ATF to Push for New Reporting Rules for Dealers

[22-rimfire]

A Washington Post reporter was on Fox News (Greta Van Susteren show) this evening. I have not seen the article, but apparently a large number of recovered firearms in Mexico were originally purchased in the border states (TX, NM, AZ, and CA). I don't know what proportion of the firearms were traced to the USA.

I am against this just like I think the current multiple handgun reporting to the ATF is most likely a waste of time.

They apparently are looking for straw purchases. In particular they are looking for semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines larger than 22 caliber. The rifles must meet all of these characteristics. Since 223 had a bullet diameter of 0.224", I don't know if it would be considered 22 caliber.

 

[Blackbeard]

What they like to tell us is that 90% of the recovered firearms that were traced came from the US. The catch is the phrase, "that were traced". What they don't tell you is that about 2% of the recovered weapons were even traceable -- but of that tiny fraction, most were from the US. But that wouldn't make it sound like a huge problem that requires federal intervention, so that little fact is left out.

 

[General Tso]

I'll take the high-road and not tell you what I think of this comment!

I bought 12 pistols in one day, never talked to the ATF either. I would not have if they'd show up in any case. The issue here is with a presumption of illegal activity! It's just wrong!

In my opinion, and no disrespect intended, you are just the type of gun owner the government likes! You're OK with any restriction that does not involve you personally, or is a just a 'minor' inconvenience, or one that impact just a few gun owners.

My point is that this isn't 1975 anymore. Making the ATF aware of multiple purcases isn't presuming illegal activity, it's just being aware of POTENTIAL issues. In this day and age we have to use common sense. Common sense says that if a 23 year old female purchases 5 AK's in a 5 day period, maybe the ATF should be made AWARE, not go arrest her, just made aware. Also I would rather use our pro-gun influence to fight other gun laws. This isn't preventing us or anyone from buying anything.

 

[armoredman]

One small point not mentioned is 4473s over 25 years old, if the shop is still in business, may be destroyed.
AZ is a private sale state, so private sales cannot be and will not be recorded on any 4473 forms. I also am not fond of reporting non-crimes to any law enforcment agency, which the multiple sales thing is in fact, a report of non-crime.

 

[Bubba613]

My point is that this isn't 1975 anymore. Making the ATF aware of multiple purcases isn't presuming illegal activity, it's just being aware of POTENTIAL issues. In this day and age we have to use common sense. Common sense says that if a 23 year old female purchases 5 AK's in a 5 day period, maybe the ATF should be made AWARE, not go arrest her, just made aware. Also I would rather use our pro-gun influence to fight other gun laws. This isn't preventing us or anyone from buying anything.

How often does a 23 yr old female purchase 5 aks? If she does, how often is that indicative of criminal activity? If it is, how often is that the ONLY indication of criminal activity?
My issue with it is that it is grossly inefficient all around. The number of actual crimes it solves or stops is minimal, if any. The paperwork burden on all involved is enormous. The main effect seems to be to hammer dealers for regulatory neglect of filing the papers, making a crime out of a non-crime (failure to file the multiple sale report ranks high in violations that get dealers revoked).
The ONLY real purpose I can see here is to compile a database of guns and buyers, which ATF is otherwise not permitted to do.

 

[dogtown tom]

Here's the letter from the Acting Director of ATF

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/12/122010-hdqrts-melson-webcast.html

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
News Release
Office of the Director – Washington, DC
At The Frontline Against Violent Crime
For Immediate Release

December 20, 2010

www.atf.gov
Contact: ATF Office of the Director

(202) 648-8500
Acting Director Announces Demand Letters for Multiple Sales of Specific Long Guns in Four Border States
Hello, I’m Ken Melson, the Acting Director of ATF.

A recent initiative by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has caught the attention of national media outlets. I wanted to make sure everyone heard from me about this law enforcement initiative so there isn’t any confusion.

Recently, ATF announced through the Federal Register our intent to initiate a new Demand Letter requiring the reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns by Federal Firearms Licensees, known as FFLs, in the four Southwest Border States. We took this step as a way to help gain actionable law enforcement intelligence which we believe will help reduce criminal firearms trafficking along the Southwest border.

Before we can actually issue the Demand Letter we must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget for purposes of the paperwork reduction act. We expect to receive that approval in early January, 2011.

As many of you already know, the goals of ATF’s Southwest border firearms trafficking strategy are:

• To prevent violent crime;
•: Ensure the safety of the communities and law enforcement situated along the Southwest Border;
•: And to disrupt and dismantle the firearms trafficking networks responsible for the diversion of firearms from lawful commerce into the hands of the Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs)
Since 2006, there has been a significant increase in drug and firearms-related violence in Mexico and along our Southwest border. In response to this increased violence, ATF has deployed focused resources nationally to prevent the firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border and into Mexico.

According to ATF trace data, investigative experience, and Mexican law enforcement officials, a large number of rifles are being used in violent crimes in Mexico and along the border. Our new Demand Letter will implement a limited reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns that functions similarly to the current practice of reporting on the multiple sales of handguns. Currently, all FFLs in the country are required to submit a report of multiple sales to the National Tracing Center when an FFL sells two or more handguns to the same purchaser within five consecutive business days.

The proposed Demand Letter, which is narrowly circumscribed to meet our objectives, will apply a similar reporting requirement to certain long guns, but with these distinct differences:

First, the reporting requirement will apply only to FFLs doing business in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, which are major source states for crime guns seized in Mexico and traced to federal firearms licensees.

Secondly, the reporting requirement applies only to those rifles having all of the following characteristics:

•: A semi-automatic action;
•: A caliber greater than .22; and
•: The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
These specific characteristics subject a very narrow group of long guns that have been identified by ATF and the Government of Mexico as being involved in violent crimes in Mexico to the reporting requirement.

This reporting requirement would apply to the disposition of all rifles in the inventory of the FFLs exhibiting these characteristics, both new and used.

Third, we propose to implement this initiative as a pilot project for a period of one year.

Taken together, limiting the geographic scope, impacting a limited number of licensees, affecting a specific group of rifles, and limiting the duration of this reporting requirement, form a tailored, discreet, responsible and proactive response to a significant law enforcement issue.

Let me be absolutely clear. The purpose of requiring FFLs to report the specified multiple long gun sales in these four source states is to identify criminal firearms traffickers, not to prevent the full and free exercise of our Second Amendment rights, or to encumber the FFLs with burdensome paperwork.

These reports will give ATF real-time leads for the investigation of gun trafficking. ATF’s experience in these source states proves that multiple purchases of the described rifles are strong indicators of firearms trafficking to Mexico. By obtaining information about these multiple sales, ATF increases the likelihood of uncovering and disrupting trafficking schemes before the firearms make their way into Mexico.

I know that FFLs are good citizens who share ATF’s interest and commitment in keeping guns out of criminal hands. Working together we can do that without infringing on the rights of law abiding Americans.

###

 

[daorhgih]

"Mistreakes"? What "mistrakes"? Well, ummm...

Wee awl no thet IRS does nut maik mistrackes on its awditz, right? Then shurely they BATFU wan't be eny worser, wright?

 

[Bubbles]

From the ATF's press release:

The proposed Demand Letter, which is narrowly circumscribed to meet our objectives, will apply a similar reporting requirement to certain long guns, but with these distinct differences:

First, the reporting requirement will apply only to FFLs doing business in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, which are major source states for crime guns seized in Mexico and traced to federal firearms licensees.

This limitation is not in the notice that was published in the Federal Register.

 

[waterhouse]

Is there any indication as to whether this applies only to complete rifles, or does it also apply to receivers for said guns? It is common that someone buys an AR and an AK on the same day, but it is far more common that someone buys 2 lower receivers at once.

 

[Gouranga]

This is garbage. Yes they are supposedly looking for straw purchases. However, how tough is it now for those deliberately intending to do this to buy 4 of these firearms from a series of stores? In the meantime, law abiding citizens are reported to big Gov, and potentially opened to investigation and harassment. I can tell you if I lived near the Mexican border I would have me more than a few extra firearms for protection.

I have never broken a law above a traffic violation. So now I am being reported to the government because I am protecting my home because the government refuses to protect the national border near where I reside? How is that right?

Now how do does the ATF go about catching these straw man buyers? They have to go to their residence, and demand to see and catalog each and every weapon that they bought and of course each and every weapon in the house for good measure to ensure nothing is stolen. So now they leave that citizen disarmed once again near a border that the government then refuses to protect. Being they are federal the citizen will not see his weapons for months. Of course he/she can file a lawsuit and hope sometime within 10 years the SCOTUS helps them out. In the meantime the ATF will conveniently misplace or accidentally destroy said weapons and this person will be on a no buy list so they cannot replace what the ATF took.

So they are going to harass, and track the majority of us to catch the straw man purchasers not intelligent enough to limit sales at a single store to 4 of the suspect firearms. Wow, yeah I can see how this is going to be effective.

 

[Animal Mother]

I wrote to both of my Senators and my Congressman today concerning this. I've included my letter below simply as an example that others may want to use. Its not a great letter, just a start, as some of it has been cribbed from bits and pieces from various other posts regarding this regulation on the web, most notably from http://armsandthelaw.com/ where David's ability to research U.S. Code far exceeds my own.

Good news though, we are making progress, there are Senators and Representatives that are starting to line up against this, and if we send the rest of them more calls and emails, we can definitively turn the tide against this new regulation.

By the way, I looked and looked and could not find a list of the 33 House members who co-signed Denny Rehberg's letter, they deserve some recognition for stepping up. If anyone who knows could post them, that would be great.

Dear Congressman XXX,

I am writing you today concerning the "emergency" request from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) that was published in the Federal Register on Friday December 17th, 2010. This request asks the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve an information collection that would require federally licensed firearm dealers to report the sales of two or more semiautomatic rifles to the same customer within a five-day period.

The ATFE intends to bypass congressional approval for such regulations by going through the OMB for approval of this unprecedented extension of ATFE powers. I am strongly opposed to this maneuver to circumvent the authority of Congress and feel that this proposed regulation not only puts an immoral and unjust burden on lawful gun dealers and American citizen but is an unlawful regulation due to protections put in place by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The relevant sections of that act which I feel this emergency request will be in violation of are as follows:

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 of notice.

Secondly, the FOPA amendments were intended to cut off future requirements of direct reporting as outlined below, except for the multiple handgun reporting rule, which was grandfathered in as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

18 USC §926(a) allows promulgation of necessary rules and regulations, adding:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof..." Moreover, 18 USC §923(g)(3), which required multiple sales reporting, specifically limits it to handguns: reporting is required when a dealer "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."

As you can see, this end run around Congress is in violation of several sections of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. This proposed regulation would place an onerous burden on lawful citizens engaging in constitutionally protected activities. I feel that this regulation would inevitably track and catalogue the purchases of law-abiding gun owners. And while Congress has authorized multiple sales reporting for handguns, they have never extended this authority to other types of firearms.

As of this writing, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation all oppose this proposed reporting requirement. I know that Congressman Denny Rehberg along with 33 co-signers have sent a letter to the ATFE opposing this new regulation and that Senators Baucas and Tester have also sent letters to the ATFE opposing this move. I now ask that you please join us in opposing this brazen bureaucratic sidestep of Congressional authority.

Sincerely,

XXX XXX