The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 12, 2011, 07:40 PM   #76
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,253
Quote:
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.
As far as I know, the multiple sale reports aren't subject to the Tiahrt timetable. As I mentioned, a copy also gets sent to local law enforcement, and I've never found a statute dictating a period after which they're to be destroyed on that level, either.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:51 PM   #77
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,667
Apparently the regulation doesn't require them to report the multiple rifle sales to local law enforcement. Not sure how the timeline works when there isn't any underlying authorization for the actual regulation to begin with.

ETA: For those interested in the UN Small Arms Treaty, the negotiations on the draft treaty to be presented in 2012 are going on this week and NRA News is covering the negotiations. The NRA News pieces are available as podcasts through iTunes and are also on Sirius/XM radio during the NRA's Cam and Company show every day.

Short version: It appears Mexico and several of the Caribbean countries are insisting that civilian firearms must be tracked from manufacture to destruction as part of this treaty. However, this appears to be a minority position at the UN currently.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; July 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 10:53 AM   #78
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,253
Quote:
Not sure how the timeline works when there isn't any underlying authorization for the actual regulation to begin with.
Sorry, I was referring to the multiple handgun sale forms. AFAIK, there's no timeline for those.

There is a bill that would bar the use of any Federal funds to collect records of multiple long gun sales, but it's currently languishing in committee. My Senator's already signed on, but this one's worth a phone call or letter.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 02:29 PM   #79
TexasFats
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 130
Aside from treaties and executive orders, we also need to watch about environmental regulations. It might be easier for the antis to use that vehicle to eliminate ammunition, especially if they declare bullets like the all-copper Barnes bullets to be "armor piercing". Also, lead-free primers are pretty limited in their shelf-life, unlike priming mixtures that use lead compounds. Of course, we could go back to the old corrosive mixtures, but anti-lead regulations could play the devil with both the cost and availability of primers.

No ammo, and our guns are just funny clubs. So, we need to also watch these back-door attacks using environmental regulations.
__________________
Gun laws are designed to extend and solidify the power of an elite over a peasantry.

Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march.
TexasFats is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 07:11 PM   #80
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,551
Quote:
KyJim, if all it took was a treaty, then why hasn't CIFTA been ratified? It's already signed.

Thallub is correct, IMO.
Obviously, it would have to be ratified before taking effect. I'm not saying it's going to happen. We have to keep on top of such things so that it doesn't happen. The antis have launched a broad, but subtle approach. They tried an EPA reg. They've championed two treaties which include provisions for arms control. They have successfully, for the time being, increased tracking of multiple long arm purchases in some states.

Arguably, a great deal of these actions would not violate the 2A as it stands today. Yet, when a bunch of restrictions are added together, it can cause a significant crimp in the ability to own and shoot firearms.
__________________
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 13, 2011, 09:51 PM   #81
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,253
Compare and contrast these two emails I received tonight.

From the Brady Campaign:

Quote:
Victory! President Obama listened to us and not the NRA!

Late Monday evening, the Obama Administration announced that it would require gun dealers in states bordering Mexico to report to law enforcement multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles. We applaud this move by the President which gives federal law enforcement an important new tool to fight gun trafficking into Mexico.

Thank you to everyone who helped the Brady Campaign push this issue with the Obama Administration.
And this from the NRA:

Quote:
House Committee Passes Amendment to Defund Illegal Obama Firearm Sales Reporting Requirement

Today, during consideration of the FY 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, pro-gun U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for a new and unauthorized multiple sales reporting plan proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Amendment was passed by a vote of 25-16.

The Rehberg Amendment, which was strongly supported by NRA, will defund the Justice Department’s controversial and illegal move requiring federally licensed firearms retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.
The best part? The Brady Campaign's premature victory dance came after the NRA's announcement.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 10:09 PM   #82
Major Beef
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2008
Posts: 139
On a related note, here is another attempt by the government to promote gun control:

Here is an internal ATF email regarding "Operation Fast and Furious," an ATF operation in which agents forced gun dealers to sell firearms to known straw buyers, who then transported mass quantities of firearms into Mexico for use by the drug cartels:
From: Chait, Mark R.
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:25 AM
To: Newell, William D.
Cc: McMahon, William G.
Subject: Re: SIR

Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from same FfL and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks Mark R. Chait Assistant Director Field Operations
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...te_gun_control
__________________
Hi, I'm Major Beef with CDNN.

Last edited by Major Beef; July 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM.
Major Beef is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 11:26 PM   #83
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
Major Beef, it would help immensely if you would link your source.

For those wondering, http://guncounter.bob-owens.com/2011...s-smoking-gun/ - Bob Owens blog.

While you're at it, check out Only Guns And Money.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 11:47 PM   #84
Major Beef
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2008
Posts: 139
Was afraid to link to a political site, and didn't know how to best provide citation, so just left it for people to do their own search. But I fixed it.
__________________
Hi, I'm Major Beef with CDNN.
Major Beef is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 06:57 AM   #85
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,667
And as I pointed out in another thread, the announcement of this new regulation came exactly two days after the Washington Post published the names of gun dealers with traces to Mexico sales - information that could only have been obtained from ATF and that was illegal to give to the WaPo.

Not suprisingly, the top 2 dealers on that list were cooperating with Fast and Furious. At the same time ATF was ordering them to complete straw sales in violation of the law, it was also violating the law itself to set the FFLs up as the bad guys in the WaPo story.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 09:05 AM   #86
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,161
Nothing like attempting to deflect the blame to the non-government participants in the illegal program.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 09:41 AM   #87
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
I knew that this thread would touch upon the actions of the "Gunwalker" scandal. But let's not make this the whole theme. It will be closed as a duplicate thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim View Post
Obviously, it would have to be ratified before taking effect.
The democrats had a majority in both houses, when this was signed. So one should be asking why it wasn't ratified? As far as I can tell, what was lacking was the political will to ratify it (CIFTA), and go against the beliefs of the majority of the American public.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 11:32 AM   #88
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Al, treaty ratification requires approval by 2/'3 of the Senate. The House is not involved in treaty ratification. There were not 66/67 votes in the Senate for this treaty. It's puzzling that the WH thinks there will be in 2012.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 04:31 PM   #89
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
Of course you're correct, csmss. But only insofar as you don't count the RINO's. There were/are some few republicans that would have voted for it... 6 would've done it, I think.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 15, 2011, 06:13 AM   #90
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Deleted due to Gunwalker proximity.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; July 15, 2011 at 06:20 AM.
alloy is offline  
Old July 18, 2011, 09:42 AM   #91
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Does anyone have any new information on this? Or is this strictly going to be a border states issue or is it still unknown in scope?
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 18, 2011, 10:56 AM   #92
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,667
No new news. The House is voting on a bill to defund this provision. The Senate has a companion bill; but even if it makes it through the Senate, I would expect a veto.

The NRA has indicated it will sue as soon as the first demand letter from ATF is sent. So far, there has been no suit which seems to suggest no demand letter from ATF.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 18, 2011, 11:09 AM   #93
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Thanks my patriotic friend!
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 19, 2011, 12:32 AM   #94
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
How about we sign a treaty with Mexico that prevents the BATFE & DOJ from dealing in arms and serving as an informed conspiritor to dealing in arms.

That's a treaty I could stand behind....
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old August 2, 2011, 04:54 PM   #95
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
The last two posts of this thread (no, you can't see them here) were moved to a new thread, here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 2, 2011, 05:08 PM   #96
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Some RINO Republicans may have voted for it. The Dem theme for 2006 for Congress was to elect conservative Democrats that were almost as conservative or more conservative to gain control of Congress. It worked for a while but eventually tripped the Dems up. In 2012 I think two thirds of the Senate comes up for election. If they are foolish enough to ratify this treaty Gun Rights organizations might make for another 1994. Harry Reid is a pretty smart fellow. I am thinking that is a battle he does not want right now nor in 2012 with that big a portion of the Senate up for election and some in conservative areas.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old August 5, 2011, 02:20 PM   #97
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
57 Senators sign letter saying they won't vote to ratify UN Treaty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWOwr...layer_embedded

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index...1-79f4e5b258bc
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac 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 02:44 AM.


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 0.14186 seconds with 7 queries