ammo for sale All commissions earned are donated directly to the Second Amendment Foundation

Thursday, April 24, 2014

I know I'm going to sound terribly naive ...

... but I've got questions.

My local SOT (Liberty Suppressors) recently posted on Facebook that ecen though the eFile system for forms 1 and 4 was down, paper applications were still being processed. I asked the question 'Why does it take so long?' and was rewarded wiht a reply that you pay the tax first, and therefore there's no need for the ATF to hurry. I responded thusly:

AFAIK, the NFA imposes no more in depth background check than what a NICS check would show. Even if you allow for running fingerprints, I received my first GWL in 4 days, including running prints (corporations and trusts have no prints to run) and my renewal was less than 10 (likely because we have the new high-speed low-drag cards).

From it's inception, the NFA passed constitutional muster because it was a revenue (tax) measure (the constitutional dilemma was even discussed in hearings before passage); registering NFA weapons was just a means to collect the tax. I've not read the NFA thoroughly but I don't remember that the ATF is required to conduct an anal exam on applicants. They're only there to 1) register the item 2) collect the tax and 3) send the stamp.

If this is the case, then the correct procedure would be 1) go see David with money in hand 2) David runs NICS check to verify ability to own firearm and 3) take documentation of elegibility to the post office and pay the tax, wherein the post office either stamps your documentation while the ATF sends a stamp or gives you a stamp (they used to do that, ya know).
What am I missing?!
I know that the NFA was somehow 'reconstituted' when the GCA '68 was passed, but I've still not seen where the ATF is authorized to do the anal search.

I mean, in 1933, if you wanted a machinegun you bought a machinegun. In 1934 if you wanted a machinegun, you paid the tax and then bought a machinegun. So why is it different today?


No comments: