ATF going after nationwide reporting of multiple gun sales of semi-autos?

Was just looking for something on the ATF web site and ran across a posting of a request for public comments from 3 weeks ago.

Looks to be that ATF is pushing for nation wide reporting of everybody who buys 2 or more semi-auto's with detachable magazines within a 5 day period.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-15/pdf/2014-08381.pdf

I don't see it saying anything about it just being border states...

Quote

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.

Anybody heard anything about this? Or is ATF/DOJ trying to run this under the radar?

They actually, floated that about a year and half ago, it went no where.

That being said, they will continue to push it out there until it does become a regulation.

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.

I don't want this to become a regulation but in the end we need more people saying, "so [bleep] what?". I mean, come on out to my house and come to the door without a warrant and you can kiss my ass. Why even talk to them other than to tell them to hit the bricks? As far as warrants, how would this be the basis for one?

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.

Originally Posted by Calhoun

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rock Chuck

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.

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.

Originally Posted by steve4102

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.

Troubling but not closely related to what I was saying.

Originally Posted by EthanEdwards

Originally Posted by Calhoun

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.

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.

I realize today is Sunday....but do you actually work? As in "have a job" ??

If your name isn't on that list, reported or not, you are not doing your part.

next they will be wanting to have all purchases of more than 1 box of ammo reported. any more would be suspect of stock piling for criminal intent. where would it end. you bought 10 pounds of powder there fore you must be planning something. oh oh you bought more than 5 lbs of sugar, must be planning to make your own booze. it is a slippery slope we are on.
I agree with EE. though just say No to warrantless intrusion. even though in the current political condition it may get you shot. America the Free no more.

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

Originally Posted by EthanEdwards

Originally Posted by Rock Chuck

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.

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.

What are you talking about?

Skimmed thru this, has anyone mentioned that if two (2) handguns are purchased from a FFL by the same person in a five (5) day period it is reported, as in HAPPENING NOW as I write this, not proposed for the future?

Google ATF multiple handgun purchases, or FAQ and see for yourselves.

Originally Posted by Sycamore

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

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?

Originally Posted by Calhoun

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.

You mean using their own gun running operations as the excuse.

Originally Posted by Calhoun

Originally Posted by Sycamore

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

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?

The reporting is for multiple sales to an individual, and not just by the dealer, just as with handguns:

The Gun Control Act (GCA) requires Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales of handguns to the same purchaser. 18 U.S.C. � 923(g)(5).

The reporting is for multiple sales to an individual, and not just by the dealer, just as with handguns:

Quote

The Gun Control Act (GCA) requires Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales of handguns to the same purchaser. 18 U.S.C. � 923(g)(5).

Originally Posted by Snyper

The reporting is for multiple sales to an individual, and not just by the dealer, just as with handguns:

Quote

The Gun Control Act (GCA) requires Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales of handguns to the same purchaser. 18 U.S.C. � 923(g)(5).

Looking at who supported the GCA means it was a good thing and any expansion of it must be as well.

Do we get to comment on this proposal just like we did with the "responsible party" crap that the BATF proposed for NFA weapons?

If so we need to flood their ass with comments to bog them down with responding to 20,000 adverse comments.

Originally Posted by deerstalker

next they will be wanting to have all purchases of more than 1 box of ammo reported. any more would be suspect of stock piling for criminal intent. where would it end. you bought 10 pounds of powder there fore you must be planning something. oh oh you bought more than 5 lbs of sugar, must be planning to make your own booze. it is a slippery slope we are on.
I agree with EE. though just say No to warrantless intrusion. even though in the current political condition it may get you shot. America the Free no more.

That..

Oh, and who sez THIS particular gov't will bother with mere laws re: warrants when they - on a near daily basis - ignore laws themselves with near impunity??

Have a jack-boot at your door 'politely' askin' to come in and you reply, "get a warrant"... and JB sez "We don't neeeeeed no steeeenkin' warrant" - and busts down the door anyway.. Who ya gonna complain to? Holder? Get real..

ANYONE who trusts any part of this gov't when it comes to freedoms, firearms and related objects better wean themselves off the Kool-Aid in a BIG hurry..

YMMV..

No warrant and knock my door down will probably get me in trouble.

We have to do this now, the gun shop is located in Shelby, MS.