|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 3, 2009, 10:00 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 1,091
|
ATF outlawing "unadjacent state" rifle transfers?
This is second hand, but I was just told by a gunsmith friend that he had purchased a Remington 700 action in-state (Kansas) recently and gone to pick it up but the seller (FFL) denied a personal transfer because my friend had a Texas DL (college student). According to that FFL, the ATF had visited him recently and told him that non-adjacent state rifle transfers were no longer valid. They arranged to have it shipped FFL to FFL in Texas.
My gunsmith friend then called Cabelas to ask if it was true and was told that Cabelas in Kansas had also been visited recently by an ATF agent who had gone through their records and started to pick out the non-adjacent state rifle sales as "illegal". When challenged with the regulations, that ATF agent supposedly admitted that they knew the regulations currently permitted it, but "they're working on changing the regs." So, I know this is a bit hearsay, but anybody else out there, particularly FFL's with first hand knowledge, heard the same? Is this a response to Montana's actions or just the usual bureaucratic power-grabbing? |
November 3, 2009, 10:22 AM | #2 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
|
It is an abuse of power. An action is either prohibited by statute/regulation or not. The action of an FFL selling a rifle/shotgun to an out of state resident is specifically allowed for by United States Code and has not changed.
18 USC 922(b)(3): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...2----000-.html Quote:
|
|
November 3, 2009, 10:49 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 1,091
|
NavyLT; yeah, you know and I know that it's an abuse of current power, but I'm looking for some other confirmation that it's a widespread occurrence before I get "up in arms" about it. Please note the statement that the ATF agent supposedly acknowledge to Cabelas that it was not yet illegal but "they're working on it."
|
November 3, 2009, 11:17 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
|
Quote:
|
|
November 3, 2009, 11:19 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Bud Helms...
... it wasn't a link, it was part of the body of berettaprofessor's OP:
Quote:
|
|
November 3, 2009, 11:23 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
|
You know, I am developing a bad habit lately of not reading closely. Thank you, MLeake.
I automatically looked for a link that wasn't there. |
November 3, 2009, 11:43 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Bud Helms...
... I find that I am more likely to do that later at night. Weird work hours, lately, culminating in a checkride at 2am last week... Circadian rhythm is shot.
Apologies in advance for any missed details or slightly alien responses. |
November 3, 2009, 04:57 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
It is always "they".
I think most people in the gun culture believe laws are just announced by some fat clerk that wakes up after a nap. Quote:
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
|
November 3, 2009, 05:08 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
|
Some 'agent' trying to enforce what he (or the pres) thinks the law should be.
Jack booted thug. |
November 3, 2009, 10:08 PM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
|
Quote:
1. Your friend, a GUNSMITH does not hold an FFL? http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#i1 Quote:
2. Just once I would like to see a copy of the letter that Cabela's lawyer or the FFL's lawyer sent ATF and ATF's response. I find it hard to believe that Cabela's or any FFL would just go along with the IO investigator and his erroneous opinion. If an ATF Industry Operations Investigator accuses me of violating a nonexistent Federal law you can bet your butt I would be on the phone to his supervisor immediately. .
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
||
November 3, 2009, 11:12 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 2,017
|
Quote:
__________________
"Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians. |
|
November 4, 2009, 12:51 AM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
OK. There is no such restriction. There is no such restriction forthcoming. I speak to folks from the BATFE, in person, from time to time. I can assure you, there's no such thing in the works. Truth be told, the whole agency is understaffed and over-extended. There are no "jack booted thugs" bugging our phones and modems. Now, there might be some restrictions on individual state levels. For example, many retailers have simply stopped shipping guns to California due to their regulations, and I've heard "ATF" as a reason, though the Federal government has nothing to do with it. A gunsmith is not an arbiter of the law. Neither is the guy at Cabela's.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 4, 2009, 11:52 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Here is a link to the same story, this link has a copy of the letter from ATF to Montana's gun dealers.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-R...our-authoritah
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
November 5, 2009, 12:30 AM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Now that's a different issue. Under the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, it is now legal, under certain conditions, on the state level, to manufacture firearms without licensing from the federal government.
As long as a firearm manufactured in Montana stays in Montana, it is legal under state law. The BATFE disagrees, claiming that federal law trumps Montana's statute. The courts will likely be hearing this issue soon. The original poster was talking about a federally-licensed Remington 700, which is transferable to and from most states. The coming clash between Montana and the BATFE is unlikely to affect other states. For now.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 5, 2009, 06:26 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
One thing that is being overlooked here, and what I see as a problem for Montana, is that firearms are subject to a Federal excise tax.
This was the original justification for ATF having jurisdiction over firearms in addition to booze and smokes, both of which also have Federal excise taxes, and why ATF was, for many years, under the Treasury Dep't. I think Montana's law might get shot down on that basis: Taxation. Now, having said that, I'm not sure about the status of, for example, a product made in a neighborhood microbrewery that is strictly produced for local consumption. Is it subject to Federal excise tax? If you grow tobacco and roll and sell your own brand of cigs for local consumption, are they subject to Federal excise tax? It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, at any rate. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|