The majority of the opposition is not to the requirement to report multiple long gun sales, it's the way the AFT is trying to circumvent the congress in obtaining this new requirement.
Let this be debated in the Halls of Congress and let the chips fall where they may. That's all we're asking.
What if the the IRS declared that all negros had to pay a 90% income tax and congress was circumvented? Would you be OK with that?
What if the Interior department said drilling for oil in National Parks was OK by bypassing congress? Would you be OK with that?
What if the department of education set forth a new law that all people in the country must speak english within their homes, under penalty of law? Would you be OK with that.
This may be hard for you to grasp, but please consider that whatever power you grant to a federal agency can cut both ways. Just because you approve of the percieved outcome this will produce, do you really want to set the precedent that individual agencies within the american government can set their own policies, by circumventing our legislative process?
Think about all the possibilities for abuse by future federal employees before you answer.
But they apparently think they can arbitrarily say the law means whatever they want it to mean.
David Hardy points out that even the ramrodding through the commenting process is illegal:
There are several violations of the Gun Control Act, as amended by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act. 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' notice.
That's without even getting into the obvious fact of our fundamental human right to buy--utterly anonymously--a googolplexian guns (of any type) per yoctosecond.
Secondly, the reporting requirement applies only to those rifles having all of the following characteristics:
A semi-automatic action; A caliber greater than .22; The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Does anybody find it odd that they are not including AR-15 pattern guns in the reporting (supposedly the “weapon of choice” for the drug cartels)? The bullet from a standard AR is not greater than .22 caliber.
I bet this is a case of “do as I mean, not as I say”, but it’s a little disconcerting coming from the ATF.
The standard round for the AR platform is .223, 3 one-thousandths of an inch larger than .22.
But the ".22" of the .22 rimfire is just a nominal figure. Just as the diameter of the .38 Special bullet is actually 0.357", and the diameter of a .45 ACP bullet is generally .451", the diameter of a .22 rimfire bullet is actually, according to ammoguide.com, .223".
That said, I very much suspect the BATFE intends the new requirement to apply to centerfire cartridges, like the .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO, but not the .22 rimfire.
Whether doing it the way they are is simple idiotic incompetence, or part of a more sinister agenda, is hard to say--both possibilities are plausible.
FWM, I have not seen the actual ATF text, only media reports- and yes they are inconsistent.
Kaveman, I believe both the .22LR and .223 Remington technically measure at .224 inches. Still, neither is “greater than .22” because the stated significant digit is to the hundredth of an inch. They would have to say “greater than .220” which would be just about everything except the .17 family. It sounds nitpicky, but I’d be concerned if I were an FFL who could lose my license because I wasn’t reporting multiple sales of Ruger 10/22’s. If the ATF says .22LR, then the .223 rem is still identical in diameter, so now what? I don’t know why they didn’t say centerfire rifles and be done with it.
Imagine if all the gun extremists in the country put all that time and energy into something constructive, America would be a great country once again instead of what it has become.
The House voted overwhelmingly Friday to block the Obama administration from implementing a controversial proposal meant to give federal authorities a new tool to catch gunrunners to Mexico.
The proposed rule was strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association, which praised the House for taking the action.
The measure passed with bipartisan support, 277 to 149, which added it to a massive spending bill that would keep the federal government running through September.
Now, let's hope the Senate shows the same moral courage as the House, and also stands up to the administration's anti-gun bullying, as its duty to the people requires.
An unmistakable (even taking into consideration the high density of the skulls of forcible citizen disarmament advocates) message to the BATFE, to back the fuck off. Unmistakable and bipartisan, with 41 Democrats seeing the light. The only Republican "No" vote was, predictably, from the bigoted Islamaphobe, Peter King (R-NY).
Oops--my mistake. Peter King was actually one of two "Republicans" to vote against this common sense protection against blatant abuse of executive power (to say nothing of the brutal violence against both the Second and Tenth Amendments)--Brian Bilbray (R-CA) also voted against it.
New York and California--states so regressive, that even legislators who call themselves "Republicans" don't feel any obligation to defend the rights of citizens of our Republic.
On the other hand, the fact that this measure was introduced by Democrat Dan Boren (D-OK), indicates that even Democrats are abandoning the sinking ship of "gun control."
Zorroy, Thanks for all the reporting, but I suspect your interpretation of what it actually means is more wishful thinkiing than anything else. Like much of the gun debate, about this too, time will tell.
Democrats are abandoning the sinking ship of "gun control."
The majority of the opposition is not to the requirement to report multiple long gun sales, it's the way the AFT is trying to circumvent the congress in obtaining this new requirement.
ReplyDeleteLet this be debated in the Halls of Congress and let the chips fall where they may. That's all we're asking.
What if the the IRS declared that all negros had to pay a 90% income tax and congress was circumvented? Would you be OK with that?
What if the Interior department said drilling for oil in National Parks was OK by bypassing congress? Would you be OK with that?
What if the department of education set forth a new law that all people in the country must speak english within their homes, under penalty of law? Would you be OK with that.
This may be hard for you to grasp, but please consider that whatever power you grant to a federal agency can cut both ways. Just because you approve of the percieved outcome this will produce, do you really want to set the precedent that individual agencies within the american government can set their own policies, by circumventing our legislative process?
Think about all the possibilities for abuse by future federal employees before you answer.
Kaveman pegged it. If this needs done then pass a law. The ATF does not get to make up its own laws but rather enforce the laws that are passed.
ReplyDeleteWhat part about that is so hard for the anti-gunners to understand?
In (probably redundant) reinforcement of the above:
ReplyDeleteFrom the BATFE's own website:
ATF cannot enact a law, nor can it amend the law.
But they apparently think they can arbitrarily say the law means whatever they want it to mean.
David Hardy points out that even the ramrodding through the commenting process is illegal:
There are several violations of the Gun Control Act, as amended by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act. 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' notice.
That's without even getting into the obvious fact of our fundamental human right to buy--utterly anonymously--a googolplexian guns (of any type) per yoctosecond.
Secondly, the reporting requirement applies only to those rifles having all of the following characteristics:
ReplyDeleteA semi-automatic action;
A caliber greater than .22;
The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Does anybody find it odd that they are not including AR-15 pattern guns in the reporting (supposedly the “weapon of choice” for the drug cartels)? The bullet from a standard AR is not greater than .22 caliber.
I bet this is a case of “do as I mean, not as I say”, but it’s a little disconcerting coming from the ATF.
T.S.
ReplyDeleteYou must be looking at something the media reported. I think you will find that the ATF has it as greater than .22LR.
"The bullet from a standard AR is not greater than .22 caliber."
ReplyDeleteIncorrect.
The standard round for the AR platform is .223, 3 one-thousandths of an inch larger than .22.
Kaveman:
ReplyDeleteIncorrect.
The standard round for the AR platform is .223, 3 one-thousandths of an inch larger than .22.
But the ".22" of the .22 rimfire is just a nominal figure. Just as the diameter of the .38 Special bullet is actually 0.357", and the diameter of a .45 ACP bullet is generally .451", the diameter of a .22 rimfire bullet is actually, according to ammoguide.com, .223".
That said, I very much suspect the BATFE intends the new requirement to apply to centerfire cartridges, like the .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO, but not the .22 rimfire.
Whether doing it the way they are is simple idiotic incompetence, or part of a more sinister agenda, is hard to say--both possibilities are plausible.
Oops--messed up that AmmoGuide.com link in my previous comment. Sorry about that--this one should work.
ReplyDeleteFWM, I have not seen the actual ATF text, only media reports- and yes they are inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteKaveman, I believe both the .22LR and .223 Remington technically measure at .224 inches. Still, neither is “greater than .22” because the stated significant digit is to the hundredth of an inch. They would have to say “greater than .220” which would be just about everything except the .17 family. It sounds nitpicky, but I’d be concerned if I were an FFL who could lose my license because I wasn’t reporting multiple sales of Ruger 10/22’s. If the ATF says .22LR, then the .223 rem is still identical in diameter, so now what? I don’t know why they didn’t say centerfire rifles and be done with it.
Wow, you guys really know your bullet sizes.
ReplyDeleteImagine if all the gun extremists in the country put all that time and energy into something constructive, America would be a great country once again instead of what it has become.
Imagine if the ATF put time and energy into knowing about bullet sizes.
ReplyDeleteWonderful news from the House of Representatives!
ReplyDeleteThe House voted overwhelmingly Friday to block the Obama administration from implementing a controversial proposal meant to give federal authorities a new tool to catch gunrunners to Mexico.
The proposed rule was strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association, which praised the House for taking the action.
The measure passed with bipartisan support, 277 to 149, which added it to a massive spending bill that would keep the federal government running through September.
Now, let's hope the Senate shows the same moral courage as the House, and also stands up to the administration's anti-gun bullying, as its duty to the people requires.
An unmistakable (even taking into consideration the high density of the skulls of forcible citizen disarmament advocates) message to the BATFE, to back the fuck off. Unmistakable and bipartisan, with 41 Democrats seeing the light. The only Republican "No" vote was, predictably, from the bigoted Islamaphobe, Peter King (R-NY).
ReplyDeleteBigotry and "gun control"--they just go together.
Oops--my mistake. Peter King was actually one of two "Republicans" to vote against this common sense protection against blatant abuse of executive power (to say nothing of the brutal violence against both the Second and Tenth Amendments)--Brian Bilbray (R-CA) also voted against it.
ReplyDeleteNew York and California--states so regressive, that even legislators who call themselves "Republicans" don't feel any obligation to defend the rights of citizens of our Republic.
On the other hand, the fact that this measure was introduced by Democrat Dan Boren (D-OK), indicates that even Democrats are abandoning the sinking ship of "gun control."
Better late than never, eh?
Zorroy, Thanks for all the reporting, but I suspect your interpretation of what it actually means is more wishful thinkiing than anything else. Like much of the gun debate, about this too, time will tell.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are abandoning the sinking ship of "gun control."
We'll see.