Thursday, January 19, 2012

Reporting Multiple Sales of Guns



 In Sight reports

Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer upheld an order made last year by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF asked more than 8,000 gun dealers in Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico to report sales of multiple semi-automatic rifles to one individual within five business days.
The article goes on to mention that this is a rare victory for the ATF and the Obama Administration.

To me, resistance to this is one of the best examples of the bad faith on the part of the gun-rights folks. Reporting multiple sales is even more obvioulsy a good thing than universal background checks. But they resist.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. Since it's the ATF and State Department that's sending the majority of the firearms to mexico, what purpose is there for reporting multiple sales? Furthermore, what's to stop a straw purchaser from going one state north to buy multiple firearms?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a backdoor attempt at registration and banning. We'll oppose this all the way. You say that we're acting in bad faith? How so? We're not claiming one thing and doing another. I've told you exactly what position I support. You may disagree with me, but I've never lied to you.

    I look forward to seeing this smacked back down, whether by the Congress or the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg you can't be serious about that back door. Can't you see the reason for this law is exactly what they say it is - to interfere with the gun smugglers?

      Delete
    2. Am I serious? Yes. As has been pointed out by others, a would-be smuggler can just drive one state north and buy as many as he wants. You'll then propose the same scheme for those states. And so on.

      If either the governments of the United States or Mexico were serious about stopping the illegal flow of goods and persons across the border, they would secure the border and search crossing vehicles, but neither side has the political will to do that.

      Delete
    3. Greg, I don't know about that "driving one state north" idea. Isn't being a state resident one of the requirements even in the most lax states?

      Delete
  3. I don't have a problem with reporting multiple long gun sales the way they must report multiple handgun sales.

    What I have a problem with is a government agency making up their own rules. If this is needed, so be it. Let someone write a law and take it through Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  4. someguy sez, as usual, the law don't work, let't not have no law.

    Greg Camp blathers (it's really the only word for it) that attempting to track purchases by one person of more than one of a particular type of firearm--within in five business days, is, "a backdoor attempt at registration and banning.". Professor Camp, logic should be your friend; unfortunately it's not.

    FatWhiteMan:

    If all policies and procedures of the various federal agencies had to be written by congress and voted into law we would still be delivering mail via the Pony Express.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Democommie,

    Have you heard of inference? We have a good idea where these efforts would end up, if tolerated. Despite your ranting to the contrary, we're not stupid. We know what you want.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Demo,

    There is no law currently that allows the requirement of multiple reporting of long guns as there is for handguns.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks FWM, but what your pointing out is a technicality. If this is right and good, let's have it. And let's admit that those opposed are close-minded, self-centered and unpatriotic.

    Someguy's suggestion that"the majority of the firearms to mexico" come from the ATF is too stupid to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mikeb302000,

    No, I see no reason to admit any of those claims.

    ReplyDelete