Gov't wants dealers to report sales of High-Powered rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sir Aardvark

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
1,277
Location
Southern California
WASHINGTON - Federal weapons agents want gun dealers near the Mexican border to start reporting multiple sales of high-powered rifles.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is asking the White House budget office to approve an emergency request that would require dealers to report sales of two or more high-powered rifles to the same customer within a five-day period. The weapons are favorites of Mexican drug cartels.

ATF is asking the Office of Management and Budget for approval by Jan. 5.

The emergency request, published Friday in the Federal Register, is likely to face stiff opposition from gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association.

The request would affect about 8,500 dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If approved, it would be in place for six months.



If approved, how many think that this would be temporary?

Also, does anyone think that this will actually have an impact on anything that is going on south of the border?


(I particularly like the following: "The weapons are favorites of Mexican drug cartels.")
 
That should get them off the back of the military styled semis which everyone knows are intermediate powered cartridges. Now they are going after the evil "Sniper Rifles":fire: Mexico needs to police itself starting with the unregulated flow of illegals which it turns a blind eye towards.
 
When I saw the article, I read AR style weapons. Near the border, I read 100 +/- miles.

Having said that, I suspect once the anti gun gurus in the Obummer administration got their hands on it, it would be all the way to the Canadian border, permanently, and literally no effect at all.
 
Along with this back door gun control measure there have been records kept at Gander Mountain and I would imagine other large chains.
I know from some folks who work at Gander Mountain that the clerks have been threatened by the employer to give information to the ATF without proper warrants.
Or loose their jobs. They were also told to relay information to the ATF on their own time and unpaid while away from the job.
Some things to ponder when patronizing huge gun shops is the mind set when the constitution comes into play. The dollar and colaberation can be a behind the scene issue we may never know about.
I sometimes wonder where some of the employees come from when I have to interact with them.
I had a concern about some customers taking photographs in the gun department near Milwaukee WI, when i aproached the clerk he brushed it off." Oh they are foreigners and never say so many guns in one place ". was his reply.
I do not think photographing inside anyones place of business or home is kosher without first obtaining permission.
The possibility of a bad outcome is there no matter how slight.
This aplies to cell phone pics also. The possibility of a place being cased for robery or other action is just a fact.
Am I paranoid or just aware and proactive?
 
and just what, pray-tell.....does ATF consider a "high-powered" rifle.......?

I want to know as well. What in the world makes a rifle "high powered?"
 
I want to know as well. What in the world makes a rifle "high powered?"

The kinetic energy imparted to the target. Which in reality means that 7.62X 39 and .223 Remington are not high powered rifle catridges. I would think the low end of high power rifle catridges would be something like .308 Win .
 
The irony of calling firearms intentionally chambered in some of the least potent calibers being called "high powered".
.223 is not even considered suitable for hunting in many places and the .30-30, which is quite a bit more powerful considered a minimum small bore rifle for over a century.


I guess that makes every hunting rifle an "extremely high powered sniper rifle".
 
"High Powered" is vague. As I recall, the emergency request stated in general that rifles must have these characteristics: (1) larger than 22 caliber, (2) Must be capable of accepting detachable magazines, (3) semi-automatic. It says nothing about a distance from the USA-Mexico border that I noticed.

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

The request if approved is not temporary. The 180-day part is temporary if it is not approved by the appropriate legislative body.
 
Based on those characteristics, AK's would be subject to the reporting requirement, while AR's would not.

Even more ridiculous, AK's would be subject to the reporting requirement, but a standard SKS would not.
 
The whole thing reeks, especially coming from this administration.
I hope all the appropriate parties will oppose this thing.
 
I wonder if AR's chambered for 223 (5.56) fall into this catagory? You could say that it is technically larger than .22 caliber at .224 caliber.
 
I wonder if AR's chambered for 223 (5.56) fall into this catagory? You could say that it is technically larger than .22 caliber at .224 caliber.

Well so is a .22lr. Are they going to require 10/22's to be reported?

I think the cartels would be far more likely to purchase bulk M1 Garands or even Saiga 12's (which do not fall within the reporting reqirement) than 10/22's.
 
Last edited:
Considering that the cartels are armed with military-grade weapons from all over the world, I doubt this will do anything but waste time and energy, and perhaps attract attention to parties who have nothing to do with the problem.

As for being "high powered", I guess a Dillon Aero minigun would qualify, since it runs on an electric motor.
 
Last edited:
Fox News keep stating that this new requirement applies to about 8500 FFL dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. That does not match the listing in the Federal Register.

I also think it is a waste of resources. If you have access to millions of dollars in cash and are willing to spend it, national borders mean little when it comes to getting military grade arms.

For US made firearms that qualify, I think it is sort of like the old 5-box ammunition limit that Walmart had. If you want ammunition that bad, you will make mulitiple trips and will buy from different dealers. I don't want to give Walmart any ideas however.
 
"High Powered" is any firearm used for illegal purposes. You never see anyone in the news shot with a low powered rifle or an ordinary rifle, no sir, they are always high powered.
 
Looking at the end of the pdf linked, it says:

The purpose of the information 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:

Could someone clarify that for me? I can tell it includes one person purchasing 2 or more of "qualifying" firearms, but the section " or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five" almost sounds like they would have to report when *I* buy a "qualifying" gun, and then Mr. Smith buys a "qualifying" gun.

It is the liberal sprinkling of "or" that keeps throwing me for loops.


IANAL (naturally).
 
I'll tell them all about my high powered rifles when they tell me who killed Kennedy, what they are hiding at Area 51, and what lies they have told us between 1939 - Present. No need to go back any further than that! "They" need to answer to us (the taxpayers), not us to them.
 
I'll tell them all about my high powered rifles when they tell me who killed Kennedy, what they are hiding at Area 51, and what lies they have told us between 1939 - Present. No need to go back any further than that! "They" need to answer to us (the taxpayers), not us to them.

That should be a political poster somewhere.
 
Does anybody have a copy of the rule itself? The Federal Register entry just says why the rule is proposed (need to collect). I've looked around and cannot find it.

The way it's in the FR, it applies everywhere, and would include a Ruger 10/22. It also only mentions licensees selling more than two per week, not unlicensed persons buying.
 
So please, lets do more than just vent about the rule change in this thread. At this point we're just preaching to the converted. Let's get out there and call your congressman, it only takes 5 minutes and I guarantee it will do more to get this rule quashed than anything else you could possibly do in that amount of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top