|
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 |
February 6, 2017, 08:27 PM | #1 |
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/ |
February 6, 2017, 09:21 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
AeroPrecision is reporting this too
|
February 7, 2017, 05:40 AM | #3 |
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. |
February 7, 2017, 06:30 AM | #4 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|||
February 7, 2017, 08:09 AM | #5 |
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. |
February 7, 2017, 08:37 AM | #6 |
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? |
February 7, 2017, 09:17 AM | #7 |
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.
|
February 7, 2017, 09:48 AM | #8 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|||
February 7, 2017, 10:38 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
|
February 7, 2017, 03:55 PM | #10 |
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. |
February 7, 2017, 06:57 PM | #11 |
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. |
February 9, 2017, 07:58 AM | #12 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Because before 2020 would be the time to have Congress act on that. |
||
February 9, 2017, 08:11 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9, 2017, 05:39 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|