Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input? Â Could it be because of this?
Records obtained via a Freedom of Information Act about the ATF multi rifle sale registration scheme show only 9 people supported ATF, and only one of those people submitted comments on time. Â Meanwhile, hundreds of comments were lodged opposing the scheme.
Gunleaders.com would like to thank the scores upon scores of people who took the time & effort to oppose ATF’s extra-legal attempt to make FFL’s report multiple long gun sales within 5 days. Â Considering ATF may very well have enabled guns traveling across the border into Mexico and the new proposed ATF form does not have a box for “ATF approved suspicious sale”, the new information ATF seems to want won’t be complete. Â Although not yet confirmed, we seem to still be able to comment on the ATF multi rifle sale registration scheme we should ALL take the opportunity to do so.
Once again, for those of you who have commented on the rule opposing ATF’s extra-legal plan already – Thank you. Â If you haven’t commented yet, Please feel free to use & socialize our original comments and / or the NSSF socialized comments.
Send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org or fax them to (202) 648-9640
A reprint of our suggested comments linked above:
I am writing to oppose the so called emergency regulation to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE as described in FR Doc. 2010â€“31761 from the 12/17/2010 Federal Register. Â http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf
This regulation is both illegal and unnecessary. Â Further there is no justification for any â€œemergencyâ€ implementation as reported by the Washington Post:
White House delayed rule meant to stop gun flow to Mexico, Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2010, On-line edition:
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html ).
* Â The regulation proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Â Title 18 U.S.C. Â§ 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Â Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.
* Â â€FFLâ€ holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Â Title 18 U.S.C. Â§ 923(g)(7).
* Â The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of â€œcertain types of firearmsâ€ as proposed. Because of this the regulation as proposed is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. Â§ 926(a). Â â€No such rule or regulation â€¦ may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.â€
There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of â€œinformation collectionâ€ is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.
* Â This regulatory action has not allowed the public sufficient time to comment.
This regulatory action should not be approved.