Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire ATF going after nationwide reporting of multiple gun sales of semi-autos?

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 2014 / Notices

Abstract:
The purpose of this information collection 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:
(a) Semi automatic;
(b) a caliber greater than .22;
and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Basis for a warrant for what?

This is about gathering the names of gun buyers in order to build a permanent database of owners of semi-auto firearms and to have those owners be subject to heightened scrutiny by the ATF. The ATF agents during Fast & Furious specifically said under oath that if they had names of people buying multiple semi-auto firearms that they would go to their house and subject them to questioning. If they can't get enough information to satisfy them, there's nothing stopping them from catching your spouse or family members while you aren't around. There's nothing to prevent them from going in to talk to your employer. Etc, etc.

And when has the federal government EVER reduced tracking? You think they'll stop with sales of multiple rifles from one seller in a 5 day window? No, they'll insist on tracking all sales of semi-auto rifles because it's so easy to buy 10 in 1 day from 10 different sellers. There have been calls by the left to place all semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines under the auspices of the NFA, requiring a $200 fee and registration of every single firearm in order for you to keep one.

Fight it now.

It would be ok with me as long as the reporting is strictly limited to a quick phone call to the ATF where the dealer says 'there was some guy in here last week who bought 2 guns'. No other statement or records are allowed.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/13/p...to-ratchet-up-scrutiny-escalate-tactics/

Unfortunately, two recent incidents have highlighted how government data indicating firearm ownership can be used by law enforcement officials as justification to escalate encounters with gun owners.

I totally agree with you. It seems though that increasingly, were are a bunch of pussies who just can't say no to some tyrant at our front door. Again, what basis would they have for a warrant? Let's say you live by yourself and they come to your door and ask to come in. You say "[bleep] off" and shut the door. The only way they can get further info from you is if they get a warrant. Let's say further that your employer doesn't have a clue one way or the other what guns you own and (rightly) doesn't care. Dead end. I mean, do you view any of this as the basis for a warrant in a "normal" area of the United States? Say in Nebraska? They've already got people so cowed down that they don't bank normally. You go in and want to withdraw $10000 to go to Vegas or to pay cash for a car your buddy has. You get questioned by the damned bank and turned in to the FBI if you insist on withdrawing that amount from your checking. We all get all worried about the Feebs but what if they do come to your door? Again, tell them to get a warrant. Why would they be able to? It's your damned business.

I see this two ways as I said...I agree totally that it should be fought and unlike the other post I am not defeatist about it. I think we can win. OTOH I think it is stupid to be intimidated by simply going about one's day-to-day business because some damned alphabet agency came up with a new regulation and they might stop by your house. Too many of us are scared they might stop by when hardly any of the people who are scared have anything to hide. And even if they did have something...let's say they're an occasional toker or some such, why in the [bleep] would the ATF be able to gain access anyway?

So the question remains, what basis would they have for a warrant? And without a warrant, or even with one possibly, what information could they gain if you kept your mouth shut?

I think you'd have a wrongful termination suit against your company if they fired you because they thought it was your fault the ATF was there asking or because they agreed with the ATF that you were a domestic terrorist just because you bought two LEGAL guns within days of one another.

Definitely, don't allow them to get the regs changed, but also we need to stand up and QUIT talking.

Why? You need to get your head straight on this. For one thing, that would do nobody any good. For another, it presupposes that buying two guns is a furtive activity that is somehow on the edge of breaking the law. It isn't. Attitudes like this is why were are always fighting from a disadvantage. It is frankly astonishing that somebody who hangs out here as much as you do and ostensibly actually reads, comprehends and retains some of the stuff posted, could harbor such an attitude.

So... the way I read this, it is two rifles in five days for the store, not to a particular individual? So if Harry buys an AR-15 on Monday, and Sam buys a M1-A on Wednesday, the store needs to report, "My store sold 2 semi-autos in 5 days".

Is that how you are reading it?

Sycamore

Yeah, they floated it but then backed down to just the border states - using the "massive" flow of arms from the US to the cartels as justification.

Being that it's an election year, this needs to become an issue. They started with multiple handgun reporting, then now on to multiple semi-auto reporting... Courts aren't going to stop them from gradually building up to a national firearms database, that needs to happen from the grassroots.

could it be a form of intimidation , trying to get sellers to reduce sales or even get out of the business? in the 80's I had a small gun shop in commiefornia. Bill Clinton came along and made it so cost prohibitive that I let my ffl go. we are facing such a multiple prong front that we will lose just by attrition.
what is needed is proactive action rather than reactive.

Okay... Looking at the summary, that is what it is saying. Might be I jumped the gun and this isn't aimed at individuals... But of what use is that information to them without the names of gun buyers?