This is something we need to keep our Eye on!!!!!!
- Thread starter Damn Yankee
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
nicky4968
Member
A valuable link. Many thanks.
Let's guess how this will turn out. They've only got the most rabid anti-firearms member of the Senate on that committe.
Committee Members
Stacked with anti-gun Dems.
Committee Members
Stacked with anti-gun Dems.
A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to update certain procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INTERSTATE FIREARMS TRANSACTIONS.
(a) Firearms Dispositions- Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking `rifle or shotgun' and inserting `firearm'; and
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking `located,' and inserting `located or temporarily located,'; and
(B) by striking `both such States' and inserting `the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee'.
(b) Dealer Location- Section 923 of such title is amended--
(1) in subsection (j)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking `, and such location is in the State which is specified on the license'; and
(B) in the last sentence--
(i) by inserting `transfer,' after `sell,';
(ii) by striking all that follows `Act' and inserting a period; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(m) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the sale, transfer, delivery, or other disposition of a firearm or ammunition--
`(1) by a person licensed under this chapter to another person so licensed, at any location in any State; or
`(2) by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to a person not licensed under this chapter, at a temporary location described in subsection (j) in any State.'.
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to update certain procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INTERSTATE FIREARMS TRANSACTIONS.
(a) Firearms Dispositions- Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking `rifle or shotgun' and inserting `firearm'; and
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking `located,' and inserting `located or temporarily located,'; and
(B) by striking `both such States' and inserting `the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee'.
(b) Dealer Location- Section 923 of such title is amended--
(1) in subsection (j)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking `, and such location is in the State which is specified on the license'; and
(B) in the last sentence--
(i) by inserting `transfer,' after `sell,';
(ii) by striking all that follows `Act' and inserting a period; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(m) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the sale, transfer, delivery, or other disposition of a firearm or ammunition--
`(1) by a person licensed under this chapter to another person so licensed, at any location in any State; or
`(2) by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to a person not licensed under this chapter, at a temporary location described in subsection (j) in any State.'.
AZretired
Member
And why exactly are these changes necessary?
45Wheelgun
Member
Here is the text from the NRL-ILA press release:
(This is not a copy right infringement type post, this is the NRA-ILA fact sheet produced by the NRA for public release)
NRA-ILA :: S. 941 and H.R. 2296: The ?Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009?
S. 941 and H.R. 2296: The “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009”
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced S. 941, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009.” Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio) have introduced a companion bill in the House. The bills would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena. These bipartisan bills are a vital step to modernize and improve BATFE operations.
Of highest importance, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 totally rewrites the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Today, for most violations, BATFE can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or totally revoke his license.
S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while still allowing license revocation for the kind of serious violations that would block an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals. This prevents the all-too-common situations where BATFE has revoked licenses for insignificant technical violations—such as improper use of abbreviations, or filing records in the wrong order.
Among its other provisions, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would:
Clarify the standard for “willful” violations—allowing penalties for intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork mistakes.
* Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.
* Allow a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of business. During this period, all firearms sold would be subject to a background check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
* Allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business to correct problems in the business’s records—so if a person inherited a family gun store (for example), the new owner couldn’t be punished for the previous owner’s recordkeeping violations.
* Reform the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications. Under S. 941, denial of an application would require notification to the applicant, complete with reasons for the denial. Additionally, an applicant would be allowed to provide supplemental information and to have a hearing on the application.
* Require BATFE to establish clear investigative guidelines.
* Clarify the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm. This would stop BATFE from arguing that minor gunsmithing or refinishing activities require a manufacturers’ license.
* Eliminate a provision of the Youth Handgun Safety Act that requires those under 18 to have written permission to use a handgun for lawful purposes (such as competitive shooting or safety training)—even when the parent or guardian is present.
* Permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of out of business dealers’ records—a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for more than a decade.
* Allow importation and transfer of new machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or testing firearms and ammunition, and training customers. In particular, ammunition manufacturers fulfilling government contracts need to ensure that their ammunition works reliably. S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.
* Repeal the Brady Act’s “interim” waiting period provisions, which expired in 1998.
* Give BATFE sole responsibility for receiving reports of multiple handgun sales. (Currently, dealers also have to report multiple sales to state or local agencies, a requirement that has shown little or no law enforcement value.) State and local agencies could receive these reports upon request to BATFE, but would have to comply strictly with current requirements to destroy these records after 20 days, unless the person buying the guns turns out to be prohibited from receiving firearms.
* Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts.
S. 941 and H.R. 2296 represents the first time such BATFE reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate. However, the House passed similar legislation (H.R. 5092) in the 109th Congress, by a 277-131 vote. Supporters included 63 Democrats. A majority of the House -- 224 congressmen, including 52 Democrats --cosponsored H.R. 4900 in the 110th Congress.
This bipartisan reform legislation is the culmination of BATFE abuses and problems that were highlighted in several congressional
oversight hearings in 2006.
(This is not a copy right infringement type post, this is the NRA-ILA fact sheet produced by the NRA for public release)
NRA-ILA :: S. 941 and H.R. 2296: The ?Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009?
S. 941 and H.R. 2296: The “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009”
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced S. 941, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009.” Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio) have introduced a companion bill in the House. The bills would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena. These bipartisan bills are a vital step to modernize and improve BATFE operations.
Of highest importance, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 totally rewrites the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Today, for most violations, BATFE can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or totally revoke his license.
S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while still allowing license revocation for the kind of serious violations that would block an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals. This prevents the all-too-common situations where BATFE has revoked licenses for insignificant technical violations—such as improper use of abbreviations, or filing records in the wrong order.
Among its other provisions, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would:
Clarify the standard for “willful” violations—allowing penalties for intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork mistakes.
* Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.
* Allow a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of business. During this period, all firearms sold would be subject to a background check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
* Allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business to correct problems in the business’s records—so if a person inherited a family gun store (for example), the new owner couldn’t be punished for the previous owner’s recordkeeping violations.
* Reform the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications. Under S. 941, denial of an application would require notification to the applicant, complete with reasons for the denial. Additionally, an applicant would be allowed to provide supplemental information and to have a hearing on the application.
* Require BATFE to establish clear investigative guidelines.
* Clarify the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm. This would stop BATFE from arguing that minor gunsmithing or refinishing activities require a manufacturers’ license.
* Eliminate a provision of the Youth Handgun Safety Act that requires those under 18 to have written permission to use a handgun for lawful purposes (such as competitive shooting or safety training)—even when the parent or guardian is present.
* Permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of out of business dealers’ records—a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for more than a decade.
* Allow importation and transfer of new machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or testing firearms and ammunition, and training customers. In particular, ammunition manufacturers fulfilling government contracts need to ensure that their ammunition works reliably. S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.
* Repeal the Brady Act’s “interim” waiting period provisions, which expired in 1998.
* Give BATFE sole responsibility for receiving reports of multiple handgun sales. (Currently, dealers also have to report multiple sales to state or local agencies, a requirement that has shown little or no law enforcement value.) State and local agencies could receive these reports upon request to BATFE, but would have to comply strictly with current requirements to destroy these records after 20 days, unless the person buying the guns turns out to be prohibited from receiving firearms.
* Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts.
S. 941 and H.R. 2296 represents the first time such BATFE reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate. However, the House passed similar legislation (H.R. 5092) in the 109th Congress, by a 277-131 vote. Supporters included 63 Democrats. A majority of the House -- 224 congressmen, including 52 Democrats --cosponsored H.R. 4900 in the 110th Congress.
This bipartisan reform legislation is the culmination of BATFE abuses and problems that were highlighted in several congressional
oversight hearings in 2006.
badguybuster
Member
Can you imagine having the last name of "crapo"??? No wonder he's a politician.
