Posted on 06/02/2011 7:15:24 AM PDT by marktwain
If youre one of the nearly 71 million Americans who live in the four southwest border states, some of your gun purchases could soon be reported to the federal government. If you dont like thatand no gun owner shouldread on, because this may be our first big head-on gun control battle against the Obama administration.
The fight began with a bureaucratically worded Emergency Notice of Information Collection Under Review, published in the Dec. 17 Federal Registerthe daily publication where all proposed federal rules make their debut. It announced that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives plans to require federal firearms licensees in the border states to begin reporting all transfers of two or more rifles within any five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (a) Semi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
In other words, a dealer would have to tell the government every time a deer hunter in Sacramento or Amarillo finds a good deal on a pair of semi-auto .30-06s like the popular Remington 7400.
Some might ask, Arent multiple rifle sales already reported? The answer is a definite No. For many years, Congress has required dealers to report multiple sales of handgunsand only of handguns. According to one of the basic rules for interpreting laws, when the legislature specifies one thing, it excludes everything else. (This is the same principle your parents applied when they said you could have only a cookie, even if there were also cupcakes and pies on the table.)
For months now, anti-gun activists, members of the media and federal bureaucrats have been urging the BATFE to ignore this principle.
As weve reported before (See End Run, Feb. 2011), the drumbeat began with New York City Mayor Michael Bloombergs group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and its Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns. That document was an agenda of 40 ways for the Obama administration to impose new restrictions on gun owners and the gun industry, without bothering to go to Congress.
The Blueprint urged the BATFE to identify the long guns most linked to crime and require dealers to report multiple sales of such guns. MAIG, of course, is falsely assuming that when a particular type of gun is frequently traced, that must mean the gun is frequently used in crime. Thats a lie heard nearly every day in the gun control debate, despite repeated warnings from the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE itself that tracing is designed to find the source of specific guns, not to collect statistics. (For more information, see Traces of Truth, Dec. 2010.)
The push for multiple sales reporting continued with a pair of reports by the Department of Justices Inspector General this year. First, a draft report in September noted that multiple sales reports on rifles would have been useful for investigations of supposed gun trafficking to Mexico. While the September draft made no specific recommendations, a final report issued in November urged the BATFE to require multiple sales reports on long guns. The Inspector General recommended that the BATFE work with the Department [of Justice] to explore options for seeking a requirement for reporting multiple sales of long guns. The bureau responded that it concurs in the recommendation but notes that this may require a change to the Gun Control Act which is beyond ATFs and the Departments authority.
But theres a twist. According to the latest installment in the Washington Posts months-long Hidden Life of Guns series, the BATFE itself had already recommended a reporting requirement last spring, months before the Inspector Generals recommendation. The policy, according to the Post, was held up by then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel because it would energize gun owners before the midterm elections.
If thats trueand we certainly dont always believe the Postit was a cynical move by Emanuel, a longtime ally of the anti-gun groups. But it would definitely be consistent; after all, President Obama also waited until after the elections to nominate Andrew Traver, another official with long ties to gun-ban activists, as director of the BATFE.
All this maneuvering aside, how can the BATFE try to require something the Congress never authorized?
Showing why its now the greatest organized threat to our Second Amendment rights, Mayor Bloombergs MAIG pointed the way. MAIGs Blueprint suggested that the new multiple sales reports could be required through demand letters. These are letters sent to dealers by the BATFE. According to the provision of the Gun Control Act that authorizes these letters, dealers must submit all record information required to be kept [under the Gun Control Act] or such lesser record information as the Attorney General in such letter may specify.
That sounds like an incredibly broad license for anything up to total gun registration based on dealers records. But Congress has passed many protections against gun registration, including the Firearms Owners Protection Acts ban on new rules or regulations that would require dealers records to be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States.
So what does the law really allow? A quick look at history answers that question. The original demand letter provision was a regulation adopted in 1968, under the original Gun Control Act, and added to the U.S. Code in 1986. Back in 1968, Harold Serr, the director of the Treasury Departments Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (the precursor of todays BATFE) wrote to U.S. Sen. Frank Church of Idaho that under no circumstances does the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division intend to require licensed firearms dealers to submit all records of firearms transactions to a central location. This would be in effect gun registration and the Congress clearly showed its desires in this area when gun legislation was voted on.
Instead, the demand letter provision was to be used for examining dealers records in the course of a criminal investigation, or for tracing gunstwo activities that are authorized by other provisions today.
More recently, demand letters have been used for other limited purposes. For example, the BATFE uses this provision to compile annual statistical reports on how many firearms are made and exported by each gun manufacturer. And in 1994, when certain shotguns were reclassified as destructive devices under the National Firearms Act, the bureau used the provision to get contact information for buyers of those guns in order to inform them about NFA registration requirements
More objectionable was the use of demand letters, beginning during the Clinton administration, to get certain dealers to report all used gun transactions for use in future traces. NRA strongly objected to that program and funded litigation against it. Unfortunately, the government won those cases, but even the court decisions stressed how limited the program was. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit put it, the demand letter statute is not a limitless delegation of authority and cannot be construed in an open-ended fashion.
The courts also stressed that the demand letters were only issued to dealers who had supposedly failed to respond quickly to trace requests, or who had high numbers of guns traced quickly to crimes. As flawed as those reasons were, the letters still only went to a few hundred dealersless than 0.1 percent of the licensees in the United States at the time.
Compare that to the number of dealers slated to receive the new multiple sales letters. The BATFE estimates that nearly 8,500 dealers will receive those letters; thats nearly one out of every seven firearm retailers in the United States today, including many who are hundreds of miles from the Mexican border. Thats obviously casting way too big of a net, and could lay the groundwork for even broader demands that would truly amount to a gun registration scheme.
That makes this fight a top priority for NRA. Right now, were filing comments with the Office of Management and Budget, asking them to deny the proposed information collection. But weve also begun planning our next move, which will be legislative proposals to limit the demand letter authority.
Fortunately, our allies in Congress are already rallying across party lines on this issue. For example, the entire Montana congressional delegation has already weighed in, with Democratic Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester calling the proposal unnecessarily burdensome and arguing that any further reporting requirement must be done by Congress through the transparent legislative process.
Likewise, Montanas Republican U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, joined by 35 House colleagues, including incoming Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, blasted the new, onerous requirements that would inevitably track and catalogue the purchases of law-abiding gun owners, also denouncing the proposal as an end run around Congress.
NRA will make sure all of these arguments are heard on Capitol Hilland in the courts, if necessaryas this fight goes on.
My understand is that while this is being sold as only applying to border states, nothing in the rule limits it to those states.
understand should be understanding.
I had no idea that the Constitution required this...../sarc
Create a crisis, then use that crisis to further your policy aim. Disarmament of US citizens is step one in creating the NEW WORLD ORDER.
I wish the NRA wouldn’t have supported Democrats and Harry Reid last year. And in this plan,, who will we report to when the ATF has multiple purchases that will be going south?
In a nutshell, the Kenyan is restricting MY rights because they could be inconvenient for an authoritarian nation next door. The Bastard,, (mods,,, he is literally a bastard, look it up)
Seventy-one million (and counting) middle fingers.
So in essence, your long-gun purchases are only private from the feds until your FFL or local shop ceases to exist.
So shops will be closed by the feds in the nat’l interest..
Every time you buy a new weapon they run a NICS on you. You can’t tell me that the feds have not already started a national register. As another poster noted, the 4473’s are sent to the feds if a gun shop owner dies or closes his shop. They are defintely building a database.
And now he’ll have to send a copy of those 4473s if more than 1 purchase is made in 5 days.
HOW? It's not up to the buyer to comply. It's up to the dealer to comply, and if he wants to stay in business he will. Are you a dealer? will you refuse to comply? If you're not, you don't have to so there's nothing to non-comply with.
Under Clinton, they did just that...Something on the order of 2/3 of FFLs went belly up, especially mom and pop "kitchen table' dealers without a storefront, but who were required to keep the same records as the larger dealers. Those 4473's went to the BATF.
We have no guarantees that NICS data isn't being compiled, either, except that it isn't supposed to be, legally (It was being compiled, but they were supposed to 'erase it').
But then, the BATFE wasn't supposed to be facillitating the purchase and export of weapons to Mexico, either.
Also, keep in mind that any coastal state can be construed to be a 'border state' (with the world), and the states which border with Canada are 'border states' as well.
The way around this is to buy the exact rifle your hunting buddy likes while he buys the perfect rifle for you. Then you loan each other the rifles. No sale, no money, changing hands, no straw buying. It’s loaned!
Take a chillaxative. I'm talking about FFL's.
Buy from a private party and always pay cash, as I do frequently. Same thing when buying ammo no matter where you buy it, i.e. Cabella’s, Walmart, Dick’s etc.
Stay under their radar. BLOAT, BLOAT and then BLOAT some more!
>>Disarmament of US citizens is step one in creating the NEW WORLD ORDER.<<
Any American citizen that surrenders any weapon to a government official deserves to live their life wrapped in chains.
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.