The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 6, 2017, 08:27 PM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Leaked ATF White Paper on Pro-Gun Regulatory Options

Truth About Guns is reporting that a leaked ATF internal document shows 14 possible regulatory changes ATF is considering. Everything from reviving "kitchen table FFLs" to allow online purchases shipped to your door to removing 7N6 and other ammunition from the "armor-piercing" category:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...pro-gun-moves/
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 6, 2017, 09:21 PM   #2
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
AeroPrecision is reporting this too
rickyrick is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 05:40 AM   #3
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,113
Huh. I don't know what to think.

Part of me wonders if it's a hoax and we are all being trolled. Thing is, the content seems factual and mostly on target, so the point might be to provoke discussion on those points in hopes of getting the ball rolling.

If it's actually a leak, I still don't know what to think.

This represents a rather abrupt change of face from the Fast and Furious ATF of the previous administration.

I wonder if it's an attempt to get ahead of the curve and avoid defunding or worse from the current administration. The paper being dated January 20th may be of some significance.

Or, it's been supposed that it was deliberately leaked by Ronald Turk himself. Consider point #15.

Hmm.

Last edited by kozak6; February 7, 2017 at 05:58 AM.
kozak6 is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 06:30 AM   #4
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozak6
Part of me wonders if it's a hoax and we are all being trolled. Thing is, the content seems factual and mostly on target, so the point might be to provoke discussion on those points in hopes of getting the ball rolling.
I suspected the same due to the abundant grammatical idiosyncrasies in the document, such as the awkward and seemingly tongue-in-cheek reference to the ATF as "...overwhelmingly a fantastic group of hard working civil servants," and the non-sequitur section title "Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study": how does one reissue something that is new?

However, the WaPo has picked up the story, which strongly suggests that the white paper is legit but simply had a lousy writer. (FWIW the document has several abrupt transitions in writing style, suggesting that it was heavily cut-and-pasted.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozak6
I wonder if it's an attempt to get ahead of the curve and avoid defunding or worse from the current administration. The paper being dated January 20th may be of some significance.
The choice of the POTUS' inauguration date does seem symbolic, and this administration does tend to gauge proposals by kicking the ball and seeing who goes chasing after it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozak6
...it's been supposed that it was deliberately leaked by Ronald Turk himself. Consider point #15.
It's telling that this is the only section heading that is underlined.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 08:09 AM   #5
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Having looked at the paper more closely, I have a few concerns if it is genuine (ETA: Just noticed the WaPo link has an ATF spokesman confirming its authenticity but saying it just represents the opinion of a single ATF staffer - albeit the second highest ranking person at ATF).

1) The paper basically says that the ATF will put forth the same definition of armor-piercing that they suggested during the Obama administration, they'll just continue to grant an exemption for M855. I would argue the ATF's interpretation of the word "core" is wrong. Allowing the flawed definition to go forward will just make it harder to get rid of when a later administration reinterprets it to something we hate.

2) Kitchen table FFLs sound great until the next administration shuts them all down a la Clinton and gathers up their paperwork. Allowing direct sales to qualifying CHLs would be a better approach here.

3) Defining "sporting purposes" needs to be done by Congress, not ATF. Otherwise it will just be undone as soon as this President leaves office. If the current President's dismantling of the last President's executive agenda isn't a clear warning on that, I don't know what is.

I see some suggestions in that white paper that are ultimately going to cause problems for us. It is like a baited hook. During this administration, we get to enjoy the tasty bait. During the next leftist administration, we get the hook.

Definitely some interesting ideas; but certainly some refinement needed.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; February 7, 2017 at 09:02 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 08:37 AM   #6
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
From the article:

"9. Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows. Right now gun stores can only sell guns to residents of their own state from locations within that state’s borders. ...."

This isn't quite accurate. The in-state restriction only pertains to handguns. I've bought a couple rifles from gun shows in PA and a dealer in PA.

"....If they want to visit a gun show across state lines they can only take orders and ship to a local FFL, not directly sell. The ATF wants to make it so that FFLs can travel from state to state and sell guns as they see fit."

This part may be true, but what's the difference where long guns are concerned?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 09:17 AM   #7
jcj54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2011
Posts: 210
ATF

My main concern with ATF is that they write their own regulations to enforce the laws passed by Congress. This is unfortunately common in our government, for example the EPA.
jcj54 is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 09:48 AM   #8
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
The paper basically says that the ATF will put forth the same definition of armor-piercing that they suggested during the Obama administration, they'll just continue to grant an exemption for M855. I would argue the ATF's interpretation of the word "core" is wrong. Allowing the flawed definition to go forward will just make it harder to get rid of when a later administration reinterprets it to something we hate.
I have the same concern, and IMHO it's important to point out that the underlying problem isn't just the attempted Obama reinterpretation; it was that the original M855 exemption was based on specious reasoning, but since it was an exemption, gun-rights advocates just declared "WIN!" and went on with their business. The ATF needs to rewind the clock and undo the ENTIRE chain of flawed interpretations leading to the present situation. This will make it harder for a future, more hostile ATF to revisit the exemption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndsojourn
"9. Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows. Right now gun stores can only sell guns to residents of their own state from locations within that state’s borders. ...."

This isn't quite accurate. The in-state restriction only pertains to handguns. I've bought a couple rifles from gun shows in PA and a dealer in PA... what's the difference where long guns are concerned?
You misunderstand. The in-state restriction the memo discusses applies to the DEALER, not the buyer.

IOW a PA dealer may lawfully set up a booth at a PA gun show and sell a long gun to a NJ resident such as you, but he or she may NOT lawfully set up a booth at a NJ gun show and do the same thing, unless he or she obtains a separate license with a NJ premises address.

From 27 CFR § 478.100, my emphasis in boldface:
Quote:
(a)(1) A licensee may conduct business temporarily at a gun show or event as defined in paragraph (b) if the gun show or event is located in the same State specified on the license: Provided, That such business shall not be conducted from any motorized or towed vehicle. The premises of the gun show or event at which the licensee conducts business shall be considered part of the licensed premises. Accordingly, no separate fee or license is required for the gun show or event locations. However, licensees shall comply with the provisions of § 478.91 relating to posting of licenses (or a copy thereof) while conducting business at the gun show or event.

(2) A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may engage in the business of dealing in curio or relic firearms with another licensee at any location.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 10:38 AM   #9
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
Quote:
I have the same concern, and IMHO it's important to point out that the underlying problem isn't just the attempted Obama reinterpretation; it was that the original M855 exemption was based on specious reasoning, but since it was an exemption, gun-rights advocates just declared "WIN!" and went on with their business.
Exactly.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 03:55 PM   #10
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
From carguy:
"You misunderstand. The in-state restriction the memo discusses applies to the DEALER, not the buyer.

IOW a PA dealer may lawfully set up a booth at a PA gun show and sell a long gun to a NJ resident such as you, but he or she may NOT lawfully set up a booth at a NJ gun show and do the same thing, unless he or she obtains a separate license with a NJ premises address."


Thanks for the clarification.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 7, 2017, 06:57 PM   #11
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
Looks to me as if the No. 2 man at BATFE is jockeying for a No. 1 box on the Org Chart.

Just bringing the bread to the butter, as it were.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old February 9, 2017, 07:58 AM   #12
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armorer at Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
I have the same concern, and IMHO it's important to point out that the underlying problem isn't just the attempted Obama reinterpretation; it was that the original M855 exemption was based on specious reasoning, but since it was an exemption, gun-rights advocates just declared "WIN!" and went on with their business.
Exactly.
Which is exactly why we need to use the unique opportunity we have now to pass legislation instead of just quitting because ATF threw us a bone (for now.) Anything given by regulation can be taken away by regulation, and in some of those examples, we are setting ourselves up for future failure by not asking ATF "Exactly what authority do you have to even regulate this to begin with?"

Because before 2020 would be the time to have Congress act on that.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 9, 2017, 08:11 AM   #13
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcj54
My main concern with ATF is that they write their own regulations to enforce the laws passed by Congress. This is unfortunately common in our government, for example the EPA.
Bureaucracies have pretty much run this country for quite a while. Technically Congress can override an agency but it rarely happens especially when their regulations are usually favored by at least one of the political parties.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old February 9, 2017, 05:39 PM   #14
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcj54
My main concern with ATF is that they write their own regulations to enforce the laws passed by Congress. This is unfortunately common in our government, for example the EPA.
It's true for all federal agencies. For another example, the ADA is a federal law, but that ADA "stuff" theat everyone has to live by is contained in the accompanying regulations. The regs were updated in 2010, but the ADA itself wasn't.
Aguila Blanca 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 02:38 AM.


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 0.06228 seconds with 8 queries