Gunleaders Blog

Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input?  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.  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.  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.   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.  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 barbara.terrell@atf.gov 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. 2010–31761 from the 12/17/2010 Federal Register.  http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf

This regulation is both illegal and unnecessary.  Further there is no justification for any “emergency” 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 ).

*  The regulation 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.

*  ”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 has not allowed the public sufficient time to comment.

This regulatory action should not be approved.

See also New Info on the ATF multi rifle sale registration comment period!

According to the Washington Post the ATF multi-rifle registration scheme has been rejected.  This is unconfirmed, all online government sources as of 02/05/2011 still show the ICR as not decided upon.  The rule had been championed by news outlets like the Washington Post reporters and editors, MAIG, and the usual suspects.

You can see the wishful thinking disappointment in the article.  The title is ‘White House delays gun reporting along Mexican border’.  Of course, the actual proposed collection affects EVERY single FFL in the United States.  They also must have missed the more than 3 Democratic Senators opposing this new authority for ATF.

The article seems to suggest that the comment period has been extended through 02/14/2011, however there is nothing in the federal register to indicate that (yet).  More to come…

17 more US Senators write to ATF telling them their information collection request from late December is illegal.  senateatfletter020111

ATF is soliciting comments on their study to restrict importation of shotguns with certain features.  Comments will be accepted from 01/31/2011 – 05/01/2011 and may be emailed to: shotgunstudy@atf.gov, or faxed to (202) 648-9601.  All comments must include a name and mailing address.  We encourage all firearms owners to comment on this study.

We need only look to ATF history to get an idea what their intentions are with this current “study”.

We suggest the following to use as a starting point.

Please feel free to expand upon & socialize these suggested comments to all concerned gun owners:

The conclusion of the ATF study on the “importability of certain shotguns” is based on a flawed interpretation of ‘sporting purposes’ using outdated information, incomplete data and stands in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution as upheld in the 1939 US v. Miller Supreme Court decision, and 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision.

The study identifies 10 features which through a “working group” they recommend any shotgun with any of the identified features be barred from importation. Many of the features identified:  integrated rails, light enhancing devices, forward pistol grips, collapsing/folding or telescoping stocks are in ‘common use’ on various firearms, rifles & shotguns today.  ’In common use’ was first mentioned in Miller, then reiterated in both Heller & the subsequent McDonald Supreme Court decisions protecting the individual right to keep and bear firearms for self defense. These features being in common use not just for military, law enforcement and personal protection have also found a niche in the sporting community and are practically ubiquitous in some applications. Briefly:

• Folding, telescoping & collapsible stocks provide an adjustability to the “length of pull”.  This permits the user to obtain a more ergonomic fit and further allows sportsmen to share the use of the firearm with family members of different stature and age.  This feature allows fathers, mothers, sons & daughters to all be able to use a single firearm, as well as allows users to tailor the gun to their specific needs.  Better ergonomics and fit offered by these stocks provide for better control of the firearm and enhanced safety.
• Magazine capacity over 5 rounds is and arbitrary and low number based on the industry today.
• Flash suppressors allow for faster follow up shots when hunting in fading light of hours near dawn or dusk.
• Integrated rails, forward pistol grips, & light enhancing devices all permit a more ergonomic and usable sporting shotgun and again are features in common use today. These features permit better ergonomics and control over the shotgun as well as the ability to easily mount accessories on the gun to enhance usability.

Additionally, many of these features facilitate the shooting sports participation of disabled Americans across the country. Depriving the market of shotguns with features which enables a person with a visual or muscular/skeletal impairment to participate in the shooting sports, is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and more importantly is a despicable attempt at preventing a protected minority in our society from enjoying the shooting sports.

The study in many places indicated a need to evaluate ‘sporting purposes’ and declines to address what exactly qualifies as sporting.  The study concludes that though USPSA has comparable membership to many organizations it does not ‘qualify as sporting’ under the current interpretation.  Indeed, at 19,000 cited members USPSA dwarfs the membership of the USA Curling society which despite only having 13,000 members is an Olympic sport.  This shows that ATF needs to re-investigate the definition of ‘sporting purposes’ for the use in determining importability of firearms.  Because ATF uses not just questionable, but flawed logic in their study, ATF needs to reconstitute the “working group” to examine ‘sporting purposes’ in the post-Heller, post-McDonald light as well as with the understanding that practical & action competition shooting sports need also be considered.

In summary, this study should be shelved until ‘sporting purposes’ is redefined to include a more modern and truthful definition inclusive of action / competition shooting disciplines and the study needs to recognize that any one or even several of the features identified in the study do not disqualify a shotgun or other firearm for importation, that certain features which may be more common in military / militia context do enhance the ability of disabled citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and prohibiting them from importation would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and that some of these same features are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and reiterated via the Supreme Court rulings in Miller, Heller & McDonald.

Your name

Your mailing address