage. My wife wasn't too happy and the dogs left the room.

whatever, only said uzi because of roygbp. you know what i meant and you're simply trying to shut me up by calling me ignorant. i'm not new to the rodeo, i don't have to have a vast knowledge of weaponry or be able to name types of guns and which states they're legal in to have an opinion.

Don't ya know, if you don't know every gun ever made, the rounds it can fire, and how to disassemble and reassemble it blindfolded, you're not entitled to an opinion on guns.

[Boiler 47,515]

I thought nobody wanted to take your guns, but now you want to take my Ruger .22LR semi auto pistol, OK for close range target shooting and maybe a rabbit, but I can keep my .308 which will take down an Elk. I have friends who prefer semi autos for Hunting, I prefer a bolt. Most semi autos are Handguns and most Handguns are semi autos so that is not going to happen.

Medical checks, well there is Federal Law about medical records and who would go and seek mental health guidance knowing it would be reported to the Feds?

I would not be interested in smart gun for the same reasons the Secret Service etc are not. Obama could of course mandate their use by the Feds and set the tone, lets see...

[smilesammich 10,727]

Don't ya know, if you don't know every gun ever made, the rounds it can fire, and how to disassemble and reassemble it blindfolded, you're not entitled to an opinion on guns.

weird that being american only counts to some if you're a gun owner.

[Boiler 47,515]

whatever, only said uzi because of roygbp. you know what i meant and you're simply trying to shut me up by calling me ignorant. i'm not new to the rodeo, i don't have to have a vast knowledge of weaponry or be able to name types of guns and which states they're legal in to have an opinion.

I am not trying to shut you up, and I am not calling you ignorant, just pointing out your are ignorant on this subject as your posts show and suggest a modicum of knowledge might help.

To be fair you are in very good company on this subject.

[smilesammich 10,727]

sometimes i get the feeling nra supporters only want to talk about what guns they own and what they use them for.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I thought nobody wanted to take your guns, but now you want to take my Ruger .22LR semi auto pistol, OK for close range target shooting and maybe a rabbit, but I can keep my .308 which will take down an Elk. I have friends who prefer semi autos for Hunting, I prefer a bolt. Most semi autos are Handguns and most Handguns are semi autos so that is not going to happen.

Medical checks, well there is Federal Law about medical records and who would go and seek mental health guidance knowing it would be reported to the Feds?

I would not be interested in smart gun for the same reasons the Secret Service etc are not. Obama could of course mandate their use by the Feds and set the tone, lets see...

I don't want to take all of your guns away, but you may have to give up some. That's not the equivalent of taking your right to have guns away, it's simply certain guns you can or can't have.

Any perspective gun owner would have to sign a release on their medical records for the background checks.

Well, I doubt you're secret service, so how would smart guns negatively affect you?

[smilesammich 10,727]

I am not trying to shut you up, and I am not calling you ignorant, just pointing out your are ignorant on this subject as your posts show and suggest a modicum of knowledge might help.

To be fair you are in very good company on this subject.

but you don't need to point that out. i don't know jack about guns and i don't think that's a secret i try to keep. you'll note that i often ask questions about guns IF there is something that spikes my interest. 9 times out of ten i get the answer and forget it just as fast. that's what happens when i learn something that i don't actually care about. guns aren't my hobby.

[Teddy B 17,252]

weird that being american only counts to some if you're a gun owner.

We're not Murikan!

sometimes i get the feeling nra supporters only want to talk about what guns they own and what they use them for.

And how they can fire them really really fast. There's no doubt to the truth for some that a gun is tied to your manhood.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I am not trying to shut you up, and I am not calling you ignorant, just pointing out your are ignorant on this subject as your posts show and suggest a modicum of knowledge might help.

To be fair you are in very good company on this subject.

They actually had an English to NRA online translator at one time, but every phrase typed in English came back as "more guns" so they ended up shutting it down.

[Sousuke 1,214]

A few updates that I've read this morning:

Wife had some sort of pledge to ISIS.

At least one rifle was modified somehow to full auto which is illegal in all 50 states.

[smilesammich 10,727]

A few updates that I've read this morning:

Wife had some sort of pledge to ISIS.

At least one rifle was modified somehow to full auto which is illegal in all 50 states.

over facebook no less..