American Silencer Association Calls for O’Reilly Retraction

The American Silencer Association (ASA) asks that Bill O'Reilly immediately…

The American Silencer Association (ASA) asks that Bill O’Reilly immediately retract the factual inaccuracies of current firearm regulations that he used as supporting evidence during his July 24 debate with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). The debate, which focused on the validity of additional gun control measures in response to the tragic events in Aurora, CO, found O’Reilly calling for stricter oversight of the firearms transfer process. While the ASA does not take issue with O’Reilly’s personal opinions, the consistent use of unsubstantiated evidence is inexcusable and in need of retraction.

First, the term ‘heavy weapons’ which O’Reilly defines as ‘mortars, howitzers and machineguns’, is a fabricated term that requires additional clarification. These three items are defined and strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which falls under the jurisdiction of the BATFE. Under the NFA, mortars and howitzers are considered ‘destructive devices’ because they fire projectiles through a barrel which is larger than one-half inch in diameter.[1] ‘Machineguns’ are defined as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”[2] In addition to machineguns and destructive devices, the NFA also regulates suppressors, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns, and “any-other weapons”.[3]

Mr. O’Reilly goes on to state that “you can buy a machine gun and the FBI doesn’t know”, reiterating his point by claiming that at gun shows “you can buy any weapon you want there and there’s no reporting anywhere”. These statements are holistically and unequivocally untrue. In order for a civilian to purchase any item that is regulated by the NFA, the item must be legal in their state of residence, and they must submit Form 4s to the ATF. A Form 4, or Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, includes a stringent background check that is conducted by the FBI. In addition, applicants must submit a $200 non-refundable transfer tax, duplicate copies of passport photos and fingerprints, and receive a signoff from a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) in their jurisdiction.[4] From start to finish, this transfer process takes anywhere from 30 days to one year to complete. Additionally, civilians are only eligible to purchase machineguns that were manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986, the day that President Reagan signed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act into law.

Read more at The Shooting Wire

Load Comments
  • Phil

    Not doing your homework makes you a “pinhead”, Mr. O’Reilly.

  • Gene in VA

    Journalist putting forth fact based arguments are a thing of the past. FOX has reported and I’ve decided – Bill O’Reilly is just another hack promoting a personal agenda void of facts or any pretense of facts.

  • Eric Webb

    O’Reilly is loosing his edge, or he’s just a “sheep-dipped” DEM and Fox is loosing it’s edge, too, just like Michael Savage (whose clearly lost his edge and worse!) by advocating a so-called Assault Weapons Ban, which they still have (and originated) in “Kalifornia.” Similarly, Justice Scalia may have lost his “bearings,” too, with hus recent “hand-wringing” interview on Fox Sunday. Taking the unexpected anti-2A positions of these three who clearly “don’t get it,” this is a great potential “wedge issue” Lefty Dems can use against Center Republicans, who can easily forget why they got elected. If the Center Repunlicans (like George Bush Senior, a gun banner himself) forget their political base, then the Dems will split the Republicans, a strategic win in an election year. This is about far more than “keep’n ‘cans’ legal.” O’Reilly, Savage and Scalia are potential “danger signs” of some potentially very bad decisions Republican leaders could make at a critical time for personal liberties…

  • Matt in Oklahoma

    Why is a non expert arguing the case? He should be reporting or maybe moderating but thats all he is qualified for