ATF sales Reporting!!!

[Geckgo]

Well, we saw it comming. For the NRA members, you have a new message in your inbox

The ATF is trying to pass legislation for the reporting of 2 or more "long guns" with "detachable magazines" and "calibers greater than 22" within a five day period.

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but I have not seen the thread.

This is no doubt in response to the straw purchases from Arizona recently, and the bill is targeting border states, CA, NM, AZ, and TX. From what I remember those guys were buying their guns 20-30 at a time. The NRA has taken the stance that the bill is not legal and cited a bunch of cases to support their stance.

From what I have seen, this will not require registration of the guns, but it is still an infringements of our rights pertaining to "search and seizure". I'm pretty sure I know how y'all feel about this bill. Myself I'm just wondering how the ATF thinks this will do any good.

Criminals can just go to multiple gun shops and pick up one gun from each every 6 days and still stock up their straw purchasing items.

On the other hand, is there a way to stop straw purchasing (other than FFLs calling people they suspect in to the ATF) that would not violate our rights?

 

[seal]

id think if i owned a gun shop and didn't report someone who i thought was doing something illegal that i would be doing damage to the firearm community. If its serious enough to suspect then its worth mentioning.

 

[Geckgo]

I totally agree with you seal. I was saying a couple weeks ago when the "Mexican Drug Cartel" thing came out that while the buyers were being arrested, they said nothing about criminal investigation into the selling FFL.

If I owned a shop, and someone comes up to the counter and says, "How many AKs you got. 30? Okay great, gimme all of them" and proceeds to plop a pile of cash on the counter, I would be calling somebody!

 

[W.E.G.]

If I owned a shop, and someone comes up to the counter and says, "How many AKs you got. 30? Okay great, gimme all of them" and proceeds to plop a pile of cash on the counter, I would be calling somebody!

That's why the bad guys don't buy from you.

We'll assume 99.99999% of the FFL's feel the same way.
Its the 0.00001% that are responsible for 99.99999% of the problems.

Making it harder for criminals to commit crime, only increases the price of crime.
For some reason, getting rid of criminals is an unpopular proposition.

 

[walking arsenal]

We'll assume 99.99999% of the FFL's feel the same way.
Its the 0.00001% that are responsible for 99.99999% of the problems.

I'm willing o bet it's the other way around. If a hommie wanders into a gun shop waving a wad of $100 bills and passes a background check he's going to get sold anything and as much of anything as he can afford. That bundle of green is a full fridge with steaks in the freezer and paid college tuition for the kids to the shops owner. He won't pass that up.

You're giving humanity way too much credit.

 

[Shadow 7D]

HA, not from what I have seen in my neck of the woods, I was in my local pusher, er, purveyor of fine arms, when a 'boyfriend and girlfriend' were going to buy a pistol, long story short, she was going to 'buy' the pistol for him, so the counter guy handed him the paperwork.....

they walked after he bluntly said that it wasn't up to him who does the paperwork, if the boyfriend was going to get the gun, it doesn't matter who pays, they argued it was a gift, he pointed out that they had different addresses on their drivers licenses and that HE was there, so he needed to the paperwork, guy wouldn't, the counter guy invited the guy to do the paperwork or leave. They left, in separate cars no less, counter guy just shook his head and said, that he knew something was off.

 

[JVaughn]

Sorry fellas, I have to disagree with you on this one.

It says:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

it does not say:

the right of some people to keep and bear a reasonably limited amount of arms of a particular type shall not be infringed at this time.

Straw buying is what happens when a government tries to limit freedom, people find a way around it. If they keep it up, people will be buying all their guns on the street just like drug users buy all of their drugs on the street - because that's the only place you can get them.

 

[Geckgo]

JVaughn, I'm sorry I was not clearer, but apparently you misunderstood (or I am confused about this bill so please correct me if that is the case). From what I understand, this will not prevent a person from buying 30 firearms and walking out if they pass their background check and fill out the form properly, but the store owner (or maybe the FBI when they ask what type of gun is being purchased) would have to report the person's name and address to the ATF and let them know that he purchased. They could then (I guess) show up at his house, ask him about the purchase and see if he had sold/moved the guns to another location. If he owns a gun range and was replenishing his supply on rentable long arms, fine. If he resold them all to a Mexican drug lord, not so fine

So.... from what I understand, this is not a 2A issue, it's a question of whether this is "reasonable search" (4th A) and whether it conflicts with the courts on other grounds. The NRA seems to be specifically interested in paperwork describing the limitations on powers for the BATFE.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

On the other hand, is there a way to stop straw purchasing (other than FFLs calling people they suspect in to the ATF) that would not violate our rights?

Two things. One, secure the borders and cut off that destination; and two, keep those who have been adjudicated not be trusted with arms locked up.

Simple, constitutional, and effective.

Woody

 

[mokin]

To play Devil's Advocate, maybe this bill isn't so much about reporting suspected straw purchases as it is laying the groundwork for the ATF to be able to do something about those suspected straw purchases that were being reported. What if when a store owner did take it upon themselves to report what they believed to be suspicious were told by the ATF "Sorry, we can't do anything about it." Maybe that is what this bill is about.

Flame on.

 

[Geckgo]

mokin, you raise an interesting point, but I don't see how they would be unable to do anything about it?

 

[newfalguy101]

As I understand it, this "bill" would extend the multiple handgun reporting "law" to semi-auto rifles over .22 caliber using detachable mags.

I guess ATF isnt apposed to selling a truckload of .223 AR's or 5.54 AK's, but they would have to report a sale of 2 or more to the same person if the AR's were .30AR, or 7.62 X 39, or AK's in X39.................oh and 223 AKS are apparently ok to sell bunches of also.

Its a paperwork flood for dealers, no more and no less.

And frankly, the ATF guy who did my interview prior to my licensing told me they really dont care about the guys who buy a pair of guns occasionally, all they look for are the ones that are buying HIGH volume over and over.

Which roughly means this new paperwork flood will accomplish NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nyrifleman]

Sorry fellas, I have to disagree with you on this one.

It says:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

it does not say:

the right of some people to keep and bear a reasonably limited amount of arms of a particular type shall not be infringed at this time.

Straw buying is what happens when a government tries to limit freedom, people find a way around it. If they keep it up, people will be buying all their guns on the street just like drug users buy all of their drugs on the street - because that's the only place you can get them.

What JVaughn said.

 

[Davek1977]

I sincerely believe most gun dealers, at least that I've encountered, would VOLUNTARILY contact the BATFE if someone attempted to buy 30 semi-auto rifles with cash. While we know there's typically no love lost between the average FFl and the ATF, most dealers KNOW what constitutes a "suspicious sale" and would either deny the sale outright, or report it after the fact. Most gun dealers I know on a personal levedl are not interested on profiting from such sales, and WOULD turn their back on a "pile of cash' for 30 Ak's if they weren't 100% comfortable with the sale.....and I'd support their decision

 

[hvguy]

+1 jvaghn

If I were making some sort of change to prohibit or at least identify the STRAW buyers, I would probably put if you were purchase more than 2 weapon per 6 months, you had to give the reason for their use... however of course people lie...

But a 30 gun purchase should probably raise a flag or 2.... actually anything over 2 guns of the same kind should raise that flag IMHO...

I guess in the end... If there is a law, they will find a way around it.

 

[JVaughn]

Probably true that the act of reporting a "suspicious" sale could in the short term lead to searches and violations of the 4th Amendment just as Geckgo said. My point however on this whole thing is that rights aren't usually taken away quickly. It's another step on the path to what could eventually be 1 gun per person is allowed, to 1 gun per house, to no guns period. I can't in good conceince get on board with this kind of rule because I fear where it might go. The lawmakers and judges in this country are very committed to the concept of precedents; and to me this sets a dangerous precedent.

Do I think that most people need 20 assault rifles? probably they don't.
Would it be suspicious if someone bought 20 assault rifles? mabye.
Would I support a law that limited such purchases, or required reporting of them? Absolutely no.

 

[Davek1977]

Do I think that most people need 20 assault rifles? probably they don't.
Would it be suspicious if someone bought 20 assault rifles? mabye.
Would I support a law that limited such purchases, or required reporting of them? Absolutely no.

Fair enough, I guess.....but how would YOU feel PERSONALLY if you found out your local FFL routinely sold crates of AK's to"suspicious" characters, for cash, on a regular basis? Do you see his actions as benefiting the firearms movement, or is he setting us back? Would you continue to patronize a dealer who routinely engaged in such practices? Would you feel comfortable shopping in his or her shop? I don't see such a dealer as an ally in our cause. Simply putting more guns "out there" doesn't really benefit the cause, and in these sorts of cases, actively HURT our overall mission. If more dealers refused to be blinded by greed, and handled such sales appropriately and let the proper people into the loop voluntarily, laws like this wouldn't be being put forth. Sometimes, we are our own worst enemy, and we refuse to ever acknowledge it. Like most laws, if everyone could be counted on to utilize a minimum amount of common sense, it would be wholly unnecessary......but common sense isn't all that common

 

[Carl N. Brown]

JVaughn:"...If they keep it up, people will be buying all their guns on the street..."

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, who personally loathed guns, studied 588 homicides in detail--background and relationship of murderer and victim, circustances of the crime--and concluded not only that most homicides due to shooting would be completed by other means if the gun were not present, but that murder weapons were commonly acquired by street sales.

Liberal academics James Wright and Peter Rossi were hired by the Carter adminstration to study guns and violence. One of their studies was a survey of 1874 convicts in 18 prisons in 10 states. Half the gun using convicts expected to acquire firearms from dealers in contraband (fences dealing in stolen goods, drug dealers and such smugglers, etc.); one quarter by loan from a fellow criminal; one eighth from stealing the guns themselves. The remaining one eighth were expecting to get guns from gun shops or pawnshops, usually by having a friend, relative or lover with no record buy for them.

Most criminals get their guns on the streets anyway. The result of overly strict gun laws will be like the bans on alcohol or "Lady Chatterly's Lover": a wide open black market supported by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Prohibitory gun control will go down in history as a huge mistake.

One reason for limiting Tiahrt information to law enforcement (and keeping out out of the hands of Bloomberg's tort lawyers suing gun dealers) is that many of the gun dealers targeted by gun runners are cooperating with ATF to target real criminal gun runners.

Still, while "straw purchases" do put some guns in criminal hands, "straw purchase" is a small slice of the illegal market in guns and a tiny slice of the legal market in guns.

As far as the Mexican problem goes, just look at the photographed arrays of weapons seized from the cartels: if they came from the US, they were weapons supplied by our government to theirs for military and police use. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas_Cartel ) And those Korean hand grenades were not bought at a WalMart in Texas.

 

[Bubba613]

First, the proposal affects dealers on in about 3 states, on the Mexican border.
Second, they have had plenty of issues with dealers in those places.
Third, I don't believe this will pass, with the new GOP House as enough people don't trust the ATF not demand more and more power.
Finally, I think this has been discussed here many times over.

 

[Geckgo]

I haven't seen anyone on this thread supporting this silly piece of legislation. For my own part, I say drop the silly law and when you find a straw purchaser or some kind of illegal provision of arms all comming from the same FFL or gunshop, go and ask the guy about it. I think it should reside solely with the FFL to decide if he/she thinks that a purchase is suspicious and then report the purchase. They can even sell the guns first, doesn't really bother me, but report the thing to someone. If not the ATF then some local law enforcement. Then if it ends up being an issue the FFL won't be indicted for conspiracy. We don't need a stupid law to do that job, respectable FFLs should do it anyways.

When it comes to gun-running and things of that sort, I'm pretty sure with the money some of those guys are making, they can pay a friend or family member to register an FFL or in many cases get one themselves, so this bill would do absolutely nothing on that front anyways.

I'm not sure on the 223, whether they count that. In the bill they say (anything larger than a 22), but they aren't really anymore specific than that. Does this include mag-fed .22LRs (diam .224) or are we ignoring .223 bullets altogether? Not sure, I know what they would "want" it to mean, but the first thing the ATF needs to do if they want to pass a bill is learn how to write one up.

 

[henschman]

I am NOT opposed to store owners contacting investigators of their own free will if they think a situation smells rotten. I AM opposed to government forcing store owners to report sales when there is no violation of any liberty, or even any law, occurring.

It is just one more condition or restraint added to the exercise of a liberty that is supposed to be inalienable. It is another example of government preemptively initiating force in order to prevent the mere possibility of crime sometime down the road. That is not a legitimate rationale for the use of force and is therefore illegitimate and worthy of being resisted by all liberty-loving individuals.

 

[BigMustard]

They could then (I guess) show up at his house, ask him about the purchase and see if he had sold/moved the guns to another location

Did I read that right? Are you saying if the ATF/FBI whoever thinks a purchase is up for review they will come to your house and ask to see them? With or without a warrant that still sounds unreasonable. If I have not broken any laws you better stay out of my castle.

This is where it's all going to start. Once they have a small grip it will eventually turn into a strangulation and my grandchildren will be fighting the fascists with rocks and slingshots.

 

[Geckgo]

If your FFL has enough suspicion about you to call the ATF, then there is probably plenty of probable cause. Most dealers that I know would never suspect you for purchasing two AR-10s. They might start suspecting you if you buy 2 every week, but you should at least know them well enough at that point to talk to them about why you are buying so many guns, maybe you just want one in every color, who knows? Point in fact, if you are a law abiding citizen then the FFL should have no reason to call the BATFE on you. And, if you do get an itch, cash a big tax return check or win the lotto or something, and go buy an entire aresenal to play with, and the ATF does show up on your doorstep or tails you for a while to make sure that you are not supplying drug dealers and then they leave with nothing, what harm has really been done?

Maybe you are right, BigMustard. One cannot ignor the fact that you never want law enforcement in your home unless they are cleaning up a mess that you made of some wouldbe robber/killer. It should really be the FFL holders that "seem" to be making shady deal that need "watching," if anyone at all. But just maybe, if they find a way to cut off a couple of major suppliers to large gangs and cartels, we can start getting some of our other "gun laws" repealed.

The legislation in question obviously doesn't fix anything.

 

[Joe in fla]

Frankly I think this law will only be the first step.

First, as several of you have already pointed out, if the ATF is notified that someone has bought more than two guns then they will have to investigate and that means eventually going and asking the buyer if he still has them and what he intends to do with them. This will be where the trouble starts, given the ATF's history, most intelligent gun owners will refuse to talk to them without a warrant. So either the law is totally ineffective OR the ATF must have it's power expanded to do warrantless searches! Then the issue arises about what other evidence that they find when they perform that search will be admissible in court. Compensation for legal advice for the law abiding gun owners involved. Compensation for damage incurred during the "search", etc etc. This whole sequence of events opens numerous cans of worms!

Second, we've already seen reports of multiple gun sales to Mexican drug cartels in states as far away a Minnesota! The cartels will simply start buying their guns outside the four states listed in this bill. That means the ATF will have to expand the reporting requirement (and subsequent investigations) to all fifty states plus the US territories.

Third, the other step that I expect the cartels to take will be to start sending in thirty straw buyers to buy one gun each instead of one buyer buying thirty guns. I don't see an way that the ATF can combat this situation except to investigate every gun buyer.

Forth, the cartels can also send in the same buyer but send him in only after six days have elasped. The reporting bill specifies multiple purchases within five days so the buyer would not be reported. OK, so what does the ATF have to do to combat this approach? They have to extend the reporting period but the cartels will simply wait longer to make subsequent purchases so ultimately the ATF would have to require dealers to report any multiple gun sale that ever occurred no matter how long the time in between. That's hardly a realistic! And again the ATF would be faced with having to investigate every single gun buyer!

This law appears to me to be either; 1). completely unworkable or 2). the beginnings of a whole series of more and more draconian laws in an effort to make this one law work.

 

[GambJoe]

It's like the law that asks the banks to report deposites more than 10K. The war on drugs.

I'm for local and Federal gov't trying to prevent straw buys by criminals. But why did they pick 2 a week? Is it some magic number?

If I had a good reason to buy more than two a week. Why not report it?