Previous Post
Next Post

For those of you who were iffy about pulling that lever for Donald Trump last fall, here’s more evidence that while he may not be everything everyone would choose in a President (who is?), the tide has decidedly turned in the right direction, gun policy-wise.

Our friends at The Trace (AKA the gift that keeps on giving…thanks, Mike!) report that…

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is polling outside interest groups about what gun regulations to eliminate following an edict from the Trump administration to cut government red tape.

In three closed-door meetings held in May and June, top ATF officials separately asked firearms-industry leaders, law enforcement officials, and representatives from gun-violence prevention groups what current regulations could be eliminated without risking public safety, according to attendees who went to one or more of the meetings.

Did you get that? A government agency — the one that regulates firearms, no less — is asking how it can eliminate regulations currently on the books. Is there anyone who thinks that anything remotely similar would have happened under President Pantsuit?

Maybe the swamp draining hasn’t progressed quite as quickly as many of us would like, but it’s clearly a new day in D.C. (to mix metaphors). As The Trace notes,

Firearms-industry officials have long complained about what they call needless regulations enforced by the ATF, which oversees firearm manufactures and dealers, operates the national gun-tracing center, and enforces federal gun laws.

In January, Ronald Turk, the agency’s associate deputy director and chief operating officer, wrote a controversial white paper suggesting that the bureau “review” more than two dozen regulations, including restrictions on the sale of silencers and armor-piercing bullets, and a ban on the import of some foreign-made rifles.

Reading between the lines, The Trace’s “gun-violence prevention group” moles who were there were clearly uncomfortable with the tenor of the meeting.

According to two people present at the ATF meeting with gun-violence prevention groups, people present expressed concern about Turk’s white paper, which quoted the Second Amendment on its title page. They asked whether its tone indicated that the firearms industry has too much influence at the ATF.

OMG! A government official including part of the Bill of Rights in policy paper! The temerity! OMG!

In any case, let’s assume that you had a seat at the table among that Star Wars bar scene collection of lobbyists, regulators and activists. When the discussion made its way around to you, what would you have said? Which current regulations would you have told them to eighty-six?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Both NFA acts the one from the 1930s and the one from 1986 needs to be repealed. There should be no regulations on any type of small arms under the Second Amendment. These laws were created to oppress citizens of this country and to oppress their constitutional rights.

    • You are correct but those are laws and as such Congress would have to repeal (or the Supreme Court throw out). Regulations would be the over reaching progtard BS that implemented the laws.

      For example perhaps change the 4473 to two questions?

      Are you an American? Y or N
      Do you understand the 2nd Amendment? Y or N

    • These laws are too broad, but I would support getting rid of many of the restrictions. Most of the regs are not enforceable and in fact not even the ATF can make them understandable.

    • Fully agree. WMDs and NBC should be prohibited for private ownership (as they already are) however small arms should not be restricted by size, shape, function or looks – or in any other way.

    • There no consistency between the states when it comes to firearm regulations. We supposedly have a 2nd amendment right which we do in most states such as PA and virtually none over the bridge in NJ☹️! NJ restricts too much – you can carry legally in PA with a permit but cross the bridge and you are a criminal – that’s wrong!

    • I’m with this guy, but yea…..I think I’ll refrain from holding my breath.

      Retreads don’t have any more desire to have an armed populace than the demoncrunchers.

    • If you got rid of all the regs, you couldn’t buy or sell guns in a retail setting. No one would have an FFL. There would be no 4473s. They would both still be required.

    • Kick the residents out, and take our real estate back. It’s still America, who let the Communists in to sh!T on it?

    • Agreed, with one caveat.
      With regards to Commiefornia, each person attempting to leave must take a short survey. If their survey indicates that they are a leftist of any sort, chuck em back in. We have enough leftist nutjobs elsewhere in the Union without adding them to the mix.

    • HEY now!

      WE in cali in 1994 voted to shove the illegals out of the state but it took YOUR feds til now and electing a president that would actually do it 22 years later!

      lots of the state that was repb gave up in 94 and moved out to free states—the ones still here like me. because of job–blame you the other 49 states for being so slow!

    • The last one – Kick Cali out of the Union is a great idea BUT will never happen. Democrats know they would never win another national election if you lose California and so would never allow it to come to a vote.

      The best way to make the changes we need is an Article 5 convention of states to Amend the Constitution as follows:
      1) Term Limits for Senate members (2 terms = 12 years), House members 6 terms = 12 years;
      2) All legislation passed by congress APPLIES to ALL members of Congress – NO exceptions.
      3) Abolish the National Income Tax AND the IRS – replace it with a National Sales Tax – The Citizens can now save more and pay tax when they decide to buy.

  2. For sure they need to:
    * completely deregulate suppressors, SBR’s, and SBS’s. And probably AOW’s, too. Guns are guns. And suppressors are hearing protection devices. Not murder tubes.
    * I’d also be lobbying for the reopening of the machine gun registry. Let’s get some new steel in there.
    * I’d deregulate imports to the point that pretty much anything that people are willing to pay for would be able to come in. Cheap knockoffs for all!

    I’m sure I’m missing lots of important stuff, but that’s where I’d start.

    • I’ll second the elimination of all OAL length restrictions.It’s thoroughly insane that if I buy a TC encore or contender that was originally sold as a rifle and then convert the receiver over to a handgun, I’m a felon. But, if I buy a an Encore that was originally sold as a handgun and convert it to a rifle, I’m good. It makes my brain hurt.

      Plus, something like the Mossberg shockwave with a shoulder stock would be pretty badass!

    • If you simplify ITAR and EAR for countries like Canada, UK, NZ, Australia, etc, your firearms companies will make more money on exports, too. The additional costs add up for gunowners outside the US, so any savings means they’ll buy more from US businesses. It’ll also simplify warranty procedures- again giving US companies an edge.

  3. Ban on sales of post 1986 full-auto weapons.

    If you can have a binary trigger that’s almost better, post 1986 ban is stupid.

    Plus ban the ATF&E schizophrenia:

    You can have a 4′ pistol with a forearm brace stock but no vertical forward grip, and not a 4″ rifle with a regular stock but you can have a vertical forward grip. you can’t have a sawed-off shotgun, but . . .


    Plus, I want 40MM practice rounds, scaleable charged 37MM / 26.5MM rounds of various purposes. I want St. Mark’s Powder. I want parity in threat assessment information (not classified intelligence) of known bad-actors and residents of near-state N. American countries (bc we all live in a border state).

    I want all taxes on guns an ammunition repealed (if you’re going to burden Society with legalizing POT, you’re gonna pay me back b1t<h).

    • I want parity in threat assessment information (not classified intelligence) of known bad-actors and residents of America. If I’m giving up my bona fides to the ATF and ITAR peeps for being a good citizen and businessman, I want a clearinghouse of information on all the known players that ain’t.

    • “I want St. Mark’s Powder”

      Can’t we already buy most, if not all, of them through distributors such as Hodgdon?

  4. Well, pretty much all of them. The Pittman Robertson Act might be able to stay, but only because its about allocation of funds collected from taxes on arms rather than arms themselves. Ideally there would be no tax at all, but even my daydreams can’t seem to imagine that.

    • You can cuss me out, call me a commie rat bastard. But this is the one tax that I like.
      Mostly because I enjoy the outdoors and I know I helped pay for those wonderful wild places.

      • If you insist…

        *clears throat* “Darn you to heck.”

        …That’s about all the ire I can muster over it. I hope I wasn’t too harsh.

      • Nothing like paying the government $1.00 for $0.73 in taxes so you can pay $0.13 donation to conservation activities.

        Where’s the other $0.14 ?


      • Tom, I sincerely believe that those who love the wilderness, for whatever reason, could and would do what it takes to voluntarily support said wilderness areas. Many already do… The idea of “public land” or “government land” is as much a part of the destructive totalitarian “state” as all of the mala prohibita and other nonsense laws/regulations we are fighting. Voluntary association and personal responsibility would ultimately do a much better job of preserving both land and wildlife – and the people too.

        Repeal all of them. Tear down the state, bulldoze the buildings and salt the ground… Do you actually need anyone in government to control your life and property? I didn’t think so. 🙂

        • As one who loves the wilderness, do NOT salt the earth!

          As one who leans libertarian, public lands (public anything, really) are a funny thing. Resources do not infinitely subdivide, nor do they remain stationary. The scale of animal ranges exceeds most common property parcels, and their life cycle is shorter than the timescale of land ownership decisions. On the private side of things, we can vary between balkanization and/or poaching the ̶k̶i̶n̶g̶’̶s̶ CEO’s deer. On the government side of things, we can (and do) have asinine regulation and/or inept neglect.

          People are lousy no matter how you scale or subdivide ownership. Governments are people. We all suck.

          • I never suggested salting the wilderness. 🙂 But what harm would it do to bulldoze and salt the District of Criminals. It is, and always was just a stinking swamp.

      • Keep the Pitman-Roberts act for the sake of our hunting heritage and wildlife. Dump regs on importation of US made military arms such as M-1s, suppressors, antique fire arms, semiautomatic firearms. Dump regs banning military veterans from owning firearms because they have a proxy to handle their financial affairs. Dump regs classifying semiautomatic rifles as “assault rifles” just because they have similar cosmetic appearances such as pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable magazine, folding stock and fore grips regardless of the rifle’s origin. Restore the 2nd Amendment AS WRITTEN with no restrictions for all legal U.S. citizens not convicted of a violent crime! Mandate the rollback and elimination of all state regulations not in compliance with Federal regs and imposing restrictions on their residents. Keep and bear shall mean open or concealed carry per gun owner’s preference.

    • If you do that, then suppressors wouldn’t be covered under the 2nd amendment and could then be banned permanently because it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

    • What? I can’t hear you? Speak up!

      (says 60 yr old who once considered hearing protection optional)

    • Gorsuch is one of the good guys on the 2nd amendment, also Thomas. Pass constitutional carry and see Bloomberg and company have a hissy fit. There is zero need to pay for a constitutional right, in any state. Get off the backs of firearm manufacturers, they are making and selling a legal product. In some states, gun manufacturers are trying to be held legally responsible, much like holding GM liable when one of their cars is used in a bank robbery. Gun control is hitting what you aim for, knowing when and when not to shoot, and keeping firearms out of young childrens’ hands, felons and mental patients.

  5. Suppressors need to be considered a firearm and transferred on a standard background check. If they’re removed and de-regulated, then they won’t be considered firearms anymore and hence NOT protected by the second amendment. And thus able to be banned further down the road when another party gains a majority.

    • They would not be firearms, but they would be constitutionally protected as “arms” nonetheless. Do you mean to tell me that my musket is protected, while its bayonet is not?

      • The bayonet is an “arm” because it is a weapon that can stand alone. A suppressor, much like a pistol grip is an accessory by itself is not really a weapon. I don’t think pistol grips make rifles more dangerous and I don’t believe they should be regulated. But I don’t trust our SC to lay down protections for accessories.

        • Arms must include their accessories and features. Powder, ball, and barrel are not considered weapons in themselves, yet arms are pretty sad without them. Ditto for sights, stocks, and rifling.

          Every advancement since the invention of the club could be considered an unnecessary accessory or superfluous feature.

        • Easy enough. Just remember 2A and the *definition* of arms: Any equipment used by a military unit. So all that stuff gets called “arms” and all is 2A-protected.

    • They’d fall under firearms accessories, such as magazines, which are specifically mentioned in the language of either Heller or MacDonald. By that same logic, you could ban optics since they’re not firearms per se, and I don’t see that happening, though I’m sure there are weeaboos in DC who’d love to.

  6. NFA has to go. Pretty much all the rest were extensions of that unconstitutional law. Honestly though, we need an accountability law as much as anything. If you voted for a law that is found to be a burden on the public or unconstitutional, you lose your seat, get fined, and serve some jail time. Americans are not “subjects” of the government. The U.S. constitution was very explicit in that the interests of the people should always come before the interests of the state.

  7. The better question would be what regulations don’t need to be repealed. If for no other reason than it’s a shorter list.

    Personally I have always been a complete 2A purist. Even to the point that I could support possession of personal military ordnance stockpiles. Motors, HMGs, you name it. But at the same time if we’re going to have some regulation they need to both make sense from a real tangible reduction in homicide, violence, or even suicides. But as we all well know that there no room for that discussion in this situation. As we all on the pro-gun rights side well know the argument on the other side is all ideology and flat out lies.

    At the end of the day arguing anything with a anti-gun ideologue is just like playing chess with a chicken. It doesn’t matter that you’re a grand master or just a skilled novice, because the chickens is just going to proudly crap all over the board and act like it won the game.

    • Mortars. YES. When I read motors, I was thinking ‘rocket motors’ what’s the biggest size civilian purchasable without a pat down, “J”?

      • I don’t so much think that individuals should get to own weapons of mass destruction like nuclear or chemical bombs. That said, I believe that anything requiring a direct line of sight and impacting one point per shot should be 100% legal.

  8. “What Gun Regulations Need to be Repealed or Replaced?”
    To that I anwser with an MHI quote
    “Milo’s red eyebrows scrunched together in thought. He started to count on his fingers, and then thought better of it. “All of them.” ”

    Though what the ATF can do right away without legislation is return gun trusts to how they were pre-Obama.

    As for the NFA. Call your Congressman/Senators (local office) and tell them Ron DeSantis (FL-6) and Marco Rubio (Florida) are considering legislation to repeal it and you want them as a co-sponsor or, if they decide not to introduce it, introduce it themselves.

    • Good idea. I’ve just reached out to my Congressman (Gus Bilirakus) to ask him to get on board too.

  9. All of the ones after December 15, 1791.

    What part of shall not be infringed don’t these people get?

  10. I would be happy with suppressors out of the NFA and every state level thing in California

  11. The only acceptable form of firearms regulation are adjustable gas blocks.
    Everything else should go

  12. Two issues with this: 1. I can’t think of anything that the ATF does involving new/civilian firearms that isn’t unconstitutional on its face so the issue may be moot all around. Investigation after crime? Smuggling? Go for it.
    2. What are they going to ask us to give up to get these “repeals”. The truth is we shouldn’t have to negotiate anything. Its ours by right.

    My favorite Phrase: Never do what you can’t undo until you figure out what you can’t do once you’ve done it

  13. It’s not a federal law but elimination of Maryland’s “Gun Safety Act of 2013” certainly would be welcomed by us POTG in “The Free State”.

  14. Someone should tell them that with SOME of the savings they get from not having to enforce the BS regs that only impede law abiding Americans, the ATF can then start REALLY going after the scum who resell legal and stolen guns to felons.

  15. OK, Trumpkins, settle down. This is just sop to the good government types eager to believe that something’s actually changing for the better. Smoke and mirrors….

    First off, most of you have made reference to federal laws; some have referred to state laws. Those all require congressional action or are otherwise outside of Trump’s authority completely. This executive order regarding regulations is exactly that: federal agency regulations, which are the rules that implement federal laws. These are the details of executing a given law, not the broad guidelines within laws themselves, which Trump can’t touch.

    For example, wherever federal law says that a pollutant level must be within a “reasonable” a range or that a seller must not have “reason to believe” that a buyer is a prohibited possessor, it falls to agencies to define via regulations what is reasonable or is a reason. The big legal impediments, like the full auto registry, NICS background checks, the existence of FFLs, etc. are all mandated by federal law and the agencies cannot undo any of them with mere regulatory revisions. Now, reformatting ATF form 4473? That, they can do. Whoopee! Yawn.

    Second, Trump’s order applies to all federal agencies, not just the ATF. It’s a very generic and typical “making government work” PR con job that every president pulls. It doesn’t reflect some major pro-2A push of any sort. The fact is (yes, it is a fact, check with the Government Accountability, “Re-examining Regulations: Opportunities exist to improve effectiveness and transparency of retrospective reviews”, 2007), every president since Carter has directed agencies to evaluate or reconsider existing regulations. Every president proclaims it an unprecedented, breakthrough initiative. (Clinton even put Gore in charge of his initiative.) Obama’s executive order on this same game of governmental Three Card Monty was #13563, 1-18-2011, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”) President Pantsuit would have played the same charade, trust me.

    If you’re interested in seeing the actual total number of pages of federal regulations from 1950-2016, the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University has all the data. Here’s the link:

    Every president left behind more pages than when he arrived (except W. Bush).

    Granted, total pages is not a perfect proxy for the cost and impact of regulations, any more than total number of pages of a novel equates to its literary merit. Still, cheap or costly, the volume of regulations is something that people do have to keep up with. So volume is at least a measure of how easily you can unwittingly become a criminal.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled Trump-as-messiah delusions.

    • “First off, most of you have made reference to federal laws; some have referred to state laws. Those all require congressional action or are otherwise outside of Trump’s authority completely. This executive order regarding regulations is exactly that: federal agency regulations, which are the rules that implement federal laws. These are the details of executing a given law, not the broad guidelines within laws themselves, which Trump can’t touch.”

      Thank you.

      There actually is a great deal of good that can be done by fixing regulations. A 4473 should just be the required information about the gun and the buyer’s info for the NICS check. Only individuals should have to submit fingerprints for NFA items (that’s all the statute requires). In fact, there is no reason that the tax stamp/registration system can’t be virtually instantaneous. Kitchen table FFLs. Who cares about zoning laws? The ATF, that’s who.

      That’s about all I can think of off the top of my head, but I was hoping to see more here. I know ther are a lot of import bans that are just regs.

  16. Repealing the entire NFA isn’t going to happen. As much as we’d like it, it just won’t. I’d like to see the Hughes Amendment, the 2005 rules on parts kit importations (the barrel ban) and 922r go away as a start. Delisting SBR’s and suppressors from the NFA may have a chance. That would be nice.

  17. ATF can change regulations, not laws, which most of the comments are about.
    I’d like to see 41F repealed (background checks on trustees for NFA), although I like the CLEO notification instead of a sign-off.
    Next, I’d like to see the expansion of “sporting purposes” to include modern competitions, like 3 gun, IPSC, IDPA, etc, and allow the import of more semiauto rifles and shotguns.

    • Anymouse, as I write this, you are the only commenter to seriously attempt to answer the question.
      Other changes:
      – totally eliminate the CLEO notification
      – change retention of 4473s that result in a transfer to two years, and require they be destroyed by four years.
      – retention of A&D records should be for two years from the latest entry, with destruction required after four years thence.
      -to eliminate the rifle multiple sales report required in southern border states.

  18. There is one that *must* be dealt with *soon*.

    Lawful travel with teeth.

    If you are not a prohibited person, travel with your firearm must be legal, without harassment from non-free states like NY or California…

  19. How many rich, wealthy, or just your average gun collector wants to keep the gun laws as they are?
    Because they don’t want to lose the very High value of their gun collections if the laws and regulations were rescinded.

    If the machine gun laws, taxes, and registration requirements were done away with, would that Tommy Gun really be worth $25,000 or more? Just as an example.
    Your average gun store can make thousands of dollars on a single MG sale.

    If the Hearing protection Act becomes law, anyone will be able to get a Can for their gun for less than $20, within two years after the law passes. My prediction. I’ve seen $600 to $900 for current suppressors.

    If machine guns become “deregulated”, then the value of some investors collections will fall. It makes me wonder how many “gun guys” really support deregulation of Arms.

    I have a lot to gain as a gun generation 2.0 person with deregulation. You older folks with 100 or more in a collection, will its value go down with deregulation???
    I’m just asking.

    • Some would, the older ones would clearly keep their value, how much is the question.

      MG42,Thompsons, M3, BARs, Old Maxims, etc would, anything post 1960s? NOPE.

  20. Restrictions on crew served weapons. If the wife can help load and clear the breech that is.

  21. Get rid of the personal, ongoing, federal income tax and there will be money to enforce these laws . . . or the war on drugs . . . or the largest wealth redistribution scheme in human history known as EIC . . . etc. etc.

  22. All of them. Murder, thievery, menacing, assault – these are already naturally illegal by default and codified. The only thing that matters is what is done to a person or property; laws are irrelevant to the law abiding because they already abide by them. I care little for the safety and security of fools and criminals. Let them have all the rope they need to hang themselves, and the rest of us may do what we will in keeping the natural law.

    • This. Natural law is the way to go. Drunk driving shouldn’t be illegal, but if you do and kill someone, it’s murder. No ifs, ands, or buts.

  23. Realistically, deregulation of SBR/S’s. With pistols and now the Shockwave/Rem 14 or whatever, there’s no reason adding a piece of plastic should be a felony. I’d like to see the registry reopened for machine guns. I really need a P90, a two round burst Kriss 45, and a factory G18. The $200 tax also needs to go. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be considered a poll tax.

  24. Donald Trump is the real deal when it comes to supporting the second amendment. That’s why the ATF is scared. You got government workers who want to keep their jobs. If they deregulate on their own maybe, they hope, they can keep their jobs. The entire 1968 and 1934 and the 1985 or was it 1986, gun control acts need to be rescinded. The only thing we should keep is the 4473 Fed Form to check of Violent Felons only. No denial of rights for any misdemeanors.

    • Donald Trump was against gun rights before he was for them (pro-assault weapons ban). He also wanted Congress to ban gun sales to Americans on the Terrorist Watch Lists.

      Keep that in mind.

  25. I think many of the posters must be on drugs? The all rules out the window bunch are the worst Wet dreamers. There is no widespread support to walk back the Nfa, GCA-68, or the post ’86 full auto bans. More realistic? Relaxing re imports of Garands & M-1 Carbines. Changes to the Lautenburg Law. Having airlines end bans on hunting trophies.

  26. Taking the Trace’s word for it, but did anyone else notice that the only constituency not invited were representatives of gun owners?

    Industry, law enforcement, and gun grabbers. From the quoted article:

    “firearms-industry leaders, law enforcement officials, and representatives from gun-violence prevention groups”

    The Trace probably would count the NRA as the firearms industry, but if they weren’t there, we’re going to get hosed on any changes.

    • Exactly what I wanted to say. Why are we, the POTG, not invited and asked what we want? Why Antis are?

      • The only organization I can find mentioned by name that attended is the NSSF. That’s great that the ATF is seeking input from the industry it has oversight over. That’s how government is supposed to work. It is, however, also supposed to seek input from all of its constituents, not just the ones it wants to hear from. As far as I can tell, the “F” constituents would be the NSSF, law enforcement, gun owners, and anti-gunners. They invited 3 our of 4 and, in my opinion, the gun owning public should be the number 1 or 2 constituency (the other being industry). Law enforcement is meant to serve the public good. They really shouldn’t be considered key policy makers. The anti-gunners are just a bunch of whining, lying babies who should be ignored.

  27. Many people are saying “all of them” and that’s great, but as far as things the ATF actually has the authority to get rid of, the restrictions on 7n6 imports comes to mind. That was dirt cheap and performed really well, and the rationale behind the ban is very dangerous.

  28. ALL regulations concerning gun ownership, possession, manufacturing, sales, carrying, ammunition, magazine capacity, taxes, fees or anything else in regards to firearms are illegal and contrary to the 2nd amendment as they infringe on those constitutional laws. End of discussion.

    • What about a regulation about concerning government use of firearms or spending on firearms? Are they unconstitutional?

Comments are closed.