ATF quietly trying to impose new rules on multiple gun purchases.

They took their newfound authority and ran with it? Who could have known?! FYI, rest of America, you will resent this every time you buy multiple guns; I know I do.

I would suggest we determine (if there's any data on it) whether a claim can be made that the additional tracking measures have done anything to curb cross-border gun trafficking in the wake of F&F. Since we all know they haven't, we could proceed to prod our congress-lings along that tack.

Sheesh, trust re-definition, 80% raids/redefinition, Choke Point, and now this. I think the Toomey-Manchin bill was these guys' "Good Cop" routine...They really are pulling out all the stops to impose de facto registration via end runs around congress.

We're gonna have to be on our A game for the next two or so years at least to keep garbage like this from slipping past us. I fully expect another Hughes Amendment breed of trickery before all is said and done.

TCB

It's clear registration is the current goal of the ATF. I've mentioned several times on here the situation of them mass copying forms at gun shops and most shops giving in because they're not clear on the law. Our LGS PAC N Arms is standing up to such illegal acts. The story if you want: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/a...ple-times-threatens-owner-license-revocation/

Yep, this was published in the Federal Register on 15 April, 2014. The so called "gun rights" organizations are not getting the word out in a timely matter.

My letter went in last month.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-15/pdf/2014-08381.pdf

Is this really new??
I remember over 30 years ago a dealer asking me to delay a handgun purchase for a couple days because he had to fill out a special ATF form about someone buying multiple firearms with in a 3 day period. That probably applied only to handguns and maybe it was not true. At any rate it is part of the ATF & progressives chipping away an the second ammendment any way theycan.

LubeckTech said:

Is this really new??
I remember over 30 years ago a dealer asking me to delay a handgun purchase for a couple days because he had to fill out a special ATF form about someone buying multiple firearms with in a 3 day period. That probably applied only to handguns and maybe it was not true. At any rate it is part of the ATF & progressives chipping away an the second ammendment any way theycan.

Click to expand...

Handguns are the currently the case. Rifles and shotguns IS news.
And do you know what happens when you purchase multiple handguns now? There is a fair chance you'll be getting harassed by the ATF wanting to know your business. That's why most people spread them out which is hindering their Rights (even if it's their choice).

Ryanxia There is a fair chance you'll be getting harassed by the ATF wanting to know your business....

Click to expand...

Not quite.

I do 2-4 Multiple Sale of Handgun forms every week.........in only ONE case was the transferee contacted by ATF. The gentleman was out of the country for two months and spent quite a bit of time on Gunbroker. On his return, I transferred ten handguns at one time. ATF asked him if he was reselling them, he said "no, want to see my collection?" and invited them into his living room. The ATF guys said "nice collection, we'll make note that you are a collector and not bother you again".

No one else has been "harassed" or contacted over a multiple sale of handgun.
That's one customer out of 300+ that was contacted.

I wouldn't consider 1/300 a fair chance.

"No one else has been "harassed" or contacted over a multiple sale of handgun.
That's one customer out of 300+ that was contacted."

In that case, one is inclined to ask, "what's the point?" If no one's questioned for less than a large-volume transfer, why fill out the form for a mere two guns? And why only for pistols if the worry is apparently about unlicensed gun-dealing? Why only for multiple pistols/rifles along border states? Unlicensed gun-dealing has nothing to do with the type of gun being dealt, and unlicensed gun-dealing has nothing to do with illegal gun-running to prohibited persons and cartels south of the border.

That "they're not harassing us now" does not prevent them from doing so in the future under their legal authority, and that is why expanding this stupid program is unwise (that, and it's stupid & pointless). Recall that the purpose of the form in the first place was to make it easier for the ATF to find and nail those high-volume gun runners they were convinced were the source of all the FFL-sourced illegal guns they were convinced are floating around out there. Since such boogiemen seem to be few and far between (because why would a high-volume gun runner do his business through a licensed FFL with ATF oversight ) I humbly suggest we dismantle the program until such time it can be shown licensed & compliant FFLs are a significant source of illegal gun transfers (by definition this is impossible, btw) and that the existing regulatory/enforcement structure is insufficient for penalizing FFLs for doing them (it darn sure isn't)

TCB

In that case, one is inclined to ask, "what's the point?" If no one's questioned for less than a large-volume transfer, why fill out the form for a mere two guns? And why only for pistols if the worry is apparently about unlicensed gun-dealing? Why only for multiple pistols/rifles along border states? Unlicensed gun-dealing has nothing to do with the type of gun being dealt, and unlicensed gun-dealing has nothing to do with illegal gun-running to prohibited persons and cartels south of the border.

Click to expand...

There really isn't any point, just like so many of these laws and rules. I'll bet that it's intent was to solve some crime problem, which clearly isn't the case. Just like the changed procedure that requires long gun reporting for the border states now because of cartel crime. Now they just want to expand it even more. It's just a creeping expansion of infringement.

"I'll bet that it's intent was to solve some crime problem"
I'm sure it was exactly intended to provide yet another means to scrutinize legitimate and lawful gun activity (both buyers and FFLs) in order to make it less palatable. Not the stated goal, of course, but these measures invariably have the exact same 'chilling' effect, so one can safely conclude they all carry the same actual intent. To narrow the path of lawful ownership to the point it is a narrow high-wire laden with landmines (somehow ) and unbearable penalties for the slightest deviation; who would dare?

TCB

^^^ for sure. I guess I should have said "stated intent". That's what they always use to sucker people into new rules and laws.

barnbwt

"No one else has been "harassed" or contacted over a multiple sale of handgun.
That's one customer out of 300+ that was contacted."

Click to expand...

In that case, one is inclined to ask, "what's the point?" If no one's questioned for less than a large-volume transfer, why fill out the form for a mere two guns?

Click to expand...

Inclined to ask?
I think dealers and most law abiding gun owners have known the point for many years.

If you don't know ask your congressman.....they passed the law.

According to the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General report on Operation Fast and Furious, multiple gun purchase reporting of suspected straw purchasers for the cartels started in 2005 or so with Project Gunrunner on the US/Mex border. Dealers told the OIG that they would report purchasers matching the ATF's straw purchaser/unlicensed dealer profile. ATF agents told the OIG that they would either follow them and see if they took the guns to the home address on the 4473 or dropt them off elsewhere, do stop-and-talks, sometimes do seizures (uncontested), or write them off as nonsuspect if the purchaser appeared legit. Dealers reported that often the next purchase by an identified suspect would be delayed on the BG check, or the suspect would not show up again but the dealer would sometimes be called to testify at the suspect's trial for cartel-related gun trafficking. These standard Project Gunrunner procedures were suspended during the Tucson Operation Wide Receiver 2006-2007 and the Phoenix Operation Fast and Furious 2009-2011, but FFL dealers and ATF agents told the OIG that those were exceptions.

I happen to know that due to our position near the TN/VA line there have been periods in the past when I and my son were warned by local gun dealers about buying two or more guns of the same type on one 4473. My son was warned after buying three different guns in one month (when he got his first really good job, he went each payday to check off his wish list: deer rifle, target pistol, skeet gun).

Apparently there's a lot of latitude under existing law in what ATF can require or ask dealers to do depending on local conditions.

dogtown tom said:

Not quite.

I do 2-4 Multiple Sale of Handgun forms every week.........in only ONE case was the transferee contacted by ATF. The gentleman was out of the country for two months and spent quite a bit of time on Gunbroker. On his return, I transferred ten handguns at one time. ATF asked him if he was reselling them, he said "no, want to see my collection?" and invited them into his living room. The ATF guys said "nice collection, we'll make note that you are a collector and not bother you again".

No one else has been "harassed" or contacted over a multiple sale of handgun.
That's one customer out of 300+ that was contacted.

I wouldn't consider 1/300 a fair chance.

Click to expand...

And you are one FFL in Texas so because YOUR customers haven't been contacted doesn't mean that's the same for the other 129,000+ FFLs in the country. In our area, there is more than a 50/50 that they'll show up at your door.

Ryanxia said:

And you are one FFL in Texas so because YOUR customers haven't been contacted doesn't mean that's the same for the other 129,000+ FFLs in the country. In our area, there is more than a 50/50 that they'll show up at your door.

Click to expand...

In What area are you located??
The reason Iask is very likley behaves differently according to geographical location.

LubeckTech said:

In What area are you located??
The reason Iask is very likley behaves differently according to geographical location.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, but not to stray off topic, the point is this is the case in many areas of the US when it comes to reporting the sale of multiple handguns, if the same is done with long guns it is a big step in the wrong direction.

Ryanxia .....And you are one FFL in Texas so because YOUR customers haven't been contacted doesn't mean that's the same for the other 129,000+ FFLs in the country. In our area, there is more than a 50/50 that they'll show up at your door

Click to expand...

.

And how long have YOU been a dealer?

dogtown tom said:

.

And how long have YOU been a dealer?

Click to expand...

This may matter.

Right after I got my FFL each time I filed a multiple handgun form, I got a phone call from the ATF asking about each and every one of them.

In each case, it was law enforcement buying a duty & backup gun. Wasn't that many of them but still, I think they DO single out new dealers for this more than 15+ year established dealers.

This is backdoor registration... Read this!!

The rule as amended requires licensees (FFLs)- who sell more than (1) semiautomatic rifle within a 5 day period, greater than .22lr, that also accepts a detach box magazine- to report ALL SALES to the BATFE. They are eliminating the "to the same person" language from the existing rule. This is a major power grab and a wholesale creation of a nationwide registry should your LGS or FFL sell more than one rifle per week with these characteristics. Read on, and YES, its time to contact your representative.

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-story-keeps-getting-stranger.html?m=1

akarguy The rule as amended requires licensees (FFLs)- who sell more than (1) semiautomatic rifle within a 5 day period, greater than .22lr, that also accepts a detach box magazine- to report ALL SALES to the BATFE. They are eliminating the "to the same person" language from the existing rule. This is a major power grab and a wholesale creation of a nationwide registry should your LGS or FFL sell more than one rifle per week with these characteristics. Read on, and YES, its time to contact your representative.

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2014/0...anger.html?m=1

Click to expand...

Nonsense....those guys couldn't explain what a multiple sale is if their life depended on it.

"waronguns" blog has less credibility than Infowars.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-15/pdf/2014-08381.pdf

the document in question said:

Abstract: The purpose of this
information collection is to require
Federal Firearms Licensees to report
multiple sales or other dispositions
whenever the licensee sells or otherwise
disposes 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.

Click to expand...

Well, the GPO.GOV register document (linked in aforementioned 'bogus' blog) does appear to say exactly that. The word "person" appears nowhere, which seems an odd omission considering the borderlands paperwork was explicitly contingent upon whom the guns were going to. To me, this looks like an attempt to formalize the previously-illegal copying of bound books for all but the slowest FFLs, under the pretense of curtailing gun-running. Considering the similarly expansive/unprecedented regulatory tactics being considered by other areas of the Executive branch (and off topic for this forum), I would not put such a back-door 'oversight' past them.

I think it probably is worth contacting your reps to let them know, that if this really is what it really looks like at this point, they need to be pulling the ATF's choke-chain --and hard.

Or maybe waronguns is just illegally forging federal government documents

more from the document said:

An estimated 2,509
respondents will take 12 minutes to
complete the form.
6. An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The estimated annual public
burden associated with this collection is
3,615 hours.

Click to expand...

The ATF appears to assume the average FFL will fill out 7 forms for a total of 1.5 hours, annually. Now, how many successful FFL businesses fill out a mere 7 of these forms annually? The burden will disproportionally impact the most successful FFLs, with zero consideration for their business practices or situation; big red flag warning of a punitive regulation.

TCB

Attached to the Justice Dep't. budget bill for 2015 is a rider that prevents the BATFE from implementing this proposed rule. That rider would also kill the border state reporting requirement.

Hoyer said the Democrats will likely also push a separate amendment to preserve a federal rule requiring border-state gun dealers to report bulk purchases of certain semiautomatic rifles, a mandate Republicans are trying to undo in the spending package.

Echoing officials in the Obama administration, Hoyer characterized the reporting requirement as an important "law enforcement tool to determine whether or not there are large purchases by gangs or by drug dealers."

Republicans disagree. And earlier in the month the Appropriations Committee approved an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) that would bar the use of federal funds for maintaining such a database.

Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/207423-dems-eye-gun-control-in-spending-bill

This is why we have to get to the polls for these upcoming midterm elections.

So...what's with the GPO document mentioning nothing about the border or individual's making multiple transfers? I thought it was a summary of proposed rule changes; are the actual texts of the rules themselves posted somewhere else where we could examine them for accuracy against the summary, or are we just trusting the ATF to implement what its ten-line summary seeks comment on?

TCB