Sen Warner's Reply Regarding ATF's Proposed Gun Regulations For 'Border States'

This is the reply I received from Sen Warner regarding a comment I sent him opposing the ATF's gun regulations for border states (that wasn't restricted to just border states...).
---------------------------------------

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) initiative regarding multiple sales of specific long guns in the Southwestern border states.

On December 17, 2010, the ATF stated in the Federal Register its intent to initiate a Demand Letter requiring Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales of certain long guns in the Southwestern Border States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Ken Melson, the Acting Director of ATF, has emphasized that "the purpose of requiring FFLs to report the specified multiple long gun sales in these four source states is to identify criminal firearms traffickers, not to prevent the full and free exercise of our Second Amendment rights, or to encumber the FFLs with burdensome paperwork." The initiative is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget.

With respect to gun control generally, I realize that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the debate around Second Amendment rights. I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks. I recently supported full funding of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the only national database that flags individuals who are precluded under current law from purchasing or possessing firearms.

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona and in light of the Virginia Tech shootings, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure firearms do not get into the wrong hands.

Again, thank you for writing. Please continue to be in touch with your opinions and concerns.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

Got this same reply.

I replied back, even though I feel that it will go to /dev/null.

This guy needs to be voted out.

Here I was thinking I was special and he wrote me back all individual like. sniff"

Why is it whenever you write one of these two sorry Senators telling them what you want them to do, if they bother to write you back, it's always to tell you what they are going to do anyway, in spite of what you want them to do?

I sure wish one of these clowns had been up for election last fall.

TFred

TFred said:

Why is it whenever you write one of these two sorry Senators telling them what you want them to do, if they bother to write you back, it's always to tell you what they are going to do anyway, in spite of what you want them to do?

I sure wish one of these clowns had been up for election last fall.

TFred

Click to expand...

I realize this is a rhetorical question, but the answer is because it doesn't matter what the little people think. These are members of the elite, they have perks and are a special class of citizen. What we think doesn't really matter to them. Yes, I await the time when they are up for re-election.

Walt_Kowalski said:

Got this same reply.

I replied back, even though I feel that it will go to /dev/null.

This guy needs to be voted out.

Click to expand...

My email was sent via a 'no reply' email address. He says he wants to continue to hear from me..... but won't let me reply back to his email.

And yes.... I agree.

Google found an email address for him, so I forwarded his comments back to him, with my reply below...

-----------------------------

To : senator@warner.senate.gov
Subject : Fw: Responding to your message


Senator Warner,

Please provide me with a detailed explanation of how your "efforts to ensure firearms do not get into the wrong hands" will not negatively affect the lawful rights of law abiding citizens.

I await your reply

Thanks
XXXX XXXX

I got the same reply and usually dread reading any reply from either of our Senators!

They usually say how they represent many people with diverse viewpoints (and imply how they are going to agree with the "other-viewpoint").

I hope voters don't forget when they are up for re-election.

Blk97F150 said:

Google found an email address for him, so I forwarded his comments back to him, with my reply below...

-----------------------------

To : senator@warner.senate.gov

Click to expand...

That address and another one that I found no longer work. Both attempts got bounced back to me with a "User unknown (state 14)" message.

After getting two bounce-backs I gave up and used the contact form on Warner's web page. Sent him a nice long email - let's see if he responds.

January 21, 2011

The Honorable Mark Warner, United States Senate
459A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Warner:

Thank you for your response concerning my recent e-mail concerning the proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to greatly increase the scope of their regulatory authority by imposing new reporting requirements on the sale of long guns. Your response indicates that the BATFE's proposal is limited to certain southern border states.

First, I direct you to the Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 242 dated Friday, December 17, 2010 (page 79021) titled as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

[OMB Number 1140-NEW]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested

The entry identified above specifically states:

Summary of Collection:
1. Type of information collection: New.
2. The title of the form/collection: Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles.
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection: Form Number: ATF F 3310.12. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or For-Profit Other: None.

You will note that there is no mention of any limitation to “southern border states” at any point in the verbiage shown above. Additionally, there is no mention of any such limitation anywhere else within the cited notification.

Even if the BATFE fully intended to limit the scope of this proposal to only certain border states, they do not have the statutory authority to require such reporting. The BATFE's authority derives from 18 USC § 923 (3)(A) which states:

“Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling two or more, to an unlicensed person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General and forwarded to the office specified thereon and to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place, not later than the close of business on the day that the multiple sale or other disposition occurs.”

Please note that the wording above very clearly limits the agency's authority to the collection of data for “pistols or revolvers … totaling two or more”. It is nowhere stated in the statute that the agency has any authority whatsoever to collect sales data on long guns of any sort. A helpful link to the foregoing is: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/923.

Even assuming that the agency had the statutory authority to implement such a reporting program, and even if the program was in fact limited to those southern states bordering Mexico, it would be a complete waste of time and money. The BATFE wishes to implement reporting on long guns that have the following characteristics:

(a) Semi automatic;
(b) a caliber greater than .22; and
(c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

As has been widely reported, the weaponry in use by various Mexican cartels consists of fully-automatic rifles (including machine guns), grenades, RPG rounds and the like. As you are well aware, these are not firearms that are readily available over the counter in American gun stores. In fact, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the follow-on Gun Control Act of 1968 have made the legal possession and sale of automatic weapons and certain other items extraordinarily difficult. To assert that American gun dealers are complicit in large-scale sales and trafficking of these types of weapons strains the limits of credulity.

Even an authorized program run by the BATFE has been poorly run, and has resulted in the squandering of millions of dollars on its “Project Gunrunner” initiative. The report on this initiative by the Office of the Inspector General, dated November 2010 was quite critical of the initiative. Surely there are better uses for the money than another failed federal project.

Lastly, there have been recent allegations of “Project Gunwalker” - a rogue operation within the agency. The allegations suggest that the BATFE itself has been complicit in moving prohibited weapons across the border into Mexico with the sole purpose of artificially inflating its statistics and exaggerating its claims of success. In fact, there are allegations that one such weapon was used to murder Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Far from limiting the flow of weapons to Mexico, the allegations suggest that the BATFE has moved somewhere in the vicinity of 2,000 weapons south of the border without the agency even bothering to notify Mexican authorities of such movement. I submit that should these allegations be proven, Mexico would be well within its rights to declare a breach of international law.

The BATFE has historically been an ineffective and heavy-handed agency. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to block the agency's latest attempt to unlawfully expand its scope, and to remind it that any additional attempts to usurp power will be met with all legal force to the contrary.

Sincerely,
xxxxxx

SAvage410 said:

That address and another one that I found no longer work. Both attempts got bounced back to me with a "User unknown (state 14)" message.

Click to expand...

Yea, I had a bounce back notification in my Inbox this morning. He really does want to hear from me though.... he said so himself.... :banghead:

All of us got them.

If you sent a message to Senator Warner through his web form about the ATF rifle registration scheme then you got his form response back. This is called a 'tier one contact'. Judging by the number of responses they got enough correspondence to warrant a 'tier one answer'.

This is a 'trial balloon' of sorts. It's designed to answer 98% of the constituency, telling them how much he supports the 2nd Amendment, don't forget that as Senator ... I will keep your views in mind...

This letter is a "filter" designed to placate the "tacit" supporters and make them go away. Our job as constituents is to tell the Senator that this letter

tells us nothing, says nothing, promises us nothing and in fact means nothing.

When you get a tier one contact, it is like a force on force encounter. You can either meet the force equally, retreat, or escalate. What should we do here?

Escalate.

If you emailed them back, follow up your email with a CALL to Warner's office Monday morning. EARLY. Tell them the letter is simply an unacceptable response. Here are some useful talking points that you can use for the Senator:

http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2010/12/20/commenting-on-batfe-rifle-registration/

Remember, ATF submitted this "information collection request" on 12/17 and sought a 1/5 "go live date" covering 2 US Government holidays and the time of year the least number of government employees would be present. Also, the OMB point of contact listed in the federal register was wrong. They knew about this "request" for months and then dropped it for public comment for 2 and 1/2 weeks over 2 government holidays with minimal and questionable justification ... Speaking of justification, here is what they submitted -

http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/01/04/atfs-emergency-justification/


When you call in to Warner's office if you already sent a mail into them, tell them I already sent a mail on this but your response indicated that the senator didn't grasp the seriousness of this. Ask to talk to Warner's 2nd Amendment staff. Politely & firmly say 'this is not acceptable. Senator Webb has agreed with us that this is an unlawful request and is already preparing a response to ATF indicating they should withdraw this information collection effort, and Senator Warner should be happy to join in this effort' ... blah, blah, blah... we all want to keep guns out of the hands of Mexican drug cartels but not at the expense of American gun owners rights.

Don't let them get away with "it is only for border states". Nowhere in the federal register does it limit the ICR to "only border states". Some people might trust ATF to only do good things with this information, and we're not going to change their minds. The fact is that the information request empowers collection of this information nationwide. Where it is implemented is totally subjective because it CAN be implemented nationwide if approved.

It is that Liberty thing, Mark.

Blk97F150 said:

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona and in light of the Virginia Tech shootings, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure firearms do not get into the wrong hands.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

Click to expand...

Dear Senator Warner,

In the wake of the continued power grab by the federal government, supported by those that care more for their own political career than the liberty of the citizen, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure that those that would trade liberty for security are drummed out of office!

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Thundar said:

Dear Senator Warner,

In the wake of the continued power grab by the federal government, supported by those that care more for their own political career than the liberty of the citizen, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure that those that would trade liberty for security are drummed out of office!

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Click to expand...

You're right. Now, that said if you are writing TO the government in your capacity as a constituent you should be cognizant of the fact that your letter will be read by a member of the government who is a human being.

A little tactical rewording would go a little farther in making the reader more sympathetic to our cause.

"power grab by the federal government". There's a bunch of ways to recraft this to say essentially the same thing but in a way that Warner's staff who read it won't feel like they are part of the power grab.

Power grab by ATF
Extra-legal attempt by ATF to create a firearms registry

You get the idea.

The letter is a positive sign, it means we got their attention. Now they're trying to see what the level of concern is by issuing this letter in response.