2nd Amendment, No reasonable restrictions apply

[MR Redneck]

Due to some of the recent topic we have had, I find it necessay to post this bit of information.
Some people believe resonable restrictions apply to the 2nd amendment, well here's what happens!


Dear J&G Customer,
>> This is a special notice to warn you of impending new gun regulation. The
>> ATF has proposed to require gun dealers to provide directly to the ATF the
>> names, addresses, and serial numbers for every purchase of two or more semi
>> auto, mag fed rifles within a five day period!! They are trying to force
>> this in by January 5th, without any approval from Congress, calling it a
>> needed "emergency" regulation. This is backdoor registration of guns and
>> gunowners.
>>
>> Here is a quote from the notice by the NSSF (National Shooting Sports
>> Foundation) regarding this burdensome and illegal move:
>>
>> "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is moving to
>> require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of
>> modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011. Specifically, the ATF
>> requirement calls for firearms retailers to report multiple sales, or other
>> dispositions, of two or more .22 caliber or larger semi-automatic rifles
>> that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the
>> same individual within five consecutive business days."
>>
>> We are encouraging everyone to contact the relevant officials to protest
>> this move. The office that approves regulation changes like this that bypass
>> Congress is the Office of Information and Regulation affairs of the DOJ and
>> they can be reached at 202-395-6466. You can call your Senator and
>> Representative at the US Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.



Your instruction!
"A just sense of our own rights and duties and the obviousness of the principle are a security that no inconveniences will be permitted to arise from repetitions of it....Our citizens have been always free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their callings, the only means perhaps of their subsistence because a war exists in foreign and distant countries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It would be hard in principle, and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the rights of those at peace, does not require from them such an internal derangement in their occupations." - Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, May 15, 1793.

If you cant understand these words, you dont deserve a 2nd amendment!

 

[MR Redneck]

Text here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf

Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
[OMB Number 1140–NEW]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested
ACTION: 60-Day Emergency Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB approval has been requested by January 5, 2011. This notice requests comments from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to OMB, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer (202) 395–6466, Washington, DC 20503.
During the first 60 days of this same review period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Barbara A. Terrell, Barbara.Terrell@atf.gov Firearms Industry Programs Branch, Fax (202) 648–9640, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE., Washington DC 20226.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Summary of Collection:
(1) Type of information collection: New.
(2) The title of the form/collection: Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles.
(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection: Form Number: ATF F 3310.12. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or For-Profit Other: None.
Need for Collection
The purpose of the information is to require Federal Firearms Licensees to report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (a) Semi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 8,479 respondents will complete a 12 minute form.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associaed with the collection: The estimated total public burden associated with this information collection is 1,696 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street, NE., Two Constitution Square, Room 2E–502, Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: December 14, 2010.
Lynn Murray,
Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. 2010–31761 Filed 12–16–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P

 

[APatriot]

Due to some of the recent topic we have had, I find it necessay to post this bit of information.
Some people believe resonable restrictions apply to the 2nd amendment, well here's what happens!


Dear J&G Customer,
>> This is a special notice to warn you of impending new gun regulation. The
>> ATF has proposed to require gun dealers to provide directly to the ATF the
>> names, addresses, and serial numbers for every purchase of two or more semi
>> auto, mag fed rifles within a five day period!! They are trying to force
>> this in by January 5th, without any approval from Congress, calling it a
>> needed "emergency" regulation. This is backdoor registration of guns and
>> gunowners.
>>
>> Here is a quote from the notice by the NSSF (National Shooting Sports
>> Foundation) regarding this burdensome and illegal move:
>>
>> "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is moving to
>> require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of
>> modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011. Specifically, the ATF
>> requirement calls for firearms retailers to report multiple sales, or other
>> dispositions, of two or more .22 caliber or larger semi-automatic rifles
>> that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the
>> same individual within five consecutive business days."
>>
>> We are encouraging everyone to contact the relevant officials to protest
>> this move. The office that approves regulation changes like this that bypass
>> Congress is the Office of Information and Regulation affairs of the DOJ and
>> they can be reached at 202-395-6466. You can call your Senator and
>> Representative at the US Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.



Your instruction!
"A just sense of our own rights and duties and the obviousness of the principle are a security that no inconveniences will be permitted to arise from repetitions of it....Our citizens have been always free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their callings, the only means perhaps of their subsistence because a war exists in foreign and distant countries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It would be hard in principle, and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the rights of those at peace, does not require from them such an internal derangement in their occupations." - Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, May 15, 1793.

If you cant understand these words, you dont deserve a 2nd amendment!

Who supports reasonable restrictions on the 2A? What restrictions have you read on this site supported by TGT posters?

 

[Texas1911]

You might as well go after the fact that you already have to fill out the same form if people buy more than one handgun in the same period.

 

[Fisherman777]

You might as well go after the fact that you already have to fill out the same form if people buy more than one handgun in the same period.

Yeah, they're both ridiculous and unreasonable.

 

[TexasRedneck]

There's no such thing as a "reasonable" impediment on ANY Constitutional right - period.

 

[Texas1911]

There's no such thing as a "reasonable" impediment on ANY Constitutional right - period.

So you are OK with it being legal to sell a firearm to a multiple felon, child molester, stalker, or habitual wife beater?

The way I see it ... when you commit heinous crimes against society you forfeit certain rights. Don't want to forfeit them? Don't do stupid things.

 

[Texas1911]

Yeah, they're both ridiculous and unreasonable.

I agree.

 

[texas skeeter]

when you commit heinous crimes against society you forfeit certain rights. Don't want to forfeit them? Don't do stupid things.

Can I get an AMEN??? and NO convicted Felon, You cannot vote Democratic during the next election!!

 

[txinvestigator]

There's no such thing as a "reasonable" impediment on ANY Constitutional right - period.

Free speech has restrictions. We have disorderly conduct laws that restict your speech. If you slander someone you can be sued. The US Supreme Court, even as recently as Heller, has ruled that there can be reasonable restrictions.

How do you account for these "impediments"?

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you define "arms"?

As far as this thread; The premise is false.

 

[TexasRedneck]

So you are OK with it being legal to sell a firearm to a multiple felon, child molester, stalker, or habitual wife beater?

The way I see it ... when you commit heinous crimes against society you forfeit certain rights. Don't want to forfeit them? Don't do stupid things.

You can't be serious - you REALLY think I feel that way? If it wasn't so dumb a question, I'd be insulted. The courts have held that constitutional rights are suspended for convicted felons, and I agree with that. A stalker? No - because unless he's been convicted of a felony he's done nothing to lose his FEDERAL rights over. Habitual wife beater? I may not wanna be his buddy - but again, unless he's been convicted of a felony, not much we can do about it.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Free speech has restrictions. We have disorderly conduct laws that restict your speech. If you slander someone you can be sued. The US Supreme Court, even as recently as Heller, has ruled that there can be reasonable restrictions.

How do you account for these "impediments"?

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you define "arms"?

As far as this thread; The premise is false.

Free speech has some LIMITED restrictions. Disorderly conduct charges come from your impeding the rights of others. Slandering someone harms them.

You are obviously a great believer in a police state - one in which we are granted priveleges from our ruling class. I choose not to believe that way, sorry.

 

[Texan2]

A stalker? No - because unless he's been convicted of a felony he's done nothing to lose his FEDERAL rights over. Habitual wife beater? I may not wanna be his buddy - but again, unless he's been convicted of a felony, not much we can do about it.

Stalking is a 3rd degree felony in Texas. Aggravated Assault is also a felony. So your stalker and wife beater are out.

 

[Texan2]

Free speech has some LIMITED restrictions. Disorderly conduct charges come from your impeding the rights of others. Slandering someone harms them.

You are obviously a great believer in a police state - one in which we are granted priveleges from our ruling class. I choose not to believe that way, sorry.

I am not a believer in a police state, but believe in guidelines that promote a semblence of safety and order. An extremist could view the constitution to read that any and all laws violate our rights. Although it would be hard to garner any support for your position.

That having been said many gun laws are BS.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Stalking is a 3rd degree felony in Texas. Aggravated Assault is also a felony. So your stalker and wife beater are out.

....and upon conviction I have no issue w/that. Never said I did - so take your 'tude to another aisle.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Although it would be hard to garner any support for your position.

And just what IS my position? Obviously, you are intent on defining that for me.

 

[Texan2]

What "tude are you talking about? I was addressing crimes that ARE felonies that you pointed out.

 

[TexasRedneck]

UPON conviction - not upon accusation.

 

[Texan2]

And just what IS my position? Obviously, you are intent on defining that for me.

I was defining nothing....and not really talking to anyone particular. Just pointing out that you can interpret the constitution to mean that any restrictions on anything is a violation of our rights. If one chose to take that viewpoint it would be hard to generate any realistic support. Yet some on here seem to think any and everything is a violation of their rights.

I have never put you in that catagory....so relax. But someone who believes in obeying laws doesnt mean they support a police state. And the U.S. is d=far from a police state.

 

[Texan2]

UPON conviction - not upon accusation.

ok?