read in January 2012 issue of The American Rifleman

I read an interesting article with the founder of AAC the other day. Apparently they are one of Freedom Group's most profitable businesses in terms of margin. He remarked that Cerebus was spending some money on lobbyists to streamline the NFA process by removing the CLEO signoff requirement and moving suppressors to AOW status. He said ATF was resistant to the AOW classification because they were generating a decent amount of revenue with the tax. He pointed out that selling 50,000 items at $5 was better than 5,000 items at $200.

He also made an insightful remark that it wasn't in AAC's best interests to have suppressors moved out of the NFA since that would mean many more potential competitors. He stated that the best move for AAC was to keep the NFA regulations that kept other manufacturers out of the marketplace while making it easier for customers to acquire their products by things like the above.

I think this may be another case where the interests of consumers and the interests of the industry don't quite line up; but overall I think you are going to see a broader acceptance of NFA items in the future.
 
Bartholomew Roberts:

At the risk of asking a dumb question, please clarify for me the following:

1. AAC

2. AOW

By the way, I sibmit that more important than getting rid of the silencer foolishness, a polite term for what I really think about this part of the law, is the following. Getting rid of the entire business of/about The Sporting Purposes Test and or that bit of business about Suitable Thereto (sporting purposes), or Readily Adaptable Thereto, especially since neither Sporting Purposes nor Readily Adaptable Thereto were ever actually defined in the law, so far as I know.
 
AAC is Advanced Armament Corp., a suppressor manufacturer who was purchased by Freedom Group and is now a subset of Remington.

AOW is Any Other Weapon. It is a category for NFA items and is registered the same but the tax stamp is only $5.
 
I don't recall exactly which communist leader it was, but one of them said "the Capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them".

One source of objections to any significant streamlining, or particularly to effective de-regulation of NFA items are those businesses who deal in them.

It is irksome, because we think that "they are gun people, and should want, and help us to be able to easily and cheaply have these things". But that isn't the case for many of them.

They are business people, and anything that threatens their business, they will oppose. And they know that they are making a profit in a niche market. Full auto and other NFA items are never going to be a mainstream firearms market, unless there is a trememdous shift in general public opinion.

And thats not likely, considering nearly 80 years of brainwashing by the govt and the entertainment medias. SO, anything that looks to reduce their profit margin is a threat, including relaxation of the current laws.

Simply opening up the civilian full auto registry to new manufactured arms would be a huge blow to the full auto dealers profit margins. They know that they would not make up in volume the money lost when the market value of the currently legal guns drops.

What is the current going price for a civilian legal M16? $10,000? $15,000? more? Who is going to pay that when they could buy the parts and legally register their own AR for a few hundred dollars? (just one example, there are many others).

Its not a new story, its as old as govt tarrifs and taxes and their effect on businesses. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was supported by many domestic arms makers! Not the importers, but the domestic manufacturers. Foreign gun imports were making serious inroads into their business in the late 60s. Cheap surplus guns, sold mail order, was bad for US business.

Although, like many laws, it turned out to have a huge number of unintended consequences, the GCA 68 was supported by many gun businesses. Sen. Kennedy pushed it hard, not just because any gun control was in line with his personal agenda, but because it protected some major businesses in his home state (and surrounding areas)!

Any restriction on imported guns meant that US makers got a benefit.

Much more recent is Bill Ruger's attempt to see his business was safe from the assault weapons laws being considered at the time (and eventually passed). OR S&W's owners (a British holding company, at the time) agreeing to the Clinton administrations demands about built in locks and sales restrictions. Both of these backfired in the court of public opinion, actually hurting sales, and in S&W's case it was so strong as to cause the British owners to sell S&W, at a loss!

So don't count on the firearms industry to champion our gun rights in general, or in specific, unless it is their particular ox who is being gored.

There are exceptions. Some individuals have taken public stands placing honor above profit at all costs. Mr Barrett is to be commended for his policies, in particular refusing to do business with the govt of California, as long as that govt forbids its citizens from buying his product (.50 cal rifle), he won't sell them to the CA govt, or their agencies. And more to the point, he thumbs his nose at them, by stating his policy in his ads. I don't know how much money he is losing by doing this, but I'm sure its not an insignificant amount. We could use more people with that attitude, and the fortitude to carry it out.
 
A comment on the post by blume357 ...

Obama may have some trickery up his sleeve for a second term as far as guns are concerned, he may not ...

but you can be sure that when (not if) an opening occurs on the Supreme Court during that second term, he will fill it with a leftist and Heller will be overturned at some point down the road with a 5-4 or 6-3 vote ... the next few justices need to be appointed by a conservative who will make sure they are pro-2A ... I don't worry about UN treaties, Mexican lawsuits or Brady baloney ... my eyes are on the Supremes ...
 
About companies and business - don't forget a fair number - SW, Colt and Taurus were ready to jump on the smart gun bandwagon beacause they saw a wave of mandated police replacements and that would knock down Glock. Also, there was some marketing research done that indicated there are folks who would buy a smart gun but wouldn't buy a normal gun. Some states would mandate smart guns and if you lived there, you would have to ditch your current one for a smart gun.

Before we go down the liberal vs. conservative fire storm - let's say we need progun rather than antigun folks elected. Don't need to referee that old fight.
 
Even if SCOTUS turns anti-gun, there's no need for them to overturn Heller - even Heller allows for restrictions on gun ownership - it's just about broadening the context in which those restrictions can be applied. In other words, they can honor the language of Heller and gut its meaning and intent.

But let's hope it doesn't come to that. The likely window in which this scenario can occur is closing, hopefully...
 
In free states you can buy without a background check if you buy during a private transaction.

To me it matters little what the NRA did 40/50/100 yrs ago today they are useful for winning important Court cases, & keeping the heat on so folks know what the heck is going on, if that lady in NYC who got arrested for having a gun on her while visiting had checked with the NRA she would have known not to visit - Holder may be forced out due to NRA holding feet to the fire.

this stuff matters.

The public only knows that "silencers" are used by mobsters to "whack" people without anyone hearing it:rolleyes:
 
I don't see the balance of SCOTUS changing much anytime soon. All of the five justice majority in Heller and McDonald (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) seem to be in good health and have given no indication of intent to retire soon. Ginsburg, on the other hand, will probably be replaced fairly soon as she's not in good health and hasn't been for some time, but she was part of the minority in both Heller and McDonald so replacing her with another anti-gun justice wouldn't change much.
 
Webleymkv:

Problem is, it seems to me, that with Heller and MacDonald, we didn't get a "clean" ruling, though what we did get could have been much worse. As it is/was, the court said something, then screwed it up with "lawyer's talk".


In the last analysis, I suppose that that is what lawyers tend to do, which is a pity. Supposedly, lower courts are "going off half cocked" concerning the pandora's box of "reasonable restrictions", which the court neglected to define. In the end, looks like welfare for lawyers
 
Alan, I agree that neither Heller nor McDonald were perfect, though I think they were a lot better than they could have been. My comments were more directed towards fears that President Obama would be able to change the balance of SCOTUS and get them overturned, something which I think is a pretty remote possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top