The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 3, 2009, 10:00 AM   #1
berettaprofessor
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 According to that FFL, the ATF had visited him recently and told him that non-adjacent state rifle transfers were no longer valid.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?
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 10:22 AM   #2
NavyLT
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:
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Contiguous states wording in the Federal statute was removed in 1986.
NavyLT is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 10:49 AM   #3
berettaprofessor
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."
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 11:17 AM   #4
Bud Helms
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
Quote:
Please note the statement that the ATF agent supposedly acknowledge to Cabelas that it was not yet illegal but "they're working on it."
berettaprofessor, you must have forgotten to stick a link in there.
Bud Helms is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 11:19 AM   #5
MLeake
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:
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."
MLeake is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 11:23 AM   #6
Bud Helms
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.
Bud Helms is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 11:43 AM   #7
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 04:57 PM   #8
KSFreeman
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:
So, I know this is a bit hearsay
bp, don't believe anything that you hear in a gun shoppe. It is all rubbish, not hearsay.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).
KSFreeman is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 05:08 PM   #9
langenc
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.
langenc is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 10:08 PM   #10
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
berettaprofessor: 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)...
I know it was second hand info, but..........

1. Your friend, a GUNSMITH does not hold an FFL?
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#i1
Quote:
(I1) Is a license needed to engage in the business of engraving, customizing, refinishing or repairing firearms? [Back]

Yes. A person conducting such activities as a business is considered to be a gunsmith within the definition of a dealer. See Item 16, “Federal Excise Tax” in the General Information section of this publication.

[27 CFR 478.11]

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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old November 3, 2009, 11:12 PM   #11
Rangefinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
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.
Well, that would be you, me, or any number of individuals who we would find here with any regularity. On the other hand, I've been in my share of Cabellas, Sportsman Warehouse, Big-5, etc. where the clerk behind the gun counter couldn't tell a muzzel from a hole in the ground and the dept. "manager" couldn't find his own back-side with both hands and a good map. So it really wouldn't surprise me much to find them getting all twitchy and compliant-without-question with one flash of a "fed" badge. Sometimes they're really knowledgable folks--mostly they're just there for the paycheck.
__________________
"Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?"

Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Rangefinder is offline  
Old November 4, 2009, 12:51 AM   #12
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Apologies in advance for any missed details or slightly alien responses.
Pork waffles!

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
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 4, 2009, 11:52 PM   #13
kraigwy
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
kraigwy is offline  
Old November 5, 2009, 12:30 AM   #14
Tom Servo
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
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 5, 2009, 06:26 AM   #15
gyvel
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.
gyvel is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07970 seconds with 8 queries