U.S. judge backs ATF multiple rifle sales reporting

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bubbles

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
3,148
Location
Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
Off to the appeals court we go...

http://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-backs-atf-multiple-rifle-sales-reporting-002506030.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday, in a victory for the Obama administration, upheld new federal rules requiring gun dealers in four states bordering Mexico to report the sales of multiple semi-automatic rifles, despite a challenge by the gun industry.

The administration issued the reporting requirements last year despite opposition from the gun industry as part of a stepped-up effort to clamp down on the weapons flowing across the border to violent drug cartels in Mexico.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ordered more than 8,000 gun dealers in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California to report the sale within five business days of two or more semiautomatic rifles to the same person.

...

Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, found that the ATF's requirement was sufficiently narrowly tailored and that it was rational by focusing on the states that border Mexico.
 
Does this affect those who have C & R licenses and buy from a company in one of those four states? Or does it only apply to over the counter 4473 sales?
 
Midwest Does this affect those who have C & R licenses and buy from a company in one of those four states? Or does it only apply to over the counter 4473 sales?
Click to expand...

The requirement only applies to 01FFL Dealers. Those who have a manufacturers 07FFL can transfer a hundred AR's & AK's to the same customer and are not required to report anything.
 
What if someone lived in Texas and bought 10 semi-autos this year but bought them from 10 different dealers?
 
reporting ,then limited firearms purchase comes next.......

:uhoh:....as in new Jerky,Then one day you wake up and the gov says yer a felon if you don't turn in yer semi auto b a r , or 1187,that's the way it happened in Australia,vote to restore Liberty to the U S.........mexico,s got problems .............so does the states,Its just another reason to steal our gunrights...:(
 
Owen Sparks What if someone lived in Texas and bought 10 semi-autos this year but bought them from 10 different dealers?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if you live in Texas. ANY unlicensed person who acquires (from a licensed dealer in the five border states), at one time or during five consecutive business days, two or more semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 caliber (including .223/5.56 caliber) with the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
 
dogtown tom said:
The requirement only applies to 01FFL Dealers. Those who have a manufacturers 07FFL can transfer a hundred AR's & AK's to the same customer and are not required to report anything.
Click to expand...
So if I bought three C & R rifles from J & G Sales in Arizona with the C & R license, and I live in KY my purchase would be reported to the feds ?
 
I have to ask: Does anyone remember there ever being a proposed rule-making announcement from the ATF for us to comment on? If not, then here is a great example of a dictatorship.

Woody
 
I have to ask: Does anyone remember there ever being a proposed rule-making announcement from the ATF for us to comment on? If not, then here is a great example of a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Yes, all the appropriate steps were taken. It was even posted here at the time.

BTW if you want to see what people submitted it's available at:
http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/demand-letters/A%20Responses.pdf

Those are just the A's. You'll have to change the URL to 'B%20', 'C%20', etc to see the others. Also note that the ones in favor of the reporting primarily use the same form letter courtesy of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, while those against it actually researched the topic and took the time to write their own letters.
 
Thanks, Bubbles.

Obviously, Congress allowed it to stay in effect. It's stuff like this that truly angers me. All it takes for this crap to be adopted is for either the House, the Senate, or the President to disapprove any action to disapprove these rule-makings. It's diametric to the constitutional mode of approving a law. In the constitutional mode, everyone(the House, Senate, and President) must approve of a law for it to become law. In the unconstitutional rule-making process utilized by the bureaucrats, the proposed rules will automatically become law unless everyone(the House, Senate, and President) agrees to DISapprove a proposed rule. That is a serious violation of the constitutional process and must come to an immediate halt, and all previous "law" that has been "passed" in this fashion must go as well.

Woody
 
Something seems not right about this.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right.
How can it be that residents of different states are treated differently with respect to the exercise of those rights?

BTW, if applied equally to all states I do not see why this law is unconstitutional.
 
Not sure Court of Appeals has denied hearing the case.

But I question whether the regulation will be overturned.

If you do not want this type of information collected you need to elect politicians who will do the right thing.
 
Say it's not a dictatorship, but yet rules are dictated and enforced as laws...so it's not a dictatorship it's a tyranny. Still stinks no matter what you call it.
 
bushmaster1313 said:
Something seems not right about this.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right.
How can it be that residents of different states are treated differently with respect to the exercise of those rights?

BTW, if applied equally to all states I do not see why this law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
In all fairness gun owners are not being treated any different, only dealers. You can still purchase the same amount of guns.

From my stand point I bought 3 guns last year and will likely buy 1 or 2 more this year. If I were going to buy more than that I'd get my FFL and buy wholesale anyway.
 
Gimmered said:
In all fairness gun owners are not being treated any different, only dealers. You can still purchase the same amount of guns.

From my stand point I bought 3 guns last year and will likely buy 1 or 2 more this year. If I were going to buy more than that I'd get my FFL and buy wholesale anyway.
Click to expand...
It is also a crimminal violation of the rules to apply for an FFL simply to be able to buy wholesale.
 
It is also a crimminal violation of the rules to apply for an FFL simply to be able to buy wholesale.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a crime to do that but if you look at the application you will see this for questions 18 and 19:

18. Do you intend to make a profit from your business?

X Yes X No (If no, do not submit application)
Click to expand...

19. Do you intend to use your license only to acquire personal firearms?

X Yes (If yes do not submit application)
Click to expand...

So, it's not illegal, they just won't accept the application. But, if you lie about questions 18 or 19 that's a crime itself.

Also says that if you ONLY intend to sell at gunshows they won't take the application either, you have to have an actual business premise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dc dalton
  • Locked
Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement
Replies
3
Views
642
Yo Mama
Yo Mama
U
  • Locked
NRA Sues to Block Rifle Sales Reporting
Replies
1
Views
292
Dave Workman
D
B
  • Locked
Legal to force shops to report multiple "Assault Weapon" sales?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
A
  • Locked
ATF to Push for New Reporting Rules for Dealers
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
Animal Mother
A
elktrout
  • Locked
U.S. Guns Blamed for Mexican Drug Problems
Replies
16
Views
3K
hso
hso
Back
Top