New Federal gun rule proposed

Pasifikawv

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
521
Reaction score
100
Location
WV
The Feds are proposing a new rule that will require all FFL dealers in the southwest US to report to the ATF any sale of two or more semi-auto rifles with a caliber greater than 22LR and a detachable magazine.

The stated purpose is to discover/discourage straw buyers who may be helping obtain firearms destined for the drug cartels.

The ATF is attempting to skirt the regular process of making new firearm rules by having the Justice Dept. issue an emergency order - perhaps as soon as Jan 1.

While this brings up many concerns, two issues here are particularly very concerning:

Skirting the rule-making process with emergency/executive decree;

Basing said emergency order on faulty data in regards to where/how cartels (who prefer fully automatic rifles) obtain most of their firepower.
 
Register to hide this ad
Just saw this on Fox

Wash Post claims 60,000 seized weapons came from Tx, Az and Ca in that order. Allegedly straw purchases. Bulk long gun purchases not reported to ATF, only handguns.

We report you decide.
 
Personally I do not care where Mexico gets their guns. That is an entirely different lifestyle. I do not care what happens in Isreal, Canada or Japan.

I do care about what happens in the US because I live and work here. If I buy two guns a day or two guns an hour is no business of anyone except my family, myself and my local gun store.

If those with the money in Mexico wants guns, they can buy boat loads with the money they have and get them direct from the country of manufacture without having a middleman.
 
I have no idea how many of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the U.S. There are simply no reliable and unbiased sources of info on the issue.

Maybe if Mexico is concerned about guns coming across the border, Mexico should tighten up its border, since we can't seem to do it. Of course then they might have to let us try harder to keep the drugs and illegals out of our side.

Nah, let's just pass some more laws about reporting gun sales, that'll stop those drug cartels for sure.
 
If I remember correctly, Mexico has had laws that prohibit just about everyone (other than LEO's, military, some security personnel, etc) from possessing firearms for at least the past 50 years or so.

Gun control laws sure work well, don't they?

I love watching the talking heads on TV showing pictures of machineguns, rocket launchers, and hand grenades with reports about how these are purchased at US gun stores. Those "reality" shows are a hoot!

With guys like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and the Elvis impersonator running North Korea, I doubt that the Mexican drug cartels have much difficulty getting anything they want without sending their people to gun shops in Arizona or Texas. Even without foreign sources, the Mexican military and cops aren't known to be above making a few bucks on the side from the cartels, including sales of weapons.

Texas cops have been faced down by Mexican army units in armored personnel carriers with machineguns mounted, escorting cartel drug shipments across the border. This has happened several times in recent years. I suppose they bought the APC's and M2 Brownings at Joe's Army Surplus store in Los Angeles?

Pass another law, everybody will feel good because we're doing something about drug cartel violence. Issuing an "emergency order" should give the politicos a real good warm feeling. And they never seem to forget to blame America first! Never mind the rampant corruption, graft, and bribery that controls everything south of the border.

Rant over.
 
Well to me this means its time to go buy more guns. i live in california and i went to big 5 they have hand gernades 10 for 5 bucks and a buy one street sweeper get one free. Im so sick of these regulations, 10 day waiting periods, assualt rifle regulations, and soon this ammo fingerprinting. Soon these politicians will cross the line and we will have to take back OUR COUNTRY.
 
Info everybody needs. Take action!

I copy this WITH PERMISSION from it's author. As you will see below there is a lot of work in figuring out who to contact in this matter. It's very hard and time intensive to get to the correct individuals and .gov sites to voice your opinion. This is by design. But here is the info. Spread the word, we just might can make a difference. Sorry for the length but that's just the nature of our government these days....



FWIW, The BATFE and U.S. government are required to open this request in the Federal Register for public comment. Even the notice itself states:

This notice requests comments from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection.

However, they specifically do not want public comments and make every effort to discourage public comments in several ways. The Federal Register search engine is effectively useless. Trying to search for this specific notice using keywords, BATFE or the notice date will send you on a fruitless search designed to discourage your efforts. The notice posted on the BATFE website conveniently omits the page number, which is the only effective way to find the notice in the Federal Register. The page number for this notice is 79021 by the way. Additionally, unlike many notices they know will garner significant public interest, they have omitted the option to comment on this particular notice online. They have also omitted the physical OMB address for public comment, and instead posted a toll number (202)395-6466. Finally, in their instructions for comments, they advise you to address your comments specifically to four narrow subjects regarding the notice:

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your
comments should address one or more of the following four points:

--Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;

--Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;

--Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and

--Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.

For your convenience, I have attached the web addresses for the Federal Register, .pdf file of the actual notice, html file of the notice, and the press release by the BATFE regarding the notice. More importantly, I am attaching the email address of the official point of contact for this notice within BATFE. This person is responsible internally for collecting comments and suggestions for the "regular review" of the information collection request. If you, like me, find it disturbing that BATFE and OMB have by all outward appearances intentionally made it difficult to respond to this notice, I would also recommend that you contact your congressman's office to lodge a complaint. I would point out that if you wish to officially comment, it is highly recommended that you refrain from inflammatory comments. Keeping your comments fact based and to the point will make them much more effective. Feel free to post this information anywhere else you care to.

Federal Register: Main Page
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=wHqpgT/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve
http://www.atf.gov/p...on-webcast.html

And last but not least: [email protected]

While significant resistance by the NRA and GOA can affect this proposal, significant public comments in the NPRM can often defeat proposals such as these. It all counts in the final tally.
 
Last edited:
It is also very important to note that, if you actually read the document, it applies to ALL DEALERS in the country. There is no mention of it only applying in a certain region.

Combined with the attempt to short circuit the normal comment period, this is a dangerous move, and everyone has to holler at their legislators about this, not just those in the SW.
 
Last edited:
It is also very important to note that, if you actually read the document, it applies to ALL DEALERS in the country. There is no mention of it only applying in a certain region.

Combined with the attempt to short circuit the normal comment period, this is a dangerous move, and everyone has to holler at their legislators about this, not just those in the SW.

Very good point...
 
Maybe I am missing something here.

To my knowledge, the powers that are have required more paperwork on multiple gun purchases for many years. If I buy one gun from one store and get approved before going to another store where I purchase another gun, then I am going to be delayed.

This includes rifles and handguns.

If I buy more than one gun at one store, there is some type of multiple gun purchase paperwork that has to be completed.

It has happened to me several times and I am about to buy about four guns during a short time frame and have already been informed by my dealer that the Feds will have a cow about it.

So why get upset about it now? It has been this way but not too many people buy multiple guns so it has not bothered us.
 
Maybe I am missing something here.

To my knowledge, the powers that are have required more paperwork on multiple gun purchases for many years. If I buy one gun from one store and get approved before going to another store where I purchase another gun, then I am going to be delayed.

This includes rifles and handguns.

If I buy more than one gun at one store, there is some type of multiple gun purchase paperwork that has to be completed.

It has happened to me several times and I am about to buy about four guns during a short time frame and have already been informed by my dealer that the Feds will have a cow about it.

So why get upset about it now? It has been this way but not too many people buy multiple guns so it has not bothered us.


As far as Federal rules, you are wrong. If an FFL holder sells or disposes of more than one handgun to any non-licensee during a period of 5 consecutive business days, the sale must be reported on ATF Form 3310.4, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers. As a buyer, you may freely buy one handgun from every dealer in town without triggering the multiple sale reporting. Also, it is handguns only. If this would cause the Feds to have a cow, they would have given birth to it in my front yard. I would have been required to report this on USDA Form 2106.2, Report of Federally Sired and Gestated Livestock at a Private Residence.

This is new as far as Federal rules. Your state may have other rules that don't involve the Fed. This is a stupid rule under consideration. Thanks to Shadowrider for the detailed info on how to express an objection to it. We should all do so even though it is probably futile. This .gov (all branches) has bent over backwards to push through legislative and rule changes that are soundly against the will of the governed.
 
Last edited:
It's much ado about nothing.....I have transferred 5+ handguns at one time, several times, and all the dealer had to do was file a multiple purchase form and send a copy to the State Police.

The feds will not "have a cow", unless you raise a serious red flag like buying 20 Glock 17's at the same time. If the Feds do call you, tell them the truth, that you are a collector. In PA there is no law as to how many I can buy in one day.....I could buy 200 handguns in one day if I so choose.

My dealer has no problem with my multiple transfers, he makes a profit, I am a good customer, and he says since they are all different and they are revolvers the State Police or ATF won't bat an eye about it. People buy several handguns at a time every day, it's not a big deal.
 
Since I so enjoy mocking the Anti-Gunners, I must say this is truly a "common sense" proposal. A reasonable, largely unintrusive (unless you are the FFL holder doing the extra paperwork) law enforcement tool.

This sort of "profiling" is exactly what most Americans would like to see TSA doing at the Airport. I have absolutely no problem with ATF having the tools to focus on the 20 year old Hispanic female straw purchaser buying a case of AKs instead of the 60 year old white male buying a collectible revolver.

I cannot help but feel we have "won" when this is the biggest "infringement" that our notoriously Anti-Gun President and Attorney General can impose.
 
Back
Top