Gunleaders Blog

We need a huge turn out of comments on ATF’s plan to register certain (for now) rifles.  Please feel free to use these suggested comments, add your own to them, copy & and socialize them to as many gun owners as you can.

Suggested comments for opposing ATF’s rifle sale registration.  You can mail them to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov
Please also take a few moments to echo these comments to your US Representative & US Senators.  At a minimum, ask them to send a letter of disapproval.

I am writing to oppose the Information collection action to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE  from the 04/29/2011 Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf

This information collection is both illegal and unnecessary.

*  The action proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms.  Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers.  Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.

*  Analysis of the number of firearms seized shows that Mexico is being primarily supplied with firearms by South American countries, NOT the United States.  In fact, a STRATFOR report indicates that fully 90% of of the firearms traced in Mexico are NOT coming from the United States, contrary to assertions in the mainstream media: http://wwwprod-1756134246.us-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/index.php?q=weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth.

Additionally, Wikileaks cables have shown the US Government is at least partially responsible for supplying Mexico from the United States:  http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/02/pentagon-fingered-source-narco-firepower-mexico.  These firearms are NOT from the US commercial market.

*  Source documents of the BATFE uncovered by US Senator Grassley and US Representative Issa show that BATFE has been complicit in supplying Mexican Narco-terrorist forces with firearms: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49971654/2011-03-03-CEG-to-DOJ-ATF.

*  ”FFL” holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations:  Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(7).

*  The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of “certain types of firearms” as proposed. Because of this the regulation, as proposed, is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a).  ”No such rule or regulation … 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.”

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 “information collection” is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.

This regulatory action should not be approved.

Suggested comments for opposing ATF’s rifle sale registration. You can mail them to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it :

I am writing to oppose the Information collection action to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE from the 04/29/2011 Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf

This information collection is both illegal and unnecessary.

* The action proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.

* Analysis of the number of firearms seized shows that Mexico is being primarily supplied with firearms by South American countries, NOT the United States. In fact, a STRATFOR report indicates that fully 90% of of the firearms traced in Mexico are NOT coming from the United States, contrary to assertions in the mainstream media: http://wwwprod-1756134246.us-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/index.php?q=weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth.

Additionally, Wikileaks cables have shown the US Government is at least partially responsible for supplying Mexico from the United States: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/02/pentagon-fingered-source-narco-firepower-mexico. These firearms are NOT from the US commercial market.

* Source documents of the BATFE uncovered by US Senator Grassley and US Representative Issa show that BATFE has been complicit in supplying Mexican Narco-terrorist forces with firearms: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49971654/2011-03-03-CEG-to-DOJ-ATF.

* ”FFL” holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(7).

* The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of “certain types of firearms” as proposed. Because of this the regulation, as proposed, is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). ”No such rule or regulation … 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.”

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 “information collection” is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.

This regulatory action should not be approved.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6793

“As passed in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, H.B. 330 would create legitimate concerns about the carrying of concealed loaded handguns in public by minors.  While the bill would not protect the carrying of firearms by minors, it would not actually prohibit it either.  This is a key distinction, as under current law, minors are essentially prohibited from carrying concealed loaded handguns in public by the licensing requirement, which would be repealed if H.B. 330 were enacted.”

…

To us, this seems to say that nobody under the age of 18 is worthy of self defense.  This is an unfortunate assertion that raises still more questions.  What about those 17 year olds who enlist in our Armed Forces?  So, a principal objection is that the bill does not prohibit minors from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, which they don’t have anyway, do we have that right?

“Finally, the alert accuses NRA’s representative, John Hohenwarter, of saying that “New Hampshire is too stupid to know what it needs.”  This is a completely false and libelous allegation.  The NRA and our representatives — including John Hohenwarter — believe that the gun-owning public is intelligent enough to separate fact from fiction.”

…

Now, we all know that what politicians say bear watching very carefully.  The above statement can easily be reconciled having said what is alleged.  Perhaps they do believe the gun owning public is intelligent enough, and perhaps maybe what was alleged to have been said was said despite this belief… or not, who knows?

What remains lost in this is that  there was a bill in NH that advanced the right to keep and bear arms.  An unfriendly amendment attempt was made and that has had results detrimental to the right to keep and bear arms.  Why?  The reasons offered show support for prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms.  In the amount of time it took to research and author ILA’s article they probably could’ve better spent that time and effort working with the group(s) that they won’t acknowledge publicly, rather than setting gun owners in New Hampshire back.  Gun owners would have preferred results, rather than position papers.

Of course, we know this isn’t the only time so called philosophical differences have stood in the way of good, common sense gun legislation.

Gun Owners of New Hampshire recently tried to essentially gut the permitless carry bill.

http://pgnh.org/nra_pushes_gun_control_jeopardizes_constitutional_carry

Back in March, there was this from Oklahoma:

blatant attack on gun owners rights, the Oklahoma Rifle Association (ORA) publicly announced their opposition to Oklahoma Senate Bill SB129 which would legalize open carry of firearms.  Oklahoma is one of only 7 states which prohibit some form of open carry and many people, through various pro-gun groups, worked very hard to get SB129 introduced.  Now in an inexplicable betrayal of its own members and gun owners across the United States ORA took a public stand against SB129.

Even earlier is the dust up over the Texas open carry bill.  There are numerous online discussions about this.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=34530&p=413426

In November 2010, we had the Pennsylvania issue.  This is a long discussion and it could easily be a made for TV movie with more plot twists than a cheesy soap opera.

April, 2010 in Georgia – we had another dispute:  http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=45080&hilit=NRA+sabotage

Mr. Hohenwarter answered questions about this at Snowflakes’ Our Interview with John Hohenwarter

All of this is nothing new though. As we previously mentioned -
…

Senator Tom Coburn, living up to his word from the hearing testimony above amended a critical bill on the Senate floor which passed and was signed into law.  That gun rights scandal? Redstate.com uncovered emails from NRA-ILA to Congress actively opposing language that permitted open carry or carrying long guns in National Parks & Wildlife Refuges.

Back in 2005, Montana Shooting Sports Association authored this tale.

It makes you wonder what is going on, and for how long has it been going on.  While some of the disagreements are philosophical and over language, others are fairly egregious betrayals.  These groups take money and effort from members to promote the right to keep and bear arms. At least some of these examples show exactly the opposite, some show petty infighting that costs all gun owners.  There are more examples out there and researching them reveals more questions than answers.

What does all this mean for gun owners?  It means that gun owners get corn holed.  We can point the finger all we want at whatever group we choose to demonize but the bottom line is as members of these organizations if we forgive this behavior – the obfuscation of good, pro-RKBA legislation, then we can expect nothing but the same until we stop funding & supporting the ones responsible.

It’s just another example of “gun rights theater“.  Don’t accept it.