Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eleven Wins for Gun Owners
NRA/ILA ^ | 5/11/12

Posted on 05/11/2012 6:03:12 PM PDT by pabianice

On Thursday, May 10, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5326--the appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies fiscal year 2013--by a vote of 247-163.

One of the most important ways that Congress has protected the Second Amendment is through a number of general provisions included in various appropriations bills. We are happy to report that 11 provisions to protect the Second Amendment were included in the bill.

Specifically, the bill makes permanent the following protections:

Curio and Relic Definition. A prohibition on the use of funds to change the definition of a "curio or relic." This provision protects the status of collectible firearms for future generations of firearms collectors.

Physical Inventory Prohibition. Prohibition on a requirement to allow a physical inventory of federal firearms licensees. The Clinton administration proposed a rule in 2000 to require an annual inventory by all licensees. While the Bush Administration eventually withdrew the proposal, Congress has still passed this preventive provision every year since FY 2007.

Business Activity. This provision prohibits BATFE from denying federal firearms license applications or renewals based on a dealer’s low-business volume alone.

Firearms Trace Data Disclaimer. A requirement that any trace data released must include a disclaimer stating that such data cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime.

In addition, the bill restores four provisions that the Obama administration's budget proposed to strike:

Firearms Parts Export to Canada. A prohibition on the use of funds to require an export license for small firearms parts valued at less than $500 for export to Canada. This provision is intended to remove an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on U.S. gun manufacturers that was imposed under the Clinton Administration (restored and made permanent).

Importation of Curios and Relics. A prohibition on the use of funds to arbitrarily deny importation of qualifying curio and relic firearms. This provision ensures that collectible firearms that meet all legal requirements for importation into the United States are not banned from import by executive branch fiat (restored and made permanent).

Prohibit Funding for "Gun Walking" Operations. No funds may be used to knowingly transfer firearms to agents of drug cartels unless U.S. law enforcement personnel control or monitor the firearms at all times. This amendment is designed to prevent the Justice Department (or any government entity) from spending taxpayer dollars on "gun walking" programs like Operation Fast and Furious.

Shotgun Importation Prohibition Protection. Prohibits the Department of Justice from requiring imported shotguns to meet a "sporting purposes" test that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has used to prohibit the importation of shotguns with one or more features disliked by the Agency, such as adjustable stocks, extended magazine tubes, etc.

The bill retains the following provision:

Transfer of BATFE Authority. A prohibition on the use of funds to transfer any duty or responsibility of the BATFE to any other agency or department. This provision was written in response to a Clinton Administration plan to transfer firearms enforcement to the FBI or Secret Service. It also prohibits the Executive branch from skirting the will of Congress by allowing another agency to implement policies the BATFE is prohibited from implementing.

Finally, the bill includes two new provisions:

DOJ Funding Restriction. Disallows funds to the Department of Justice if the DOJ falsifies documents, makes misleading or inaccurate statements, or covers up or conceals information. It is intended to ensure the Department of Justice is truthful and forthright with ongoing Congressional investigations of "Operation Fast and Furious." (Also known as the Chaffetz/Gosar/Farenthold "Fast and Furious" Amendment, this provision passed by a vote of 381-41.)

Southwest Border Rifle Registration. Prohibits the use of federal funds to carry out the BATFE’s requirement that firearm dealers in the four southwestern border states file "multiple sales" reports on individuals who buy more than one detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle of greater than .22 caliber in a five-day period. (Also known as the Rehberg/Boren Amendment, this provision passed in committee by a vote of 30-19, despite a threatened veto by President Obama.)


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Woo-Hoo!
1 posted on 05/11/2012 6:03:14 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

These all sound good and maybe they are good but Obama will probably just do whatever he wants and no one will hold him to thee law.

I suspect he doesn’t even care what the law is.

I also remember one of the Bushs banned all imports from Norinco which was supposed to be a punishment for some political reason. I noticed he chose to ban a gun manufacturer who was actually selling some pretty nice guns.

In the end I really think Obama will do whatever he wants tho he might wait now until the election is over.


2 posted on 05/11/2012 6:21:27 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

“...the bill makes permanent the following protections...”
-
I call B. S. on the word “permanent”.
Whatever one congress gives; another congress can take away.


3 posted on 05/11/2012 6:28:58 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Yes, these bills sound all well and good. And we can thank the House for passing them, but they are still just BILLS.

They won't get through the Senate or will be tossed in a a Conference Committee.

And they would never be signed into law by Zero.

But, never stop trying.

4 posted on 05/11/2012 6:52:08 PM PDT by CapnJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

And, the really disgusting part is the our elected legislators find it necessary to make these amendments to bills to protect a right that is assured in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. THAT is the real problem in this nation...


5 posted on 05/11/2012 7:37:28 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Does this bill repeal 922(r) and thus allow the owners of MKA-1919 shotguns to posses high cap mags?


6 posted on 05/11/2012 8:04:42 PM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Gee, I didn’t notice anything about the 2nd Amendment actually being recognized as the law of the land. I guess there are just not enough words in the 2nd.


7 posted on 05/12/2012 12:13:47 AM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period. You can't trust the man with the big red (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

SPIN METER: Romney used fees to close budget gap
ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press
Updated 12:04 p.m., Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Romney’s proposal to raise the firearms registration fee from $25 to $75 sparked controversy. The Gun Owners’ Action League, which represents individual gun owners and gun clubs across Massachusetts, branded the move a tax increase.

“Anytime we have to pay a fee for a civil right, it’s a tax increase as far as we are concerned,” said Jim Wallace, the league’s executive director.

The Legislature eventually increased the fee to $100, though it later extended the validity of the licenses from four to six years.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/SPIN-METER-Romney-used-fees-to-close-budget-gap-3526444.php#ixzz1ueqJIHpZ


8 posted on 05/12/2012 5:27:01 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

“...they would never be signed into law by Zero...”
-
A presidential signature is not required.
The president can choose to veto or not veto.
All of those signing ceremonies are just for show.


9 posted on 05/12/2012 1:19:26 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson