Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Did I hit this nail on the head, or not?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Did I hit this nail on the head, or not?

    At work, I've kind of become known as the "gun law guy," and the other day, someone asked me about a topic that I have only a rudimentary knowledge about. The question I was asked by a co worker was this;

    "What's wrong with the ATF requiring dealers to notify them when someone buys more than one firearm in a 24 hour period, and do they have the legal authority to do that?"
    My answer was; First, what business is it of any government agency how many of a particular item I chose to purchase, provided I am within my right to own it. Second, I responded that to my knowledge, congress had not ratified any legislation requiring gun dealers to report such transactions to the ATF. The ATF is an enforcement arm of the federal government, they are not part of the legislative branch, therefor they cannot write their own laws, only enforce the laws already in place. I then explained the catch 22. The ATF can revoke a gun dealers license, forcing them to challenge the revocation in court. Revoking their license means they can't earn their living, and they probably don't have the money to be shut down and survive a legal challenge that would drag out for years, so they opt to submit to the ATF's unlawful demand.

    Several other sheeple made themselves part of the conversation and disagreed with me, citing that the DEA requires retailers to report purchases of pseudo-ephedrine that exceed a certain quantity in a given time period. My argument was that this was because congress actually passed a law requiring this reporting. I tried to find some resources to back up my claim, but I'm hitting dead ends. Am I absolutely correct, somewhat correct or just totally off base?
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 08-18-2011 at 05:54 AM.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Please allow me to address the most pertinent point first, before expounding:

    What's wrong with the ATF requiring dealers to notify them when someone buys more than one firearm in a 24 hour period, and do they have the legal authority to do that?"
    Let's begin by taking a look at the definition of the term "infringe:" "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. 'infringe a patent'" - Source Let's take the next step and look at the law which lays the foundation for our right to keep and bear arms: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Ok, so I'm working this inside out. So what? It makes more sense this way, as that's the way lawyers used to think, anyway. In a nutshell, it says that under a pre-stated condition, there shall be NO impediment (infringement) to a person keeping and bearing arms.

    Without any hoopla or doubt whatsoever, the ATF's requirement is infringement. I'm sorry, ATF, but I love my country. I love our Constitution more, and all the laws which stem forth.

    I'll never look for a fight, except when someone sets up a punching bag and says "This is the Truth" when it is most certainly not the truth. So, the best approach would be to say "see 'ya!" and disappear until the state find out how much money it lost up its hind end.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Sorry, since9, but the ATF's actions do not infringe on your (or anybody's) right to keep and bear arms. Nothing there impacts you ability to buy as many firearms as you have the money to pay for.

    What we have is a government agency burdening the business with paperwork that does nothing to further the interests of the government - unless the government is willing to admit that their interest is in spying on citizens who are committing no violation of the law. All of the purchases that must be reported must first meet all the already-existing restrictions and regulations in place for the lawful purchase of a firearm.

    The best I can come up with is that ATF is trying to ensure they know who their competition might be for walking guns across the border. But is anybody still buying that BS about the cartels coming to the USA and paying federal and state sales tax, let alone retail prices, for semiautomatic firearms when they can get better than wholsesale on slightly used (never been fired, only been dropped once) firearms elsewhere?

    Really?

    It's just not an infringement on RKBA. It is a whoile lot of other things.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Does fly in the face of the 4th though, our right to be left alone.

    I also don't see it in the enumerated powers of the government listed in the constitution.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    At work, I've kind of become known as the "gun law guy," and the other day, someone asked me about a topic that I have only a rudimentary knowledge about. The question I was asked by a co worker was this;



    My answer was; First, what business is it of any government agency how many of a particular item I chose to purchase, provided I am within my right to own it. Second, I responded that to my knowledge, congress had not ratified any legislation requiring gun dealers to report such transactions to the ATF. The ATF is an enforcement arm of the federal government, they are not part of the legislative branch, therefor they cannot write their own laws, only enforce the laws already in place. I then explained the catch 22. The ATF can revoke a gun dealers license, forcing them to challenge the revocation in court. Revoking their license means they can't earn their living, and they probably don't have the money to be shut down and survive a legal challenge that would drag out for years, so they opt to submit to the ATF's unlawful demand.

    Several other sheeple made themselves part of the conversation and disagreed with me, citing that the DEA requires retailers to report purchases of pseudo-ephedrine that exceed a certain quantity in a given time period. My argument was that this was because congress actually passed a law requiring this reporting. I tried to find some resources to back up my claim, but I'm hitting dead ends. Am I absolutely correct, somewhat correct or just totally off base?
    With regard to the "precursor" issues it is PROBABLY the various STATES that have mandated this level of control and reporting. Possibly at the request/suggestion of the DEA!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Does fly in the face of the 4th though, our right to be left alone.

    I also don't see it in the enumerated powers of the government listed in the constitution.
    They claim the Commerce Clause, due to interstate shipping of firearms. If you buy a SIG GSR in NH, you buy something made in Exeter that never left the state. So the CC is a non-starter. MT and other states are challenging that right now for in state made firearms. The batfe is corrupt and a travesty. We need someone in the WH after next year that will massively overhaul it.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    They claim the Commerce Clause, due to interstate shipping of firearms. If you buy a SIG GSR in NH, you buy something made in Exeter that never left the state. So the CC is a non-starter. MT and other states are challenging that right now for in state made firearms. The batfe is corrupt and a travesty. We need someone in the WH after next year that will massively overhaul it.
    When it comes to that org, I like the word "abolish" better than "overhaul." The agency began as a revenue collections department of the U.S. Treasury in 1886. In 1920 (Prohibition) it adopted alcohol as a focus. In 1968 (Gun Control Act) it adopted firearms as a focus. In 2002 (DHS era) it adopted explosives as a focus.

    Let's hope we soon read, "In 2013, the newly-elected President of the United States of America, along with members from both houses of Congress, enacted legislation abolishing the entire BATFE for being un-Constitutional on the grounds that no powers specifically granted to the federal government actually convey any authority to the government to do the kinds of things the BATFE has been getting away with for years."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •