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

[cbrgator]

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

They might be. It's irrelevant.

My point is simply that if they required those things to be reported, it would be an infringement on my First Amendment rights.

If they are putting me under surveillance and already know those things about me, that in itself may have some 4th Amendment implications in addition to touching the 1st.

 

[Colonel]

So is ATF going to punish dealers who don't support "Fast and Furious" sufficiently?

In other words, if dealers don't report enough multiple sales to Matarse S.A. per month, is ATF going to pull their tickets?

 

[azmjs]

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.

No, not at all.

What you're getting into is privacy, not the first amendment.

Every single thing you do and say in public, where you have no legal expectation of privacy, is for all intents and purposes 'reported' to whoever wants to keep track of it.

The chilling effect comes from there being consequences to this 'reporting.'

A "chilling effect" that is caused by paranoid fantasies that frighten you is not legitimate. You have no expectation of privacy with FFL sales, since you know going in that your personal information will be recorded and kept on record for the ATF.

 

[azmjs]

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?

What is a "constitutionally protected procedure" and why would reporting of it have a chilling effect of any kind?

Paranoid fantasies about the government that frighten you do not amount to something like this producing a "chilling effect."

If we had laws that punished people who had more than one imaginary "constitutionally protected procedure" in five months, then reporting it might have a chilling effect.

Not surprisingly, the real and operative issue would be that there was a punishment for a "constitutionally protected procedure," and that problem would solve itself, since the constitutional protection for the 'procedure' would overturn any punishments imposed for it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You have no expectation of privacy with FFL sales, since you know going in that your personal information will be recorded and kept on record for the ATF.

On the contrary, federal law requires ATF to destroy the information of approved legitimate purchases within 24 hours and forbids the establishment of a centralized firearm registration as well - however the new regulation calls for ATF to retain information on multiple sales for 2 years.

More importantly, CONGRESS NEVER GAVE THE ATF THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THIS REGULATION. Regardless of our political views, I would think we would all be concerned about a government agency determining it may exercise powers that are not given to it by Congress or the Constitution.

Paranoid fantasies about the government that frighten you do not amount to something like this producing a "chilling effect."

When it isn't your ox getting gored, it is paranoid fantasies. When the other party is in the White House and they use this same precedent to expand some other area of government legislation more dear to you, I'll be interested to see if you share the same view of it.

 

[azmjs]

FFLs maintain firearm purchase records on behalf of the ATF and other law enforcement agencies.

It is my ox getting gored. If I choose to buy two assault rifles from an FFL this month, living as I do in Arizona, I would be "reported" to the ATF.

This prospect does not deter me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is my ox getting gored... This prospect does not deter me.

Clearly it isn't your ox or you'd be a little more concerned about it; but given that you have unfailingly supported the current Administration regardless of what gun control policies they've proposed or implemented, I wasn't really expecting that from you.

And once again, this isn't about whether it is an inconvenience to have multiple sales of firearms reported to the ATF. It arguably isn't even about whether this is a violation of current federal law regarding how long ATF may maintain records of legitimate, approved purchases of firearms. In my mind, the key issue is that ATF is pretending to have power to create a new regulation in an arena where Congress has not granted them any such power.

18 USC 923(g)(1)(A) states:

"Such importers, manufacturers, and dealers shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section."

Nowhere does 18 USC 923(g) authorize the reporting of multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles. Congress has expressly told the ATF that they cannot bootstrap this section and that is exactly what they are trying to do. This should concern you; because it is a bad principle for a supposed government by the people and for the people.

 

[azmjs]

Clearly it isn't your ox or you'd be a little more concerned about it;

Now you're moving the goal posts and trying to have it both ways. I live in Arizona, i contemplate buying two assault rifles from an FFL during a five day period. Therefore, it is my "ox" being "gored."

I do not have paranoid fantasies about the government. You brought up this business about oxes being gored precisely to get around the fact that it is frightening paranoid fantasies that would be responsible for a 'chilling effect.'

You don't get to have it both ways. I don't need to have paranoid fantasies about the government in order for my ox to be getting gored here. Being a potential buyer of two ARs from a single FFL in a 5-day period who lives in Arizona puts me as squarely in the crosshairs of this reporting requirement as anyone could possibly be.

I say again, I am not deterred by it. It has no chilling effect on my deliberation about purchasing two assault rifles from an FFL during a 5 day period.

The Justice Department has given its justification for this reporting requirement and it was posted in this thread. If you disagree with it, as the NRA does, then you are welcome to file a law suit to that effect, as the NRA plans to do.

I'm concerned with violations of the second amendment and other parts of the constitution, not with burueacratic wrangling. Since this reporting requirement has no second-amendment implications, I couldn't care less how it turns out. It does not affect my decision-making about buying two ARs from an FFL within a 5-day period.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm concerned with violations of the second amendment and other parts of the constitution, not with burueacratic wrangling. Since this reporting requirement has no second-amendment implications, I couldn't care less how it turns out.

So your position is that the federal agency that regulates firearms making up regulations that are not supported by any congressional or constitutional authority has no Second Amendment implications? It is just petty bureaucratic wrangling that is too lowly for your concern?

That strikes me as a strange position to take; especially for one who purports to be concerned about the Second Amendment. And once again, I can see why you want to make the conversation about whether the regulation is convenient or not. It bypasses the question of whether this violates current federal law as well as skipping over the issue of where ATF has the authority to order such a regulation and frames the discussion in the terms that are most favorable to the current Administration - and you do seem inclined to discuss gun control policies in that light from what I've read of your posts.

And once again, here is the statute the Attorney General is relying on for its authority (18 USC 923 (g)(5):

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.

This statute only authorizes the Attorney General to modify the method of reporting information or to require less information than dictated by statute. It does not allow the ATF to collect additional information, especially in light of the express language in (g)(1)(A).

 

[azmjs]

Again, I am not very interested in the bureaucratic wrangling behind this reporting requirement, since there are no second-amendment implications whatever the outcome.

You see, there's a bit of a difference between an agency doing something that it has no statutory authority to do, and an agency doing something which it cites statutory authority to do, and whose reasoning you disagree with.

Bureaucrat A says that statute X can be used to justify Y, bureaucrat B says it cannot.

Eventually it will be sorted out by the relevant authorities, probably the courts.

Either way, the right to keep and bear arms is not affected, much less infringed.

If you want added privacy in your gun purchases, don't buy from FFLs. Simple as that.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You see, there's a bit of a difference between an agency doing something that it has no statutory authority to do, and an agency doing something which it cites statutory authority to do, and whose reasoning you disagree with.

Except we can all go look at the statutory authority the ATF has cited and see that not only does it not support their claim; but that in fact, four paragraphs above it, it states in plain black and white that they cannot require reports and information except as expressly required by this section.

Pretty clearly, the ATF is seeking to stretch its authority beyond what it is allowed by law. I am disappointed that your political views don't consider this a Second Amendment issue or an issue of any great concern; but I do appreciate your honesty about where your interests lie.

Either way, the right to keep and bear arms is not affected, much less infringed.

Naturally, I disagree. I feel a bit put out when an administrative agency attempts to claim a power that the House of Representatives specifically denied to it in its most recent budget bill (only to have the Senate strip that provision out). When the agency involved is also regulating a fundamental right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that is even a more serious issue than typical bureacratic overreach.

But once again, you've made your position on the issue crystal clear as usual. Nothing this Administration does offends your sense of the Second Amendment, regardless of how much it might offend mine. If nothing else, you're honest about your opinions.

 

[cbrgator]

What has me curious is what azmjs thinks IS an infringement on the 2A?

Blanket Bans? Confiscation? Anything else?

If the ATF knocked on your door and told you to give them your guns and cited a statute that doesn't give them that authority, would that be ok because the ATF is misreading the statute?

 

[azmjs]

If the Justice Department's justifications aren't up to snuff, it will lose the bureaucratic wrangling.

If they are, it will win. Not the end of the world. Not something new. Not even something worth paranoiac-fantasizing over.

Either way, no restriction will have been imposed on me in my deliberations over buying two or more ARs from an FFL during a five-day period.

 

[azmjs]

What has me curious is what azmjs thinks IS an infringement on the 2A?

Blanket Bans? Confiscation? Anything else?

For a quick synopsis see Antonin Scalia's opinion essay regarding a supreme court case called "DC v Heller."

 

[cbrgator]

Heller's narrow holding was that a blanket handgun bun is unconstitutional. I am asking you if there is anything else you would object to... beyond blanket ban.

 

[azmjs]

It's not especially difficult to detect the broader implications of the Heller decision.

The second amendment protects the right of individuals to own weapons such as semi automatic handguns for the purpose of self defense, and other weapons for other purposes.

If the government were to issue every American a few such weapons, and otherwise outlaw all trade in arms, the second amendment would not be violated, because the right of each individual to keep and bear arms would not be infringed.

 

[cbrgator]

Originally Posted by azmjs
If the government were to issue every American a few such weapons, and otherwise outlaw all trade in arms, the second amendment would not be violated, because the right of each individual to keep and bear arms would not be infringed.

There goes your credibility.

 

[azmjs]

Credibility? Please explain yourself.

 

[RETG]

Very interesting conversation, so far, I have to agree with everything azmjs has said. The same reporting has been required for handgun purchases and I have never heard that this infringed upon anyone's right to bear arms.

(Not that I agree with any of this BS reporting.)

 

[bushmaster1313]

I say again, I am not deterred by it. It has no chilling effect on my deliberation about purchasing two assault rifles from an FFL during a 5 day period.

What if it put you on a no-fly list?
What if it was used to get a warrant to tap your phone?
What if they were to then contact your employer?

 

[N003k]

Let's frame this in a simple way for those that don't see it as a big deal.

Do you support a law-enforcement agency being able to make it's own laws up, by-passing any law making body?

The way I see it, that's exactly what the Justice Department/ATF is doing now. The 'chilling effect' should come from contemplating what OTHER laws they can create on their own if they should get away with this, and also, what would so motivate and convince them they should take this step in the first place, knowing that it was shot down once before.

 

[CapnMac]

since there are no second-amendment implications whatever the outcome.

Except that it's the enforcement agency getting to write the rules it wishes to enforce.

This is not simple bureaucratic wrangling, it is agencies inventing policy by fiat. Which must needs be opposed at all turns.

This is not about whether you feel infringed upon, that's arguing from the specific to the general, this is about how all of us are to be governed. And, frankly, that matters.

So, yes, in that specific sense, I agree with you that this is not a Second Amendment issue. Because I find it a violation of all the amendments (well, except the 18th). If bureaucrats can create rules by fiat, especially in the face of specific laws, rules, and ordinances to the contrary, then the rule of law has no meaning. Baronies can be created, troops quartered in houses, property or liberty taken without warrant, worship of the Aldenata can be compelled.

From the general to the specific. If ATFE can make this rule, they can make one that bars non-FFL sales in AZ, too. And, once in the CFR, it is the law until forced out by legal contention--presuming that the contention against is upheld by a sufficient enough court. Examine Lautenberg, which clearly had "ex post facto" problems before enactment, and has run into further problems of late. It is still the law of the land unless and until it can be overturned.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Comrad Stalin would like a word with you... Dont worry, he just wants to talk.



Reporting, record keeping, registration....

 

[bushmaster1313]

If bureaucrats can create rules by fiat

It's not the bureaucrats who thought this up.
It's the executive branch (President and Attorney General)

 

[bushmaster1313]

The real point of my OP was to ask if it is legal to force FFL to report multiple long gun sales.

I think it clear that it is not legal under the current set of laws for the Attorney General to do it by fiat.

Whether Congress could empower the Attorney General to do this is a definite possibility.