Only retards that regularly shit their pants because they think shitting their pants makes them cool.
Atf rule banning private sales requires FFL rumored for fall.
- Thread starter candcallen
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Mike_from_Texas
Well-Known
The same Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that made untold tens of thousands of people into Prohibited Persons?
Eli
Some helpful starter comments might be:
Explain why the language of the proposed rule is unworkable, inconsistent with the underlying statute, or liable to reach innocent conduct that that does not implicate public safety. Other subjects for comment could include whether ATF correctly estimates the number of people the rule would require to register as dealers (24,540 to 328,296 people) and whether it would be feasible for ATF to administer this increase in workload. Comments could also address whether ATF’s estimates of the burdens and costs imposed by the rule are accurate or whether ATF is underestimating them. Commenters can also help explain how private firearm sales and transfers happen among law-abiding people in the real world and why they are not the unreasonable public safety risk that gun prohibition advocates claim.
Commenters may identify themselves publicly or require ATF to withhold publishing their personally identifying information.
Remember, the comment period is limited, so do not delay in making your voice heard. Federal law requires ATF to respond to substantive comments. It is time to hold their feet to the fire on this over-reaching, illogical, and illegal proposal.
Be sure to reference docket number ATF 2022R–17 to identify the rulemaking on which you are commenting.
Explain why the language of the proposed rule is unworkable, inconsistent with the underlying statute, or liable to reach innocent conduct that that does not implicate public safety. Other subjects for comment could include whether ATF correctly estimates the number of people the rule would require to register as dealers (24,540 to 328,296 people) and whether it would be feasible for ATF to administer this increase in workload. Comments could also address whether ATF’s estimates of the burdens and costs imposed by the rule are accurate or whether ATF is underestimating them. Commenters can also help explain how private firearm sales and transfers happen among law-abiding people in the real world and why they are not the unreasonable public safety risk that gun prohibition advocates claim.
Commenters may identify themselves publicly or require ATF to withhold publishing their personally identifying information.
Remember, the comment period is limited, so do not delay in making your voice heard. Federal law requires ATF to respond to substantive comments. It is time to hold their feet to the fire on this over-reaching, illogical, and illegal proposal.
Be sure to reference docket number ATF 2022R–17 to identify the rulemaking on which you are commenting.
Cross-posting. Hopefully will have time to tonight to ask both threads be merged.
Post in thread 'New language on personal sales of firearms, “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act”' https://www.texasguntalk.com/thread...an-safer-communities-act”.112890/post-2945206
Post in thread 'New language on personal sales of firearms, “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act”' https://www.texasguntalk.com/thread...an-safer-communities-act”.112890/post-2945206
Submitted five different comments this morning referencing docket number ATF 2022R-17. I plan on submitting at least that many more.
Last edited:
More issues you might want to comment on. Use them, reword them, or copy and paste them. Easy peasy.
First reference the docket number ATF 2022R-17. Then state you are against the rule or it shouldn't be implemented because...
Sorry for the tutorial. Just trying to make it easier and encourage participation. https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...gaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms.
Should a significant number of America's 100+ million gun owners decide they need an FFL, just in case they might be in a car accident and need to sell their collections to cover medical expenses, the ATF will be swamped with Form 7 applications. The waiting time will rise from the current two month estimate to -- potentially -- years, leaving said bills unpaid and the victims of unchecked bureaucracy bankrupt. I strongly suspect the Supreme Court would find that such delays themselves are an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.
Allegedly, this proposed rule would have the effect of instituting universal background checks. I think someone failed to consider the effect of 18 U.S. Code § 922(t)(1). With a significant percentage of the gun-owning population being new FFL holders, they could happily transfer all the firearms they wish amongst themselves anyway; be it a previously-private sale, or a conventional purchase in a gun store.
There is no general, historical tradition that has required private citizens making private, occasion sales -- as opposed to deriving a significant, ongoing income from regular sales -- to first obtain an FFL. That is not "consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." Never before has such a thing been required.
The radical definitional changes were not approved by Congress in law. They completely upend the long-standing exclusion of occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases. They appear to be designed to eliminate the defense of self and others from the “approved” purposes of owning firearms. The Supreme Court has long recognized the defense of self and others as one of the primary purposes protected by the Second Amendment.
Currently, a person who sells part or all of their personal collection of firearms, perhaps because they need the money, perhaps because they decide they want to obtain different firearms, are protected. With the proposed definition, they would only be protected if the firearms were not purchased predominately for defensive purposes, and they were not sold because they needed the money. There is no question on the 4473 that asks if the firearm is to be used for defensive purposes. Almost any firearm can be used for defensive purposes but trying to determine the intent of the firearm usage when purchased would be a subjective call which the ATF could determine in any manner they felt like. This conflicts with the “innocent until proven guilty” foundation of US law and paints the gun owner as guilty until proven innocent.
First reference the docket number ATF 2022R-17. Then state you are against the rule or it shouldn't be implemented because...
Sorry for the tutorial. Just trying to make it easier and encourage participation. https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...gaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms.
Should a significant number of America's 100+ million gun owners decide they need an FFL, just in case they might be in a car accident and need to sell their collections to cover medical expenses, the ATF will be swamped with Form 7 applications. The waiting time will rise from the current two month estimate to -- potentially -- years, leaving said bills unpaid and the victims of unchecked bureaucracy bankrupt. I strongly suspect the Supreme Court would find that such delays themselves are an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.
Allegedly, this proposed rule would have the effect of instituting universal background checks. I think someone failed to consider the effect of 18 U.S. Code § 922(t)(1). With a significant percentage of the gun-owning population being new FFL holders, they could happily transfer all the firearms they wish amongst themselves anyway; be it a previously-private sale, or a conventional purchase in a gun store.
There is no general, historical tradition that has required private citizens making private, occasion sales -- as opposed to deriving a significant, ongoing income from regular sales -- to first obtain an FFL. That is not "consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." Never before has such a thing been required.
The radical definitional changes were not approved by Congress in law. They completely upend the long-standing exclusion of occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases. They appear to be designed to eliminate the defense of self and others from the “approved” purposes of owning firearms. The Supreme Court has long recognized the defense of self and others as one of the primary purposes protected by the Second Amendment.
Currently, a person who sells part or all of their personal collection of firearms, perhaps because they need the money, perhaps because they decide they want to obtain different firearms, are protected. With the proposed definition, they would only be protected if the firearms were not purchased predominately for defensive purposes, and they were not sold because they needed the money. There is no question on the 4473 that asks if the firearm is to be used for defensive purposes. Almost any firearm can be used for defensive purposes but trying to determine the intent of the firearm usage when purchased would be a subjective call which the ATF could determine in any manner they felt like. This conflicts with the “innocent until proven guilty” foundation of US law and paints the gun owner as guilty until proven innocent.
This is the form letter I am seeing often in the comments. It is obviously a pre-printed letter orchestrated by one of the anti-gun clubs in support of the rule. All identical, copied and pasted and signed by a different individual.
"
Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No ATF 2022R-17), which would dramatically reduce the number of guns sold without a background check.
I am writing in support of this proposed rule and urge ATF to finalize it as soon as possible. Guns sold without background checks—both online and at gun shows—are a huge source for gun traffickers and people looking to avoid a check. These guns often end up trafficked across state lines, recovered at crime scenes in major cities, and used against police officers. This contributes to the gun violence epidemic plaguing our country. The long-standing lack of clarity around which sellers must become licensed and run background checks has made this problem all the worse.
I support the clear common-sense standard laid out in this rule: Anyone offering guns for sale online or at a gun show is presumed to be trying to make a profit and should therefore be licensed and run a background check on their customers. This rule will save lives and should be urgently finalized."
"
Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No ATF 2022R-17), which would dramatically reduce the number of guns sold without a background check.
I am writing in support of this proposed rule and urge ATF to finalize it as soon as possible. Guns sold without background checks—both online and at gun shows—are a huge source for gun traffickers and people looking to avoid a check. These guns often end up trafficked across state lines, recovered at crime scenes in major cities, and used against police officers. This contributes to the gun violence epidemic plaguing our country. The long-standing lack of clarity around which sellers must become licensed and run background checks has made this problem all the worse.
I support the clear common-sense standard laid out in this rule: Anyone offering guns for sale online or at a gun show is presumed to be trying to make a profit and should therefore be licensed and run a background check on their customers. This rule will save lives and should be urgently finalized."
The antigunners have already started commenting en masse so, speak now or forever hold your peace.
https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ATF-2023-0002-0001
https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ATF-2023-0002-0001
This isn't looking good. I went through the first 20 pages of comments on the federal registry. After the first page, 90% or more were in favor of the rule. They were all exact copies of the one I posted above in post #111. I wanted to check to see how many more there were but the site seems to only allow you to view the first 20 pages.
I suppose if the anti gunners can do this, I can start reposting my 10 comments on a daily basis.
I suppose if the anti gunners can do this, I can start reposting my 10 comments on a daily basis.
It's getting close to the deadline for submissions. If you haven't already, or heck, even if you have already submitted comments, here is an easy way to do it. This one makes number 15 for me. This rule may seem innocuous to some, but it can, and probably will have the effect of banning most private sales.
hosted-page.civiclick.com
Civiclick
Reach policymakers and their staff more effectively with AI-powered grassroots advocacy technology.
hosted-page.civiclick.com
Me too!!
Latest posts
-
-
Are S&W M&P 9 full size (Gen 1) & Shield Gen 1 good pistols?
- Latest: TEXAS "All or nothing"
-
-
