HERE IS SOME NEW "IMPENDING" GUN REGULATION FOR CHRISTMAS !!

[Sasquatchvnv]

I've been hearing rumors of BATF checking sales records at some local shops and making a list... I don't think it's for Santa.

 

[keystir]

"But Obama hasn't done anything to us gun owners..."

Where is this group now?

Right here! Every firearm I already own has already been reported to both the state and federal government through the NICS check we go through to purchase a new firearm. This temporary requirement will have absolutely no effect on my rights to keep and bear arms. If you want to purchase large amounts of firearms for the intent of smuggling them into another country you will have to buy them used through the private market just like the old days. If you want to purchase multiple semi-auto firearms for at the same time you're own personal use then you can just add the ATF to the list of government agencies that will be notified, there is absolutely no restriction on doing so. I know there are some here who are holding their breath waiting for Obama to ban all guns but it's just not going to happen.

 

[Riot]

This temporary requirement will have absolutely no effect on my rights to keep and bear arms.

You might disagree to that if you get a knock at your door for being "flagged" in this new requirement.

ATF: "Why did you buy 5 guys with detachable magazines in 7.62x39?"
You: "Because it is my right to."
ATF: "At this time I am going to confiscate your firearms under suspicion of straw buying."



The fact of the mater is- is that they don't NEED to know. Most of the guns that the drug cartels have are from overseas- from the black market! The government KNOWS THIS. But your average voter just hears "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" and immediatly thinks of those pesky ARs and AKs runing around their cities. So what does your lefty politician do? They capalize on this ignorance and make laws to govern the legal purchase/use/ownership of guns.

This is crap! This IS AGAINST YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS! If you can't see that (or just plain don't care) then fine....register your fireamrs. Better yet, why not call the ATF every year and update them on your firearm inventory "just in case" you have something that may be illegal.

Maybe when the SHTF they'll look kindly on you and give you the good tent at the FEMA camp. You know, the one right next to the bread line!

 

[keystir]

You might disagree to that if you get a knock at your door for being "flagged" in this new requirement.

You're right, I probably would. I'll also be upset when the pakistani guy in his blue helmet shows up to take my guns as well.

The fact of the mater is- is that they don't NEED to know. Most of the guns that the drug cartels have are from overseas- from the black market! The government KNOWS THIS. But your average voter just hears "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" and immediatly thinks of those pesky ARs and AKs runing around their cities. So what does your lefty politician do? They capalize on this ignorance and make laws to govern the legal purchase/use/ownership of guns.

Then your theory should be proved correct by this study. I respect your opinion that firearms should not be registered but to somehow turn this into a "see I told you Obama was gonna steal your guns" thread (which is what I was originally responding to) is a bit of a stretch.

This is crap! This IS AGAINST YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS! If you can't see that (or just plain don't care) then fine....register your fireamrs. Better yet, why not call the ATF every year and update them on your firearm inventory "just in case" you have something that may be illegal.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that notifying the ATF when 2 or more semi-auto rifles are purchased in a 5 day period is illegal? This does nothing to infringe on any rights regarding the legal purchase/use/ownership of firearms.

Maybe when the SHTF they'll look kindly on you and give you the good tent at the FEMA camp. You know, the one right next to the bread line!

Yes, that is my hope.

Might Obama try to curb gun rights, maybe we will see but I highly doubt it.

 

[deadeye]

Might Obama try to curb gun rights, maybe we will see but I highly doubt it.

HE wont but all of his trusted staff of known anti gunner liberals WILL. Of course he wont directly say he wants to ban ALL guns, he wants re-elected, but look where he came from and how that state is fairing with its current gun policies.

 

[keystir]

HE wont but all of his trusted staff of known anti gunner liberals WILL. Of course he wont directly say he wants to ban ALL guns, he wants re-elected, but look where he came from and how that state is fairing with its current gun policies.

No question, gun laws in Chicago are a joke and completely unconstitutional. I'm glad that it appears things are slowly moving in the right direction with the recent supreme court ruling.

 

[Riot]

Might Obama try to curb gun rights, maybe we will see but I highly doubt it.

Registration is one step from confiscation.

 

[U201491]

<broken link removed>

Second Amendment attorney: ATF’s proposed long gun ‘emergency’ regs illegal
December 22nd, 2010 10:59 am ETDo you like this story?
“A recent initiative by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has caught the attention of national media outlets,” ATF’s Acting Director Ken Melson writes in the bureau’s announcement of demand letters for multiple sales of long guns in border states.

I wanted to make sure everyone heard from me about this law enforcement initiative so there isn’t any confusion.

Just to make sure the terms they’re dictating come through loud and clear, Melson recorded his demands on video, embedded in the sidebar to this column.

There’s no confusion, Mr. Melson—at least among people who heed Patrick Henry's advice to “guard with jealous attention the public liberty.” But that doesn’t mean those trying to find out more about the initiative won’t end up confused, as a report from GunLeaders.com demonstrates:

So we’re looking at 2.5 weeks to generate comments on a regulation of this magnitude? During holiday season? No online comments for this regulation. Congress to recess in mere days. Nicely done.

Further, the report claims “The regulation proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms,” a concern Second Amendment scholar, author and attorney David T. Hardy details on his Of Arms and the Law blog:

There are several violations of the Gun Control Act, as amended by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act. First, 18 USC §926(b) provides "The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations." This is stricter than the Admin Procedure Act's general provision for a "reasonable" comment period, and it has no emergency exceptions. ATFE is only giving 30 days' notice.

Second, the FOPA amendments were intended to cut off future requirements of direct reporting -- I say future because the existing regs (including reporting of multiple handgun sales were grandfathered in, but limited to those specific requirements. Thus far and no farther.

Hardy’s conclusion?

It's time to contact legislators about this, pointing out the illegality, and asking them to lodge protests with agency and with the Office of Management and Budget…

 

[deen_ad]

Armalite Rifle model 15.

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Trade Rating" is low by 3
Not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[keystir]

One review of Obama's pre-presidential DOCUMENTED voting record on guns, and it is not a leap to believe that he, and his Administration are in fact anti-gun.
No bones about it.
Fact, not fiction

You're correct, I have no doubt Obama would support stricter gun control efforts. I also have no doubt Bush would have supported stricter abortion laws but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. While it's not a leap to believe Obama is for stricter gun control effort it's a gigantic leap to assume that he sits in his office every night pondering how to get our guns because George Soros told him to and that this effort is part of some sinister left right, right left, upside down, turn yourself around scheme to rule the world.

 

[Riot]

You're correct, I have no doubt Obama would support stricter gun control efforts. I also have no doubt Bush would have supported stricter abortion laws but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. While it's not a leap to believe Obama is for stricter gun control effort it's a gigantic leap to assume that he sits in his office every night pondering how to get our guns because George Soros told him to and that this effort is part of some sinister left right, right left, upside down, turn yourself around scheme to rule the world.

Ah, so the truth comes out...too bad you chose to label us as conspiracy nuts on an actual ATF attempt to backdoor-register firearms.

 

[keystir]

Ah, so the truth comes out...too bad you chose to label us as conspiracy nuts on an actual ATF attempt to backdoor-register firearms.

Not sure what "truth" you feel you've stumbled upon so i'll try to be more clear. This temporary requirement has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms. I don't live in a border state nor do I have any want or desire to purchase multiple semi-auto rifles at one time from one of these border states. And like I already stated, when you purchase a new firearm here in Oregon you are already "registering" you're firearm with the state and federal government, a law that was in effect long before Obama became President and was in place during the entire Bush presidency. So, yes I would label folks who believe this is just the first step of a highly sophisticated plan to get my guns conspiracy nuts. When you look at the simple fact of the matter, since Obama has been in office gun ownership and concealed carry have rapidly increased while gun control laws (some of which Obama himself signed into law) have been relaxed including being able to transport firearms on Amtrak and carrying within national parks.

 

[Nimh]

Might Obama try to curb gun rights, maybe we will see but I highly doubt it.

I think you're likely correct, unless he's reelected. All bets are off then. The rest of this term will be posturing for returning for another. Hard line gun bans at this point in the game are political suicide.

 

[Karma]

Not sure what "truth" you feel you've stumbled upon so i'll try to be more clear. This temporary requirement has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms. I don't live in a border state nor do I have any want or desire to purchase multiple semi-auto rifles at one time from one of these border states. And like I already stated, when you purchase a new firearm here in Oregon you are already "registering" you're firearm with the state and federal government, a law that was in effect long before Obama became President and was in place during the entire Bush presidency. So, yes I would label folks who believe this is just the first step of a highly sophisticated plan to get my guns conspiracy nuts. When you look at the simple fact of the matter, since Obama has been in office gun ownership and concealed carry have rapidly increased while gun control laws (some of which Obama himself signed into law) have been relaxed including being able to transport firearms on Amtrak and carrying within national parks.

Here is my problem. I don't have any intention to buy a pink glock, but if someone else wants to the government has no damn business telling them they can't. Just because you, or I personally wouldn't choose to exercise a right in a certain way, doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected!

The Second Ammendment states "shall not be infringed". Websters definition of infringed is "Act so as to limit or undermine". Sounds like it is infringing on the Second Ammendment to me. Maybe it isn't infringing on my right specifically as it isn't pushed in my geographic location, but if it infringes on any American's right I have a problem with it.

You are correct on the NICS check. I have no problem with a background check for people to buy guns. When they run the background check, it doesn't make any difference what kind of gun I am buying, or what the SN is. At least Oregon pretends they only keep the info for a fairly short time, even though we all know that is BS.

Just because BS laws that infringe on our rights have been imposed, doesn't make it right.

 

[deen_ad]

ATF gets away with imposing the new "rule", finds that it doesn't stop the violence in Mexico so they say "well, the weapons must be coming from other states" and expands it nationwide. Or they say, "it worked so well that we need to implement it nationwide and stop it dompletely".

What then?

Maybe they're just "testing the waters" to see how much they can do with an "emergency order" and get away with it. Can you say "martial law"? All it takes is a confrontation someplace.

There's no end to this camel's nose under the tent, as we all know pretty soon the whole camel is inside!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Trade Rating" is low by 3
Not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[keystir]

Here is my problem. I don't have any intention to buy a pink glock, but if someone else wants to the government has no damn business telling them they can't. Just because you, or I personally wouldn't choose to exercise a right in a certain way, doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected!

You're absolutely right, but this requirement does not do that. You can purchase a 100 if you want, it just has to be reported if you purchase more than 1 in a 5 day period.

The Second Ammendment states "shall not be infringed". Websters definition of infringed is "Act so as to limit or undermine". Sounds like it is infringing on the Second Ammendment to me. Maybe it isn't infringing on my right specifically as it isn't pushed in my geographic location, but if it infringes on any American's right I have a problem with it.

Again, you're right the 2nd amendment does say that. But this requirement doesn't limit or undermine anyone's ability to purchase/use/own any firearms. Now it will make it harder for someone to purchase large caches of semi-auto rifles and smuggle them into another country. But is that even a problem? Apparently the ATF thinks so. Hopefully we will find out once this study is over.

Just because BS laws that infringe on our rights have been imposed, doesn't make it right.

You're right once again, but I will point out once again that laws regarding gun ownership in this country have been relaxed since Obama took office.

 

[1stklass]

ATF Idiots...They could have made this simple.. Any brown people... sorry, heavily tanned people showing up asking for Dos carabina's por favor should not be allowed to buy a gun

 

[CEF1959]

I don't understand this proposed rule. It wouldn't prohibit multiple long-arm sales within a certain time period, it would just require notice to the govenment. Don't they already get information about every legal gun we purchase? So what's the point of this proposed rule? Maybe I'm misreading it.

 

[Riot]

I don't understand this proposed rule. It wouldn't prohibit multiple long-arm sales within a certain time period, it would just require notice to the govenment. Don't they already get information about every legal gun we purchase? So what's the point of this proposed rule? Maybe I'm misreading it.

Quick question, when will you start to worry about stuff like this? When there's a billboard saying "if you think your neighbor is a suspected terrorists, please call the FBI hotline at..."?

I'm just wondering...this is a backdoor registration at the false guise of needing to flag suspected straw buyers for boarder-crossing gun buys.

Having said that, US gun purchases don't even account for a tenth of the guns being used illegally in any other country. PERIOD. Knowing this, why follow along with it? Why even give into the possibility of letting the ATF log every firearm with every person purchasing said firearm? All they need to know is that the businesses are conducting business LEGALLY and are folowing the letter of the law. That's it....not making up their own form of justice, rulings and ways around the laws to register legal purchases under false pretenses!

 

[RicInOR]

WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; A federal appeals court panel Friday unanimously upheld an Obama administration requirement that dealers in southwestern border states report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.

Read more: <broken link removed>