Not sure if it's old news

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... s-archaic/

I've seen it linked elsewhere but haven't read through the whole thing.

There's a lot more in there than silencers.

Some have suggested just go ahead with the act of congress to get it changed and that way the ATF can't waffle backward using lightweight regulation changes under the next administration.

doubloon wrote: congress

^^This is my vote.

Let's get a solid law/regulation change. It will, at the least, make my dog feel safer

I think that's what is intended, just ATF agrees so no battle from them.

Time might come when the little guy CAN make prototype CAN's .

Nothing published in Federal Registrar.

You can read the actual white letter here; http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... ions/2325/

Ranb

T-Rex wrote:

doubloon wrote: congress

^^This is my vote.
Let's get a solid law/regulation change. It will, at the least, make my dog feel safer

My vote too. Dogs are pretty smart fellas.

I posted on another Site, that ATF and DoJ need to codify the change to Regs by publishing in CFR. Then, Congress needs to repeal/alter NFA and Hughes Amend. A Fed Administrative Law Judge needs to review and approve any changes to solidify the legitimacy as a bulwark against future challenges and Exec Orders/"Changes in Interpretations."
---
Isn;t this a "Legal and Political" type Topic? Seems more appropriate.

In fact, here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=137630
Is this for real, wiki leak or just fake news, ATF letter?

whiterussian1974 wrote:Then, Congress needs to repeal/alter NFA and Hughes Amend.

Petition is here

whiterussian1974 wrote:

T-Rex wrote:

doubloon wrote: congress

^^This is my vote.
Let's get a solid law/regulation change. It will, at the least, make my dog feel safer

My vote too. Dogs are pretty smart fellas.


Suppressors have preserved not only mine but my dogs hearing too! While this may be a minor point for some its pretty hard to train a dog to wear muffs! Those with suppressors have happier dogs. Those with suppressors have happier horses. Those with suppressors have happier neighbors.

The ownership of a suppressor is a exercise in consideration.

colorado1 wrote:

whiterussian1974 wrote:

T-Rex wrote:^^This is my vote.
Let's get a solid law/regulation change. It will, at the least, make my dog feel safer

My vote too. Dogs are pretty smart fellas.


Suppressors have preserved not only mine but my dogs hearing too! While this may be a minor point for some its pretty hard to train a dog to wear muffs! Those with suppressors have happier dogs. Those with suppressors have happier horses. Those with suppressors have happier neighbors.

The ownership of a suppressor is a exercise in consideration.

Ive heard that in certain European countries, shooting unsuppressed is considered very rude

fishman wrote:Ive heard that in certain European countries, shooting unsuppressed is considered very rude

Noise violations in Restricted Areas are a criminal Offense, usually only ticketed. But Livestock owners can sue for startling the animals, which "may result in lowered output." Eggs, milk, offspring, etc.

whiterussian1974 wrote:

fishman wrote:Ive heard that in certain European countries, shooting unsuppressed is considered very rude

Noise violations in Restricted Areas are a criminal Offense, usually only ticketed. But Livestock owners can sue for startling the animals, which "may result in lowered output." Eggs, milk, offspring, etc.

Yep.

Noise abatement, moderators, mufflers, suppressors required by law in many locations.

They've had suppressed shotguns available on the shelves for years.

http://www.thefield.co.uk/reviews/revie ... gun-review