LOL BURN.I'd be more concerned with the restriction you quoted if it had come from the Firearms section of the ATF website instead of the Explosives section. I'm betting that if someone (certainly not me!) wants to spend countless hours researching laws and regulations regarding the licensing and regulation of explosives, you'd probably come across the requirement for fingerprinting from ONLY specific sources. Have at it if you'd like. There's probably some regulation on the origin of fingerprints for purposes of a security clearance out at DIA, too, but they're not relevant, either.
Let's not start applying rules, regulations and interpretations from OTHER regulated pursuits to the NFA realm. We'll be chasing our tails for all eternity "proving a negative" in showing that this or that interpretation does NOT apply to the new NFA rule. The new law says what it says. If you feel like you need clarification on what the new law says, the best place to find that clarification will be in the 237 pages specifically discussing how the new law come into being.
The law says, and I quote: "The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them."
Note that it doesn't say:
1. By law enforcement
2. By the driver's license bureau
3. By someone who holds this or that license
4. By someone who holds this or that certification
5. By someone who runs a business
6. By someone wearing a striped shirt with a blue tie
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, and it's not directed solely at Brian because I deal with forms of this every day. If we start trying to discuss hypotheticals, there really is no end to it. Plan on complying with the law. That's burdensome enough without trying to lump on or infer something that's simply not there.
Perhaps someone wants to email the ATF for clarification. That worked out so well for… what was it? Arm braces?




Reply With Quote

