Disband / Repeal: 1934 NFA - 1968 GCA - ATF

imported post

We need to take a serious look at the fabric of Gun Control, to kill a tree, you must remove the roots.

It has always been my belief that the Second Amendment was largely instated to give us the ability to 1) protect the other rights and freedoms, and 2) Protect our sovereignty, both as States and Country. So in that, should be recognised, that the arms required to do such should be of equal ability and mechanical function as the common soldier of the time. Historically speaking, this has always held true for us, until the days of prohibition, the great depression. These firearms were spun as "Gangster Weapons" of the time, and thus became heavily regulated, eventually ending up in the regulation of the ATF, created in 1972. Should it not be noticed that the three things the government desires to regulate out of existence are lumped into one Bureau? Lets also note that it started in large as the Bureau of Prohibition. When do we take appropriate measure to get the 34 and 68 acts removed, and the ATF disassembled, or at least reconfigured into a categorically correct format such as Alcohol, Tobacco and Intoxicants, thus allowing firearms to be in a correct regulatory scheme, perhaps run by states through the same departments that regulate automobiles: both machines, with serial numbers, that can kill if misused, but freely available to the public with relative ease and freedoms.

- NOTE: I am not advocating registration, simply making a point, please take it as such... I personally believe in very VERY limited arms regulations. (laws against discharge are fine, but not against ownership - different topic i believe)

So again, when and how do we eventually pursue the End Game Content, the big ones, the real deal, the kingpins that ultimately give ground and credence to the myriad of various sundry gun laws. If you break the foundation, the building falls easily. This should be an obvious target if we really want our original freedom restored. Understanding that other efforts probably need to happen first, I'd be curious what those are, and if none, what are we waiting for ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives

:dude:Bat

* The Poll: You may choose more than one answer here, so if you think all three should be repealed, then click all three. If you think the the 34 and 68 should go, but keep the AFT, then make those three choices.... So again, you can make more than one selection in this poll - Thank You.


P.S. Feel free to write an opinion, rebuttle or idea - i'd like to hear your thoughts.

imported post

Definitely would like to see those laws repealed. I have no issue with private ownership of full-auto weapons - none. I love seeing them and shooting them
(rentals) at Knob Creek, and I wish the process for acquiring, storing and transporting
were the same for handguns and longarms.

Also would like to see a restoration of mail-order firearm delivery.

imported post

I honestly can't say I have an issue with the BATFE as an organization as they are merely a tool for investigating and enforcing laws and will act in what ever capacity is appointed to them (and keeps them employed). They have a purpose and if repealing laws reduces their roles and scope of investigation and enforcement, then so be it, but disbanding them entirely without some proper cause or reason, I can not exactly support as there is more to this agency than the topics that we discuss at hand in the pro-gun-rights community.

Work should be done to change it and/or reorganize it, sure. If such a thing is warranted.

Now, if you're anti-government, that is another story and I can't follow you down that road.

imported post

thank you bat for well written and logical thoughts. you hit the nails on the head!!

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

Now, if you're anti-government, that is another story and I can't follow you down that road.

Click to expand...

TY Defender, i try

Shogun, nope, i am actually anything but anti-government. I am a vet,and proudly served as an US Army Infantry Sergeant. I am supportive of government, just want them to betrusting ofthe citizens in return. I do however feel that lumping the guns and drugs into a single Bureau speaks volumes about how our government feels in regards to (towards) the public. Prohibition is over, and it's time for a little reorganization. The peeps at ATF serve a purpose yes, but the Bureau should be categorically streamlined (Drugs and intoxicant?) to fit the times. Guns should be very detached from Alcohol etc... I also think that firearms should be regulated by the states, not the federal gov, and should be filtered through the constitutions there-of. I believe in simple fair laws, and a government that "governs fairly" in regards to the bill of rights, with trust and respect to the average citizen. but that's just my personal perspective, not to sway any votes or tell anyone how to think.

Sorry about any confusion there.

imported post

I agree and by no means did I intend to label you as anti-government, so I apologize if that came across incorrectly.

As for the ATF, whether we lump things in one or not, the intention comes from a history of Dept of Justice and Dept of the Treasury enforcement duties mainly stemming from investigating businesses and individuals operating illegally, that is manufacturing, selling, possessing, etc -alcohol, explosives, firearms, and tobacco and primarily when dealing with thosecircumventing national tax andother regulatory interstatelaws.

I understand where you are coming from, but leaving it to states to choose what they want to do only makes it harder for citizens to move around. There is already a bit of a minefield of laws we must all be aware of when driving through and visiting other states. We need to know where our concealed weapon permits have reciprocity, where we can and can not open carry, so on and so forth. If you want to fix the problem, you fix it on the national level, in the Supreme Court, in the Constitution, and you make it right and preempt the states. Sure states should retain some rights, but not when it is in direct violation of the US Constitution.

North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Section 30 - Militia and the Right to Bear Arms:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

Click to expand...

They got the 2nd amendment reference right, but then they screwed it all up with talk of concealed weapons. Where did they get this idea? I can apply for permit and carry concealed a handgun, buta knife, stun gun (such as a taser), and various other weapons are prohibited from concealment. A taser can't be concealed?!

Anyway, the ATF, I think is fine, reorganize it, restructure it, sure, but I think if we are to remain a Union of States in this Republic, we will need defenses against those that ARE NOT law-abiding, citizens or not.

imported post

Yes, I agree enthusiastically in repealing the 1934 and 1968 acts (and of course the offending provision in the 1984 firearms act). On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an extensive background check for some items... Like grenade launchers, explosives, etc. Yeah, the slippery slope theory applies... But still.

The BATF is probably a necessary evil today, however. I don't disagree with many of the principals supporting the BATF's existence. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, for example, is a Good Thing. I don't think many of us will argue against that.

Beyond that, I do think that whatever it is the BATF does, it should be limited by congress. Meaning that, as of today the BATF has it's hands on the reins, and if they want to change how they do business, they basically have full autonomy.

If they wanted to, they could change important regulations twice a week and really screw everyone's head on backwards to the point that you never know if you're violating some federal guideline, or not... No less a guideline created by some anonymous, unelected federal bureaucrat. Any new guidelines should be passed as law under congress--that'll slow them down at least.

A "regulatory scheme" run by the states, as you propose it, is a recipe for disaster, though.

1) it's going to create a patchwork of laws even worse and more effective than those today. If you wanted to transport a firearm across state lines, chances are someone will do something without even knowing it's illegal. Example: states could require that foreign firearms be registered before entering their border.

2) it implies that the states have the right to register firearms, just like they do automobiles. I don't have to explain how that would be a MAJOR setback to gun owners.

As it is, it is illegal for the federal government to register firearms--even though the 4473/NCIS system is paramount to registration, it's effectively passive in nature. AFAIK, this limitation isn't explicitly levied against the states.

imported post

Alcohol,Tobacco And Firearms should be the name of a convienience store... not a gummint agency. Aus Machen!

imported post

Legalize marijuana and treat it as booze and cigs are. Reform other drug laws. I can't answer what to do about crack, meth, and PCP, as all 3 seem to cause more users to go crazy than the other drugs do. Plain ol coke and heroin- regulate for those already addicted, and put all that law enforcement and jail time money to better use with really good free treatment centers.

This takes care of most of the violent crime, disbands almost all of the gangs, and thusly greatly lowers the rate of unlawful gun use. Therefore, then repeal all the gun control laws. All one needs to do is study Prohibition and how all that gangster stuff went poof when it was repealed.

imported post

The War on Drugs is a dangerous thing, it just leads to more crime because of a black market and a constant allocation and waste of money "fighting" it. I think of it as water. Water can not be compressed, at least not easily, and it takes a great deal of energy and pressure. If you can not create a full proof plan and design, the water WILL break through, starting at the weakest points, enter the Drug War. They can't contain it and the entire country is not 100% behind it. Like alcohol and tobacco, people want their vices and they will go through any means to get it and the providers will go through any means to get it to those that want it. Is there a single country that is drug free? Perhaps with the exception of the Vatican, but I doubt it even there.

imported post

The 'war on drugs' has been a failure despite who knows how many$billions have been poured into it.

To conduct a real 'war'... entails draconian methods not allowed by the Constitution.

A real war would make the trafficking of drugs so dangerous that nobody would engage in it. 'Dangerous as it is already!

imported post

I am amazed that two people think it's O.K. thatBATFEexists in it's current(any) form.(poll results)

It has taken almost 80 years for the anti crowd to get to what I believe has been their high water mark. While I agree the current batch of gun control acts need to be reworked at a minimum, I think it is to early to push that hard.

Not many people knowthat as late asthe '50sNew York City high schools had arifle(rimfire) league andConey Island used to have a shooting gallery that you shot .22 rimfire on.

imported post

I'd also love to see not only the "de-stigmatization" of suppressors/silencers but their use being encouraged.

I have had the pleasure to use a pistol equipped with a good suppressor and the enjoyment factor is really good since you don't even need hearing protection when using it.

If people could easily and without stigma obtain and use suppressors, people wouldn't complain about the BANG BANG BANG of hunters and plinkers.

imported post

The problem is not only that these laws are unconstitutional, but that theBATFEis as well. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives police powers to the feds? It doesn't. Law enforcement should be left to the states and local authorities.

All federal police agencies are unconstituional. This would include the FBI, BATFE, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Office and the IRS. Can you find an authority to create a police agency? These agencies are the standing armies our founders were so afraid of.

imported post

rodbender wrote:

The problem is not only that these laws are unconstitutional, but that the BATFE is as well. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives police powers to the feds? It doesn't. Law enforcement should be left to the states and local authorities.

All federal police agencies are unconstituional. This would include the FBI, BATFE, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Office and the IRS. Can you find an authority to create a police agency? These agencies are the standing armies our founders were so afraid of.

Click to expand...

Well, the power of creating law enforcement agencies exist under the guise of the Executive Branch of government and it's role to carry out U.S. Law, whether it is in the U.S. Constitution or codified under the U.S. Code. There is more than one source of law and powers may be delegated. Hence the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, 1870. Congressional Bill signed into law by President Grant. Under the DoJ, investigative and enforcement powers were later delegated to various agencies created, such as the FBI, BATFE, DEA, etc, etc.

You may not like it, but I don't exactly think it is unconstitutional.

Even the EPA, an executive independent cabinet level agency, has enforcement powers (and they do have an armed law enforcement wing), as delegated to them by the executive branch of government and perhaps ultimately derived from Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

imported post

rodbender wrote:

The problem is not only that these laws are unconstitutional, but that theBATFEis as well. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives police powers to the feds? It doesn't. Law enforcement should be left to the states and local authorities.

All federal police agencies are unconstituional. This would include the FBI, BATFE, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Office and the IRS. Can you find an authority to create a police agency? These agencies are the standing armies our founders were so afraid of.

Click to expand...

Article II, Section 3:
The President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

By the way, earlier in Section 8, it says that Congress has power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union." Would you prefer that federal laws be enforced by the National Guard?

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

Well, the power of creating law enforcement agencies exist under the guise of the Executive Branch of government and it's role to carry out U.S. Law, whether it is in the U.S. Constitution or codified under the U.S. Code. There is more than one source of law and powers may be delegated. Hence the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, 1870. Congressional Bill signed into law by President Grant. Under the DoJ, investigative and enforcement powers were later delegated to various agencies created, such as the FBI, BATFE, DEA, etc, etc.

You may not like it, but I don't exactly think it is unconstitutional.

Even the EPA, an executive independent cabinet level agency, has enforcement powers (and they do have an armed law enforcement wing), as delegated to them by the executive branch of government and perhaps ultimately derived from Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Click to expand...

If you dig a little deeper into the debates at thewriting of the Constitution you'll find that the executive branch was meant to be the weakest branch of all. They did this to insure that we would not end up with a dictator or monarchy. The president was not meant to have the powers of executive orders other than to tell the seperate agencies about policy and procedure, not to make law. When an agency is formed through executive order, it is the same thing as wriring law.

The U.S. Code nor bills signed by any president override the Constitution, even if SCOTUS says that it does.

imported post

rodbender wrote:

If you dig  a little deeper into the debates at the writing of the Constitution you'll find that the executive branch was meant to be the weakest branch of all. They did this to insure that we would not end up with a dictator or monarchy. The president was not meant to have the powers of executive orders other than to tell the seperate agencies about policy and procedure, not to make law. When an agency is formed through executive order, it is the same thing as wriring law.

The U.S. Code nor bills signed by any president override the Constitution, even if SCOTUS says that it does.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. The Department of Justice was created via Congressional act, and per procedure, the President had the choice to sign off on it or veto it, one of the several checks and balances. Regardless of the intention to make the Executive Branch (by some) to be the weakest form of government, it is not, and by law, no branch is necessarily weaker than the other. No branch can operate on it's own without a check and balance from another branch. The branches, by themselves, have inefficient powers by design.

The executive branch has the ability to create regulations to meet federal law, they don't create the law. For instance, costs of acquiring licenses, procedures for doing background checks, storing of information, etc, etc. Taxes, such as the NFA Tax stamp, was created via Act, which is the Legislature. Enforcement of these taxes, licensing, etc are regulation and code and thus the duty of the executive branch. How this branch chooses to delegate these duties is their responsibility to an extent. Just like on the level of every state in the Union, departments and agencies may be formed with duties delegated to them.

So again, I don't exactly have an issue with the BATFE, at least from a legal standpoint, but a change in law and they can be moved to go back to investigating criminal activity and maintaining that interstate and international trade and tariff laws are not broken.

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

rodbender wrote:

The problem is not only that these laws are unconstitutional, but that theBATFEis as well. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives police powers to the feds? It doesn't. Law enforcement should be left to the states and local authorities.

All federal police agencies are unconstitutional. This would include the FBI, BATFE, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Office and the IRS. Can you find an authority to create a police agency? These agencies are the standing armies our founders were so afraid of.

Click to expand...

Article II, Section 3:
The President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

By the way, earlier in Section 8, it says that Congress has power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union." Would you prefer that federal laws be enforced by the National Guard?

Click to expand...

The part of Art. II, Sec3 you mentionwas simplyan admonishment to the president not to violate the Constitution.

"necessary and proper" This is one of the most overused portions of the Constitution. Almost as much as the "general welfare" and "commerce" clauses. It's used as one of the "catch all phrases".

No, I would not want the National Guard to enforce the laws. But then the National Guard is not the militia, the people or maybe even the State Guard could be considered the militia. At least it would be the Constitutional way of enforcing U.S. law. Alas, this is the statement (" To provide for callingforth")that tells me that the framers did not want the government to have a standing army nor astanding police force.

If the congressand the president had not enacted as manyunconstitutional laws as they have, there would be no need toenforce the laws of the U.S. except on occasion. Such as when Eisenhower sent themilitary into Arkansas to enforce integration. But then, perhapsheshould have used the State Guard of Arkansas instead.

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Flyer22 wrote:

rodbender wrote:

The problem is not only that these laws are unconstitutional, but that theBATFEis as well. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives police powers to the feds? It doesn't. Law enforcement should be left to the states and local authorities.

All federal police agencies are unconstitutional. This would include the FBI, BATFE, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Office and the IRS. Can you find an authority to create a police agency? These agencies are the standing armies our founders were so afraid of.

Click to expand...

Article II, Section 3:
The President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

By the way, earlier in Section 8, it says that Congress has power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union." Would you prefer that federal laws be enforced by the National Guard?

Click to expand...

The part of Art. II, Sec3 you mentionwas simplyan admonishment to the president not to violate the Constitution.

"necessary and proper" This is one of the most overused portions of the Constitution. Almost as much as the "general welfare" and "commerce" clauses. It's used as one of the "catch all phrases".

No, I would not want the National Guard to enforce the laws. But then the National Guard is not the militia, the people or maybe even the State Guard could be considered the militia. At least it would be the Constitutional way of enforcing U.S. law. Alas, this is the statement (" To provide for callingforth")that tells me that the framers did not want the government to have a standing army nor astanding police force.

If the congressand the president had not enacted as manyunconstitutional laws as they have, there would be no need toenforce the laws of the U.S. except on occasion. Such as when Eisenhower sent themilitary into Arkansas to enforce integration. But then, perhapsheshould have used the State Guard of Arkansas instead.

Click to expand...

The President of the United States is not only the Chief Executive Officer, he is also the Chief Law Enforcement Officer.

The incident you speak of, the Little Rock Nine in Arkansas, President Eisenhower placed Arkansas National Guard troops under Federal control, something he has the ability to do, and used them to quell violence and keep the peace. This was done under Executive Order 10730.

It's all legal.