UnbelievableQuote:
Originally Posted by KAPA
Printable View
UnbelievableQuote:
Originally Posted by KAPA
The Dauntless is badassQuote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
That argument isn't so clear cut. Congress has already required the reporting of multiple handgun sales under 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) - this is clearly a statutory requirement. The ATF is claiming they can demand reports of multiple longgun sales under 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A) which reads:Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzzleFlash
That subsection generally allows the ATF to demand any records they want, usually for purposes of some specific investigation they are carrying out. What is new here is that the ATF is using that authority for a fishing expedition that involves thousands of FFLs.Quote:
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.
To me this looks like a slippery slope. If the ATF can demand that many records as part of a general investigation into "gun trafficking" then what is to stop them from demanding ALL records and basically building a database of all FFL-based gun transactions?
Anyway, before this gets too long winded, my point is to make a distinction between multiple long-gun reporting and the idea of hypothetically redefining magazines as NFA destructive devices. The requirement for multiple long-gun reporting is a novel use of an existing statute. "Destructive devices" have a very clear statutory definition that cannot have things arbitrarily added to it. There is simply no way that the executive branch can add magazines to the definition of "destructive devices", although I'm not putting past them to find some other way to dick with magazines.
My biggest concern is what they can do to imports. It didn't even require a formal Executive Order, and Chinese guns and ammunition are still prohibited twenty years after Clinton acted. How cheap would ammunition be now if Chinese factories were still pumping the below out like they used to?
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com...ad3e8b7340.jpg
The part about LE or a medical professional being allowed to "determine" if you are unsuitable to be in possession of a firearm including confiscation itself is tantamount to gestapo tactics. It will only take 1 perhaps 2 east coasters who feel they have nothing to lose, to look for confrontation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
They have gone full tilt in ny.
Actually Bush 1 enacted the import ban which led to PC t/hole furniture, neutered rifles and no russian or chi-com ammo. Clinton just solidified the law. At 1 point (once again history repeating) 7.62x39 was running $400+ per case. That embargo of com bloc ammo in turn gave us a plethora of SA mfg ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingman
The 1986 FOPA, which expressly forbids the Federal Government from maintaining a database of non NFA guns or gun owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingman
At least until he enacts an EO to consider AR's and the likes NFA items.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
this would certainly be on the table for him, he has no qualms taking away your rights (guns) Because it worked so well in chicagoQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
Yet the FTS still exists.. amazing how that works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Their justification -- it may help in criminal prosecutions in the future. Law stepped around sucessfully. Signed off on by the DOJ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
No, its not. Items cannot be added to the NFA list by any means other than legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound