The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11, 2011, 09:01 AM   #51
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Seems to me we had one of them just a few months back that passed a significant piece of legislation through TWO houses of Congress.
Not with a 2/3 majority they didn't... and realistically, if the Senate wanted to ratify an international arms treaty that had horrendously intrusive effects on lawful firearms ownership in the United States, they could ratify the already signed CIFTA Treaty and not wait until 2012.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 02:54 PM   #52
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
San Francisco Gate has a story today on one of the apparent first steps the Administration is taking with gun control. They have declared that semi-automatic rifles sold by FFLs in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico will be subject to the same multiple sales requirements as handguns.

It will be interesting to see where they have the Congressional authority to make that requirement since the law specifically says "handguns."
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 04:00 PM   #53
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
It will be interesting to see where they have the Congressional authority to make that requirement since the law specifically says "handguns."
In fact, the instructions on the form itself read,

Quote:
This form is to be used by licensees to report all transactions in which an unlicensed person acquired two or more pistols or revolvers or any combination of pistols or revolvers totaling two or more at one time or during five consecutive business days. This form is not required when the pistols or revolvers are returned to the same person from whom they are received.
So, let me get this straight. Justice wants to generate (by their estimates) an extra 18,000 reports per year, most of which will do nothing more than tie up payroll and manpower the ATF doesn't have, and which will end up sitting in boxes in the West Virginia office.

And this will achieve what? After all, Lone Wolf and J&G Sales were reporting these sales, in real time, to the ATF, and the weapons still made it across the border.

Or am I missing something?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 04:43 PM   #54
RampantAndroid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2011
Posts: 226
Quote:
San Francisco Gate has a story today on one of the apparent first steps the Administration is taking with gun control. They have declared that semi-automatic rifles sold by FFLs in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico will be subject to the same multiple sales requirements as handguns.
They're going to blame the guns in mexico on US instead of on OBAMA and the ATF?!
RampantAndroid is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 04:55 PM   #55
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Well Tom, if the federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws can break those laws so easily, clearly we need stricter gun control laws.

Seriously though, you would think that making an extra reporting requirement that seems to have no statutory basis in law and can't help but highlight the idiocy of Fast and Furious wouldn't be the first choice; but I've given up guessing what they'll do next.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 05:17 PM   #56
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Well Tom, if the federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws can break those laws so easily, clearly we need stricter gun control laws.
The mind reels. Thing is, it's not going to help one bit. The guns are showing up at domestic crime scenes, and we still don't know what damage Melson's testimony is likely to incur. Any chance the administration might have had at redirecting blame or controlling blowback is gone.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 05:36 PM   #57
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
This is a political distraction for his buddy Holder to use as a smoke screen for cover -- because if Holder goes down, he could take O with him, and maybe other senior cabinet members. (imagine if everybody went down in flames except Biden because he was kept out of the loop)

Quote:
Joe Sixpack isn't too fond of the UN. Nor would he be very fond of his congressman voting for a treaty that puts them in charge of our domestic policy.
The Senate ratifies treaties, not the whole congress. And 2/3 of the Senate is always not up for reelection.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"

Last edited by zxcvbob; July 11, 2011 at 05:41 PM.
zxcvbob is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 07:31 PM   #58
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,758
thallub said:
Quote:
The UN Small Arms treaty is a red herring issue: The folks who start this stuff are counting on the fact that many gunowners will react to threats to their Second Amendment rights, real or imagined, without first vetting them.

No UN treaty trumps the US Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled so in 1957. Read Reid Vs. Covert:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html


It is the policy of the UN not to interfere with the rights of gunowners in member countries. It says so in the proposed Treaty outline:

http://www.disarm.emb-japan.go.jp/st...t/N0958107.pdf

Read the last two paragraphs on the first page.

Quote:
Quote:
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
Sir, I think you are being very naive. The danger is never that they're going to break down our doors and take our guns today. It's the creeping incremental approach that is worrisome.

The constitutional "right" has only been recently recognized by the Supreme Court. Litigation abounds about what is and what will be permissible. The Supreme Court has already said some regulation will be allowed. While a treaty may not directly result in handguns being banned, it may certainly impact gun owners a great deal.

Like shooting that Eastern European AK-47? Kiss it goodbye as imports of the gun could easily be banned (where are all those nice Chinese Norincos?). All the European guns could be banned. Springfield Armory would probably be forced out of business. All the ammo from both Europe and Mexico could likewise be banned.

That's just some of the low hanging fruit. It could get much worse.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 09:04 PM   #59
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
Sir, I think you are being very naive
Gee, thanks. i've followed federal gun control very closely for 55 years. i dared to debunk a UN gun control myth and you called me naive. Go figure. Too many gunowners are wasting time on rumors and conspiracy theories to see the real threats to gun ownership.

BTW: The AWB expired in 2004 like it was supposed to and we re-gained the right to carry in national parks. Maybe it's creeping the other way.

Last edited by thallub; July 11, 2011 at 09:12 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 03:53 AM   #60
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
KyJim, if all it took was a treaty, then why hasn't CIFTA been ratified? It's already signed.

Thallub is correct, IMO.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 08:35 AM   #61
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,103
Until someone tells us WHAT they plan to do, this is pointless circle talk. You guys can chase your own tails if you want to, I'm pretty sure that's protected in the constitution . Personally I'm not going to fire until I have a target (see gun talk ) .
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:05 AM   #62
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Last time I checked fully automatic FN-FAL's, H&K G-3's, AK-47's were not for sale in your typical gunshop. If they are I have been going to the wrong gun shop all these years. I would easily believe that MANY of the weapons Mexican criminals use are stolen or otherwise obtained from Mexican LEO or Military personel and may have been sold or given to Mexico by our government.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:40 AM   #63
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
The US guns to Mexico thing is a myth perpetuated in an effort to force congress to pass another "assault weapons" ban.

Why would a drug lord would have high priced semi-auto AK and AR rifles smuggled into Mexico at a very high prices when he can buy a shipping container full of rock and roll AK 47s on the international arms market for $250 apiece?

When the BATFE and/or the media shows a cache weapons confiscated in Mexico; there are AKMs, RPG launchers, grenades and M16 rifles with grenade launchers. This stuff was not smuggled across the US/Mexican border.
thallub is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:46 AM   #64
rdf.hack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2011
Posts: 173
I think people are being a bit paranoid. I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to politics, except when it directly concerns me.

Concerning this, I'll be gone from this hole in a few years so I imagine there will not be any BS passed that will directly affect me in that timespan.
rdf.hack is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 12:34 PM   #65
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to politics, except when it directly concerns me.
Sooner or later, it will. If not you, your children or grandchildren.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 01:25 PM   #66
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
San Francisco Gate has a story today on one of the apparent first steps the Administration is taking with gun control. They have declared that semi-automatic rifles sold by FFLs in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico will be subject to the same multiple sales requirements as handguns.
The wife and I have talked about possibly travelling to Texas within the next year. If we do, I'll be sure to bring the cash for a couple semi-automatic rifles to add to the paperwork burden on the ATF.
ATW525 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 01:40 PM   #67
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
ATW525, you may very well find you get an unexpected knock at the door from your good friends at BATF. Wouldn't surprise me to see them punitively investigating legitimate buyers.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 01:42 PM   #68
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carry 24/7
Yes, for some the Assault Weapons Ban was a step backwards, yet "personally" I don't consider it an issue, while I know others do. I have no "assault" rifles, no ARs, no AK-47s, no Tec-9s, no magazines that hang 6" below my pistols, etc, and nor do I want or need them. I do not crave automatic weapons or suppressors.
If you consider this issue to be a legal one, and your vision of law is a coherent rule applied to all (rather than a maze of regulation that invests the state with a power to grant waivers and variances), you can't avoid the conclusion that an infringement of the scope of your neighbor's rights also serves to undermine your own rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carry 24/7
Guys, Relax...
If a civil rights model for setting forth the boundaries of the 2d Am makes sense to you, "relax"ing isn't warranted; there is still quite a bit going on that should rule out complacency.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 01:49 PM   #69
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
ATW525, you may very well find you get an unexpected knock at the door from your good friends at BATF. Wouldn't surprise me to see them punitively investigating legitimate buyers.
So, I'll get two new semi-automatic rifles and the opportunity to waste the ATF's time. It'll probably rank up there among the best money I've ever spent.
ATW525 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 02:34 PM   #70
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
When does this start? I'll be flying down to Texas in a couple of weeks and driving back; I wonder if Carter's Country sells SKS's... (aren't they one of the dealers who ended up briefly in the hot-seat for cooperating with the ATF?)
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 02:58 PM   #71
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
I wonder if Carter's Country sells SKS's... (aren't they one of the dealers who ended up briefly in the hot-seat for cooperating with the ATF?)
Yes, they were one of the dealers named in the Washington Post hitlist piece. They were also charged by the local prosecutor; but the charges were dropped after their lawyer went to the press to explain his clients were cooperating with the ATF.

Don't know if they sell SKS rifles; but apparently they are OK with semi-auto detachable mag rifles, so they might.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 04:23 PM   #72
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
ATW525, you may very well find you get an unexpected knock at the door from your good friends at BATFE
Actually, that's very unlikely. They don't have the manpower to follow up on many multiple handgun sale reports. Add rifles to the mix, and the backlog will be even worse.

For the most part, they review the reports and look at patterns. One guy buying a couple of SKS rifles (or decent handguns) won't set off a warning bell. One guy buying ten sub-$200 pistols will.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 04:25 PM   #73
jhansman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2007
Posts: 624
Quote:
It's the creeping incremental approach that is worrisome.
Agreed, but that "approach" is not coming from the feds; it's right in your municipality/county/state. Local restriction is, right now, a greater threat than anything Obama can or may want do. Trust me, the antis want you to keep your eye on the White House; then you may not notice what's happening right under your nose. Example? I live in a state that now has several counties to which you cannot legally ship ammo. Not a huge jump to handguns, and then firearms in general.

The UN? Puuuuuleeze.
__________________
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say, and cannot be compelled to say it.
jhansman is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 04:37 PM   #74
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
They don't have the manpower to follow up on many multiple handgun sale reports. Add rifles to the mix, and the backlog will be even worse.
Hmm; but is that a bug or a feature? Apparently ATF plans to keep the multiple sales forms for two years from the date of sale, and then assuming there is no investigation or other reason, they will destroy them.

I notice this lets them keep sales information on legitimate purchases about 1 year and 364 days beyond the period they can keep information on other legitimate sales and that the restriction on other purchases through NICS was enacted by Congress. Seems like thin ice to me..

Here is the statute the ATF is citing for authority of the Multiple Sales reporting requirement for rifles:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 USC 923 (g)(5)
(5)(A) Each licensee shall, when required by letter issued by the Attorney General, and until notified to the contrary in writing by
the Attorney General, submit on a form specified by the Attorney
General, for periods and at the times specified in such letter, all
record information required to be kept by this chapter or such
lesser record information
as the Attorney General in such letter
may specify.

(B) The Attorney General may authorize such record information to
be submitted in a manner other than that prescribed in subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph when it is shown by a licensee that an
alternate method of reporting is reasonably necessary and will not
unduly hinder the effective administration of this chapter. A
licensee may use an alternate method of reporting if the licensee
describes the proposed alternate method of reporting and the need
therefor in a letter application submitted to the Attorney General,
and the Attorney General approves such alternate method of
reporting.
In addition to the bolded areas above, I think the Attorney General is going to have trouble justifying the regulation in light of 18 USC 923(g)(1)(A) which states:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 USC 923(g)(1)(A)
(g)(1)(A) Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation,
production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of
firearms at his place of business for such period, and in such
form, as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe. Such
importers, manufacturers, and dealers shall not be required to
submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect
to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly
required by this section.
Notably, the section doesn't require the reporting of multiple sales of any long gun. I don't think the ATF has any legal authority to issue this regulation and I think it may even violate several existing Congressional laws on the retention of NICS data. I'll have to look at those statutes more.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:34 PM   #75
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Actually, that's very unlikely. They don't have the manpower to follow up on many multiple handgun sale reports. Add rifles to the mix, and the backlog will be even worse.

For the most part, they review the reports and look at patterns. One guy buying a couple of SKS rifles (or decent handguns) won't set off a warning bell. One guy buying ten sub-$200 pistols will.
That may be true for most sales. However, the buyer who initiated this aspect of the discussion will be visiting Texas to make his purchase. I would be flabbergasted if an out of state buyer buying multiple "powerful" longarms was not flagged and, at a minimum, the transaction(s) reviewed with a fine tooth comb.
csmsss is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14682 seconds with 7 queries