Legal to force shops to report multiple "Assault Weapon" sales?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bushmaster1313

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
3,653
Location
Peoples Republik of New Jersey
From a purely legal perspective, does BATFE have the authority to require shops to report the sale of multiple "Assault Type" guns in a 5 day period?

What can they do with the information?

Is a .223 a caliber greater than .22?

According to Chuck Hawks http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_bullet_diameter.htm
The .223 is .224 inches bullet diameter.
The .22 is .223 inches

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/11/atf-to-require-information-on-frequent-gunbuyers-in-border-states/

Here is an old link with the proposed form ATF 3310.12:

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/regulations/F331012%20(Draft%2012-21-10).pdf

Original Federal Register Notice:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf

BATFE's "Supporting Statement": (.223 is included)
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/051711-supporting-statement-multiple-sales-rifles.pdf

picture.php
 
Last edited:
From a purely legal perspective, does BATFE have the authority to require shops to report the sale of multiple "Assault Type" guns in a 5 day period?
Click to expand...

Under current law, the answer is probably yes. The constitutionality of these types of regulations have yet to be challenged in the courts. Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its nascent stages and we don't know where and how far the Supreme Court will take us. Until we have more cases to guide our legal analysis, there is no definitive answer.
 
I disagree. An executive order must have a basis in law. The authorization for reporting multiple sales of handguns is found in 18 USC 923(g), which limits record keeping requirements to those expressly required by statute. It also specifies that the multiple sales requirement is limited to pistols.

The President has no authorization to extend this requirement without legislation from Congress. I would expect NRA or NSSF to challenge this regulation and I am sure the Administration does too. This strikes me as being more of an effort to establish a certain narrative than a genuine attempt to control firearms.
 
From 18 USC 923(g):

Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or
other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise
disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business
days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of
pistols and revolvers totalling two or more, to an unlicensed
person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the
Attorney General and forwarded to the office specified thereon and
to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency
of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local
jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place, not
later than the close of business on the day that the multiple sale
or other disposition occurs.
Click to expand...

Here is the BATFE justification:

The authority to require FFLs to submit record information concerning multiple sales or other disposition of certain rifles derives from 18 U.S.C. § 923 (g)(5) (see attachment). As a result, FFLs will not be expected or required to provide copies of the reports generated by this request to the designated state and local law enforcement agencies that otherwise receive the reports of multiple handgun sales pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A).
Click to expand...

Here is 18 U.S.C. § 923 (g)(5)(A):

Each licensee shall, when required by letter issued by the Attorney General, and until notified to the contrary in writing by the Attorney General, submit on a form specified by the Attorney General, for periods and at the times specified in such letter, all record information required to be kept by this chapter or such lesser record information as the Attorney General in such letter may specify.
Click to expand...

To me it seems that the Attorney General can demand all the record information required to be kept by this chapter or a subset of that information
 
Last edited:
My apologies for my lack of knowledge on such specifics. Unless there is some other Congressional authorization, as the text reads, I 100% agree with Bartholomew.

Bushmaster, I agree. I see nowhere that 923(g)(5) allows for reporting on rifles. All the statute allows is alteration of the manner in which sales mentioned in the statute are reported. Not for other types of sales to be reported.
 
ATF's justification is an outright fabrication. Amazing, but not surprising.
 
BATFE's "justification" barely passes the red-face test, but it would probably pass muster with a sympathetic Judge.

IMHO, the statute means a subset of the information allowed to be collected by the statute, not "any information as the Attorney General may specify"
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that this is in no way a restriction on the ownership of purchase of firearms.

It has no second-amendment implications.
 
Now, there you go again, azmjs.

Ruining all the fun, with your damned sober and rational reason.
:p




Note:
The little smilie guy with tongue sticking out means that I'm just kidding.
 
Bear in mind that this is in no way a restriction on the ownership of purchase of firearms.

It has no second-amendment implications.
Click to expand...

I disagree
It has a chilling effect on a constitutionally protected right.

How about a requirement for doctors to report if a certain constitutionally protected procedure is perfomed on the same woman twice in 5 months?
 
Ultimately, one would expect that this directive will go nowhere and be eliminated shortly,
just hanging around long enough so the Pres can pay lip service to his gun-control campaign contributors.

Because if he pushes this thing much harder,
he will further erode his chances of reelection.
Which are getting more tenuous daily.
You can't kill Bin Laden more than once.
And that's just about all the progress he has made in 3 years.
 
I disagree with the you azmjs.

Being reported to the federal government for exercising a right would seem like an infringement to me.

What if you were reported to the feds if you criticized the presidents twice in a 5 day period?
What if you were reported to the feds if you attended your place of worship twice in a 5 day period?
For that matter, what if the government REQUIRED that you report to them which religion you belong to?

Do you feel that those are not burdens on your First Amendment freedoms? I do.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see the 2A organizations keep this in the public eye.
Too many important issues die early these days.

Fast n Furious was burning hot for a while, maybe seems to be cooling off.
And election is a year and a half away.
 
Last edited:
Leave me out of your disagreement.
Mine had a laughing smilie so you would know I was wise cracking.
It even had a disclaimer so you would know what the laughing smilie meant.
Click to expand...
Fixed it.
 
Cool, my friend !!!

This one thread informs more than several others (on other forums).
BM1313 has done much to help us.

And I agree with 'gator, it worries me that civil rights are so easily bruised by browbeating,
while those who assault them stand looking as innocent as possible.
 
Arizona dealers were already reporting illegal buyers and the BATF told them to sell them.
Click to expand...
Good point. Also, if the feds had simply asked the dealers to voluntarily report such sales in an effort to stop guns going to Mexico, I'm betting 90% or more would have complied.

Now that the ATF has tried to burn the dealers who thought they were helping with GR/F&F, we're a lot less inclined to help out. Hence the mandate.

I fully expect the reporting requirement to be expanded nationwide because "the smugglers stopped buying guns in the four border states".
 
The regulation isn't the real issue here. The Administration has attorneys who know this is a dubious regulation at best. They also know Congress specifically blocked any such attempt in vetoed legislation. Finally, they know the NRA will sue over it because the NRA told them so when they were attempting to issue this regulation last year.

The real question is "Why bring it out now?" For some reason, the Administration thinks that getting sued by the NRA is a good thing right now. It serves some purpose in their thought - though given how competent they've been in other arenas, it doesn't necessarily mean it will actually be a good thing for them.
 
The real question is "Why bring it out now?"
Click to expand...
I think you're reading too much into the timing. The public comment period for the new CFR ended a while back, and during that time the folks at ATF/DoJ were drafting the new forms/procedures/etc. for the CFR change.

Two months ago there really wasn't any indication that GR/F&F would blow up into as big a scandal as it has (except for those of us paying attention).
 
What if you were reported to the feds if you criticized the presidents twice in a 5 day period?
What if you were reported to the feds if you attended your place of worship twice in a 5 day period?
For that matter, what if the government REQUIRED that you report to them which religion you belong to?
Click to expand...

What makes you think they aren't already aware of those things?

It isn't preventing you from purchasing the guns, and with the increase in illegal activities along the border I see what they are trying to do, but it is a gov't function - therefore it will fail like usual
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
U.S. judge backs ATF multiple rifle sales reporting
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
mortablunt
M
T
  • Locked
ATF comment period
Replies
8
Views
1K
xcgates
X
B
  • Locked
ATF to Require Multiple Sales Reports for Long Guns
Replies
1
Views
459
brboyer
B
B
  • Locked
DOJ gives new tools to ATF on guns - "Border states" to report assault weapons sales
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Sky
S
H
  • Locked
New Report Details Reagan's Efforts on Behalf of Assault Weapons Ban
Replies
24
Views
972
Foreign Devil
F
Back
Top