Rules Change Form - National Association Of Rocketry: Fill & Download for Free

This will upset many folks, but NRA lobbying is the main reason. Backing by people (some of whom answered this question anonymously) who don’t seem to mind that houses, cars,and other personal property all have publicly accessible information but can’t even consider extending that to something like firearms helps. They are OK with no nukes for [fill in the blank to whatever country they see fit- unfit - at the time] and restrictions for buying explosives. They simply, for their own reasons, draw the line in a different spot.But back to my first statement about the NRA: The Firearms Owners Protection Act, signed into law in 1986, is the reason. It included the Hughes Amendment, the thing that greatly restricted (some say “ban”) owning fully automatic weapons made after that date. The FOPA was a reaction to what many felt was abuse of the 1968 Gun Control Act by the ATF (now BATFE). The FOPA also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926)) being:No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.That virtually outlawed record keeping and only allows the BATFE to gather information when trying to match a gun used in a crime to the owner. Here is an excellent article on this subject: The Low-Tech Way Guns Get TracedBefore you start calling me a communist, socialist, fascist, libtard, snowflake or anything else, know that I am simply trying to answer a question with pertinent information (facts) and have tried to leave my opinions out of it. I design, build and fly amateur high power rockets and have had that hobby greatly hindered by the efforts of the BATFE. After a 7 year long battle in the courts the BATFE not only lost but also had to reimburse about $750,000 in legal fees to the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) and TRA (Tripoli Rocketry Association). This next part will contain some of my opinions. The BATFE, like any other governmental agency, has to be checked when overstepping their purpose. The ridiculous methods they used to illegally declare the solid rocket fuel used in amateur rocketry an explosive is one way in which governmental over-reach impacted me directly. But, it is at least as ridiculous how the BATFE has been hamstrung in its efforts to solve crimes involving firearms. I think requiring guns to be licensed and insured like automobiles would not only help solve crimes, but would also make gun owners (not just the ones who are now) be more diligent in maintaining control of their firearms, which, ultimately provides further protection to gun owners. All guns not smuggled into this country illegally were sold legally - all of them. So how did they get into the hands of criminals? At least part of it is irresponsible legal gun owners. I know many gun guys (competitive shooters, hunters, collectors and even firearms manufacturer) who have never lost control of their firearms. None were stolen or bought or sold without any sort of paper trail. But I do know many who think they aren’t part of the problem of arming criminals by selling without transferring ownership of the firearm. I also know more than one who owned many firearms who had most of their guns (all that were not with them) stolen by who they thought of as a “friend of a friend” or one possibly one or more acquaintance- type steps removed. But close enough to know they had guns, where and how they were stored and when he was going to be out of town. Yes, they were victims of crime, but they were also irresponsible in the ownership. While they didn’t cause the crime, they made it easy for the criminal and should have taken steps to minimize, if not eliminate this type of “friend of a friend” theft. Simply not showing off his guns to anyone who came over (and their friends) is a huge one. And as CCW permit holders, a concealed weapon should be one that no one knows about. Not bragging about your collection indiscriminately is the same thing in my mind. There there is how they were actually stored. Having a bunch of guns in a glass case (even if it is locked) is not secure. Keeping them in a flimsy tin (or thin steel) free standing “safe” is also not secure. Doing all of this in a less than great neighborhood with no alarm makes those measure even less secure. Ineffectual storage of guns simply means the thief has to go to fewer places to take all of them. And yes, someone, if they really wanted to do so, could get one of those fancy powered dollies could even steel a very good 900# safe. However, that is not likely the place they will go to steal guns. Permanently anchoring that huge and secure safe to the residence is an additional step they could take. But, I don’t know of anyone who had their private, heavy safe, that only people known well to the owner even knew existed, stolen. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, but I am saying I know of no one personally in that situation. And I suspect it is not common. But as long as there are guys with the tin, free standing coat closet type “safe” gathering all their firearms into a single, easy to take location and letting unknown people know about it, why should they go through the effort? Thieves will take the low hanging fruit. And their is plenty of that around. And since, even if there is a form 4473 sitting in a box somewhere for each gun, tying those guns to either the thieves or former owner is extremely difficult,there will be a continuing stream of legal guns becoming illegal. So “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” seems like a silly argument. Outlaws have guns now. If there were not so many legal, but irresponsible gun owners around outlaws would have far fewer guns. Making legal gun owners responsible for their firearms (registration and insurance) the impact would mean that stream of guns going from legal to illegal would become a trickle, if not dry up completely. And yes, there are tons of guns out there already. Why keep making it so easy for those to be continually replenished? I know there are a lot of heirloom firearms out there. I’m not so worried about crimes being committed by great, great grand dad’s shotgun. I doubt a liquor store robber will ever be done using Sir Big Bucks’ museum quality collectors item firearm. I also doubt there will be many car-jackings done at the end of a pristine, antique, lever action Henry rifle, or a crazy valuable Tommy Gun.So many people’s lives are ruled by fear: fear of that guy walking down the street, of open homosexuals, of “the man” confiscating their guns, of rapists and home invaders, etc. While there are things to legitimately be afraid of there are many irrational fears. There is also a point where acting to avoid one of those things feared becomes disproportionate to the realistic chance or the thing ever actually occurring. When protecting against those fears causes more damage and perpetuates itself, it makes no sense. But, until this atmosphere of fear - of just about everything, changes nothing will change.