.jpg)
"ATF Reverses Interpretation of GCA; Redefines 'Transfers' of Firearms," reads the May 27 post on the National Shooting Sports Foundation's NSSF Blog.
Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
As NSSF observes:
In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.
The thing is, ATF has been operating under a completely different interpretation without incident:
There is simply nothing in the Brady Act or is there any other legal reason that compels ATF to now reject 40 years of precedent...
ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF's rulings was used in a crime.
Here's the May 20 ruling, issued under "authority" of Deputy Director Kenneth E. Melson:
It seems to me strict interpretation of this clause could cause problems not just for shipping firearms to contractors or evaluators, but also within a store:
Temporary firearms assignments to employees are different from temporary firearms assignments to non-employee contractors, agents, and representatives because the FFL exerts a higher level of control over its employees than its contractors or agents.
Would that not eliminate the ability of a store to retain staff via a temporary agency?
And here are a couple sections that stand out for me:
Neither the GCA nor its implementing regulations define the term “transfer"..A “transfer” includes any change in dominion or control of a firearm, whether temporary or permanent, commercial or noncommercial.
and
[T]he temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed agents, contractors, volunteers, or any other person who is not an employee of the FFL, even for bona fide business purposes, is a transfer or disposition for purposes of the Gun Control Act, as amended, and, accordingly, the FFL must contact NICS for a background check, record a disposition entry, and complete an ATF Form 4473. [Emphasis added-DC]
I know the perceived intent here involves shipping guns to contractors, evaluators and the like, but if I just read these words on their own as written, I can see it being interpreted that such transfers could even include renting guns at shooting ranges. I find the timing curious, because the antis have recently begun referring to this as a "federal loophole" and using anecdotes to stir up the hysteria to close it.
It's not like we haven't seen arbitrary rulings and reversals before. Can anyone say for certain they know how ATF will treat past accepted practices under this new ruling, and if the interpretation will be the same a week, a month, a year from now...?
And what concerns should we have that bureau rulings are issued by administrative edict under signature of an unelected acting official, without opportunity for public comment and apparently outside the scope of Federal Register rule development protocols and protections?
How did Clinton aide Paul Begala put it?
Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!
UPDATE: See comment from Historic Arms LLC, below.
Comments
The only reason I can see for this decision is to generate more fees.
"stroke of a pen" by any other citizen does not make law. And, since nowhere in the Constitution does ANYONE have that power, it is null and void. It was created out of thin air by Congress, and is therefore unconstitutional on its face.
The ONLY reason for the change in definition of "transfer" is to expand it to cover inheritances and gifts to family and friends. Plainly put: PEOPLE CONTROL (not "gun" control). Tyranny can only survive with the force of power solely in its possession. That was the reason for the Second Amendment: to prevent tyrants from taking over and turning the nation into one big money generating scheme for thugs. But, considering the Chicago thugs are in control, it should surprise no one.
My only question is it now a "transfer" to hand off you package that contains a firearm to UPS, FedX, or USPS to ship to another dealer?
Think about it???
Are they not a "contractor"? Does UPS, FedX, or USPS have an FFL? Do I need the driver to fill out a 4473?
Just asking?
OR...find other reasons to delay OR DENY a transfer.
Could this be used to seal the loop hole at Gun Shows? I have a suspicion that is exactly what this change is for.
Could this be used to eventually do away with C&R transfers among non-C&R FFL holders? I know it shouldn't as we are talking about 100+ year old or collector value weapons, but I can't help but to be paranoid with this administration and current events.
The purpose is to create more "crimes" and more "prohibited persons".
To quote myself from an earlier post:
What is the purpose of writing the laws in a complex and convoluted manner? Laws written in such a way that even those empowered with their enforcement don’t understand them. Could it be to criminalize the gun owner even when no real crime has been committed? Gun control takes many forms.
Q: Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
A: All of them.
I think it's great! Most dealers are fed up with gun shows so if that is the intent ...WONDERFUL!!!
Callan wrote:
"I think it's great! Most dealers are fed up with gun shows so if that is the intent ...WONDERFUL!"
I hope the above was a poor attempt at hyperbole.
In any case, since many "dealers" sell and trade guns at gun shows, the post is, to say the least, a poor attempt at sarcasm, and is at best idiocy.
Remember, better to keep one's mouth shut and make people think you an idiot than to open one's and confirm it.
"So let it be written. So let it be done." -- Yul Brynner channeling Pharoh Ramses II
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!" -- Paul Begala
Not a whole lot of difference that I can see, except that Ramses II wasn't pretending to run a representative democracy. Either way, letting them slide this kind of stuff in under the radar is bad news for everyone. The left may giggle behind their hands for sneaking one over on America's gun owners. But they won't have much to giggle about when the right is back in power and decide turn about is fair play. Abuse of power by federal officials is abuse of power and bad news whenever we let them get away with it.
That also means ATF agents cannot confiscate guns without going through a NICS check and filling out a Form 4473. That means every manufacturer, dealer, and gun possessor can legally refuse any ATF agent access to any firearm until after a Form 4473 is filled out and a NICS check is done for each and every firearm and each and every agent who is to handle it. ATF employees cannot even transfer it from one agent to another, not even in their testing lab (very loose use of the term). Let's make them live by their own rules. Much like Ronnie Barrett did to CA.
There are many more possible actions that they have just authorized and are compelling us to take, therefore we can legally under their own rules "handcuff" the bastards.
One of the unintended consequences of this rules change could well be that now if one successfully resists attempts by ATF agents to relieve the possessor of a firearm and ATF employees lose their lives due to that resistance, a case can be made that the resistor was within the law to refuse to participate in a felonious act perpetrated by ATF. In other words, a case of self-defense against criminals trying to coerce participation in the felony by an otherwise uninvolved and innocent person. Even with a court order to seize such property the ATF agents would now need to undergo NICS and fill out a form 4473. In order t do that they would need the serial numbers of the targeted firearms. Since they will not be allowed to take possession of te firearm even long enough to get those serial numbers, they will be unable to fill out the proper forms. Ergo, they have just shot themselves in the foot, if we as citzens demand they live by the rules and punish them should they not.
It now, very simply, comes down to guts. Do we have enough or not?
Who, specifically, decided that the undefined word “transfer” was to be reconsidered, re-determined, and then defined, to include people that actual practice has excluded for over 40 years?
This rule wasn’t decided or even considered in Congress, it was decided in a BATFE office in D.C. by an unelected, word-twisting, bureaucrat who will tell you up front that he doesn’t have to answer to We The People. As far as “accountability” is concerned, I have no idea who that faceless individual is required to answer to. We The People cannot vote someone out of office who was never elected. And, due to legalities, the rule writer cannot be held responsible for his asinine rule.
The only way this rule can be challenged is for someone to be arrested, charged with violating the unconstitutional rule, and face the prospect of federal prison time before he will have standing. That course of action has worked well for Olafson and, so far, for the Air-Soft Outlet people in Washington State.
I‘m with you, Straight Arrow. I have had much enjoyment over the years with slapping rule makers in the face with their own rule books. It’s a real treat to watch those who start the fire squirm when their toes are the ones feeling the heat.
[W3]
Ahh.... It is good to be king - to be able to rule by regal decree, and the subjects that bow before you.
After all, is that not what the subjects' representatives have voted for?
With luck this will backfire on the AFT and the public outcry in Novemember will send a clear message if the ATF if facing a hostile new congress next year. It is a policy ruling that has to be grounded in a clear interperation of a regulation that accurately expresses the clear intent of a law. I don't think this ruling passes that smell test.
That Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could be sent to do a formal investigation of the records keeping of the ATF, when the cultural infrastructure does decay all is thrown into confusion. This is on the assumption that if Federal Law is to prevent destruction with arms those records need investigation to prevent possible intentional destruction to the nation.
That next step to slow to a crawl federal law enforcement use of arms, by enforcement of procedures. This is known as enforcing the cultural infrastructure. This situation will cause every Federal Government Level activity to have a monster sized paper trail, which will be a difficult to maintain material infrastructure. What will the local data archiving requirements be like and if this is backed up on the Internet, what will be the requirements for maintaining information integrity?
This hurts fund raising by Friends of NRA, DU, State Gun Clubs, etc. all of whom raise money by raffling and auctioning guns. Now the guns actually have to be transferred back and forth between volunteers and FFL's.
Anything that can be done to make life more difficult for the citizen, they will do because it suits them, and no one will punish them, even if it gets a hearing before "their" courts. Remember when the courts mostly, belonged to us instead of them? Remember when jurists mostly remembered that, there was a Constitution and Bill of Rights, and acknowledged that the words found there were actually, there. Remember when jurists and politicians were mostly, mindful of the public's opinions and sometimes, would even rule against it, if it conflicted with Constitutional intent?
Remember when at least sometimes, you got truth out of the media, instead of nonstop propaganda and indoctrination 24/7/365?
Do you remember when truth was the governing factor, not to be evaded or spun or ignored by them? Do you remember when some of them thought that the truth was more important than politics or the socialist/Marxist cause?
Will our descendants know anything else? Was it not done purposefully
>>> "What is the purpose of writing the laws in a complex and convoluted manner? Laws written in such a way that even those empowered with their enforcement don’t understand them."<<<
Never believe for one second, that these people don't know what they are doing. There is purpose behind the smallest thing they do, and considering that none of their actions and omissions, positively affect freedom and liberty anymore, they can no longer be consider servant to those principles nor us.
They now tell us, what we must do, and their media, the single greatest cause of Constitutional undoing and revolutionary mischief throughout modern history, expertly bends the public mind to those ends. The only time there is any descent, strong enough to force their good behavior, is when their actions throw people out of work, and kill an industry, such as the luxury tax on yachts in new england.
But can we still say that? I think not, for the media will prevail once again and bend those minds
David it looks like the BATF still operates under the “We make it up as we go rule”
I had hoped back in 1994 that the BATF would have been put out of business but the fat gay white men that run the Republican Party couldn’t seem to get the aroused enough to keep their promises.
I also remember that Regan wanted to get rid of the ATF but our good friends (NRA) stepped in and saved the ATF.
I say dump the 68 GCA, Illinois FOID card and ATF.
The ATF, and other agencies do this because they know they will run into little resistance from the people. Many donate to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, etc., thinking those organization will protect them. Many have lost the will to defend their rights.
Callen, from under what rock did you emerge from? This new ruling has nothing to do with gun shows. Re-read it! Dealers fed up with gun shows? Obviously you haven't been to any and know nothing about them.
You can bet this ruling came from the Obama administration and Attorney General Holder - both incompetent liberals!
DDS said: "But they won't have much to giggle about when the right is back in power and decide turn about is fair play."
FrankInFL says: DDS, you either need to get OFF the drugs or ON them...
FrankInFL says:
DDS said: "But they won't have much to giggle about when the right is back in power and decide turn about is fair play."
FrankInFL says: DDS, you either need to get OFF the drugs or ON them...
While I do appreciate the advice, one can only wonder what point you're trying to make, and what my aledged drug use or lack of it might have to do with the subject at hand. Can we please keep the "ad hominem" attacks to a minimum? I already have one troll who has it out for me personnaly because my initials (DDS) evidently remind him of his dentist.
Perhaps I should clarify... Nancy Pelosi recently justified her warping of "reconciliation" to pass Obamacare by saying that the Republicans did it first. Perhaps they did. Doesn't make what she did any more moral, ethical, legal or constitutional. We're supposed to be a nation of laws. I don't give a darn which side is breaking the rules. It should not be allowed.
Referring to Madashell's post:
"I say dump the 68 GCA, Illinois FOID card and ATF."
At long last you have found 3 things we agree on.
--
"...but the fat gay white men that run the Republican Party...".
Leaving aside that one group of radical 2A defenders, "The Pink Pistols", are almost all "gay white men" and definitely on our side and therefore we should probably leave the homophobic stuff out of this forum, I wasn't aware that Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC, was either white or gay. Could you fill us in on how you got the scoop on his sexual orientation?
--
"I also remember that Regan wanted to get rid of the ATF but our good friends (NRA) stepped in and saved the ATF."
I'm not sure if you're referring to Treasury Secretary Donald Regan or President Ronald Reagan, but I can't wait to hear your story on how the NRA saved their arch enemy, ATF. Could you fill us in on the details please?
The NRA initially pretended they wanted the ATF disbanded but when President Reagan was going to do it, the NRA realized it might loose it's cash cow. The NRA is only worried about income. Less threat to the Second Amendment means less chances for money raising.
Time magazine
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983197-4,00.html
Violence policy center
www.vpc.org/studies/cfatf.htm
David, I want to get rid of the AFT, 68 GCA, Illinois FOID card and more,
But… it seems that some good people aren’t as informed as they could be.
Could you address this problem?
I remember when JPFO broke the story that during the Reagan administration the NRA saved the ATF from being abolished.
But evidently others have not.
How about when the NRA stated the following.
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
Personally I’m sick and tired of certain members of the GOP claiming to be Christian Conservatives when theyre in their districts but when their in DC they troll the streets and are Black-mailed for their closet life style.
That’s one reason the Brady Bill was not repealed
I have more respect for the Pink Pistols than I do certain elements of the GOP.
Come on, folks! I ask for credible references and you give two. One is a Time Magazine piece that practically plagarized a paper from our old friend and paragon of the truth, the Violence Policy Center. The other is the original VPC report. And we know we can trust Josh Sugarman to tell the truth about the NRA, right? Care to buy a bridge? Tell you what! I'll give you 50% off!
I gave you two of the first ones I found from a google search. It's really not that hard to do for yourself. I was alive in the 80's and remember the NRA's flip flopping. The way the continue to flip flop today you'd think you'd realize that they did it back then also. Again, they do not care about your rights, they care about the money in your wallet. If they can keep you in fear of losing your rights they can keep you donating money. Rights, be definition, can not be taken away from you by a Government or a man. You can refuse to exercise your rights our you can bow to the will of the Tyrants but the rights can't disappear. No law can take your rights and no law can give you a right. The NRA found that fear was much more profitable than marksmanship training. They are still good at training but better at stealing your money through fear. I posted links, didn't mean to start ad hominem attacks but some people can't resist when faced with facts.
David: I'm sorry. I'll keep quite after this post.
DDS,
How about a book, "Under fire: the NRA and the battle for gun control" by Osha Gray Davidson. "The NRA realized that it wouldn't be able to call Secret Service agents "jackbooted fascists" and get away with it. Overnight, issuing from the NRA's black granite headquarters at 1600 Rhode Island Avenue came the sound of furious backpedaling. The NRA and its supporters suddenly had a dozen reasons why the plan they had so recently supported was 'unworkable' and 'ill advised."
These are facts, DDS, even if you don't want to accept them. To be fair though you claim you asked for credible evidence. You didn't, you told madashell "I can't wait to hear your story.." It's not a story, it's fact and it's standard operating procedure for the NRA.
straightarrow: I too often wonder these days IF this is still the Home of the Brave. I know it's still the Land of the Free BECAUSE of the brave but I'm not so sure it is still the "home of the brave."
So many of my long time friends and family whom I once thought so highly of are too afraid to speak out or attend a protest etc. that it's become downright disgusting!
To them and other "americans" like them I submit this quote:
“ War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” - John Stuart Mill
And the quote in the following post.
CONTINUED:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!!! -- Samuel Adams
Citing the VPC's opinion of the NRA to prove your case is not much better than citing Rev. Al Sharpton on the subject of race relations. Sharpton has no credibility and no honor. The VPC has no credibility and no honor. You are comeing awfully close to doing Josh Sugarman's and Sarah Brady's work for them. Vladimir Lenin called such people "useful fools". Be careful lest you become one. And with that I'll say no more on the subject.
You guys might want to do some research on Osha Gray Davidson. He's not exactly on our side of the aisle. Not quite a Michael Bellesiles but not that far off either.
not only rented ranges
but the open no rent range
you will not be able to loan
a gun to a friend in your presence
watch out for smiling faces
stay alert for like a thief in the night
Stay Awake Dave, soon your 1A will be gone
keep up the good work anyway
In mid Feb. BATFE raided Sabre Defence's plant in Nashville. Please read the Feb. 17, 2010 press release Sabre put out just after the raid.
"Sabre Defence Industries LLC, an established manufacturer of firearms and weapon systems to the United States military, state and local law enforcement, and worldwide commercial markets, is fully cooperating with federal agents in an ongoing investigation into potential criminal misuse of certain non-saleable firearms produced by Sabre and purchased by some its employees. Sabre has received information that employee(s) involved in inventory control may have obtained and re-sold some items without appropriate licenses. Sabre is and has been cooperating with federal agents in this investigation."
This goes a long, long way in explaining the change BATFE is making. The phrase "non-saleable firearms" is the most gentle way possible to say they were passing out newly made full auto guns to their employees who were then selling them.
DDS, you are going to lose this argument. I was alive and adult at that time and I remember NRA reversing course in order to maintain their cash cow problem. The facts are against you. Sorry, guy, but if you really were interested in the truth you could find it and avoid ignoring the references you have been given. I know it is a bitter pill, but it is the only one.
NRA also went on record as being in favor of GCA'68, also. In fairness, so did most domestic gun manufacturers. They did it. No excuses. They had selfish reasons that had to do with profit, not principle. All of them, including the NRA.
I was also alive and adult then, and though my memory isn't as good as it used to be, I do remember rank betrayals.
Nothing like a burecrat being able to rewrite law without due process. Where's Congress? Well , one thing is certain, the population that wants to own firearms and will is a few million more than all the media , ATF, Congress, the Whitehouse Maoist's, and all the burecrats. So let's see what happens when worlds collide. I, for one , won't follow the burecrats edic. The court will decide in our favor.
straightarrow says:
"NRA also went on record as being in favor of GCA'68...."
In 1968 I was already an NRA lifer. NRA was on record as opposing the bill that became GCA68. Sen. Thomas Dodd's bill, plagarized in large part from a 1930's law from Nazi Germany, looked like it had an even chance of passage no matter what NRA did. Remember this was in the wake of three political assasinations and a summer of burning inner cities. Congress wasn't in the mood to listen to America's gun owners. NRA compromised to get a better bill. The original had no language whatsoever on the subject of criminal missuse of firearms. All of that in the law today was put there at the insistance of NRA over the objection of the Justice Department and the bill's "author", Sen. Dodd. Then NRA got out of the way and let the "improved" bill pass as they have done on other occasions: the 1934 NFA, Mario Biaggi's "cop killer bullet" ban. Not quite the same as "supporting" or being "in favor of". (cont)
Should NRA have compromised or fought GCA68 to the death? We can and have argued on this one to death. It's the "half a loaf" vs "all or nothing" argument. But keep in mind that without NRA's opposition, Kennedy's "saturday night special" ban would have outlawed the Colt SAA "Peacemaker", Biaggi's "cop killer bullet ban" would have taken 80% of all ammunition off the market, and all handguns would now be "Title II firearms" under the 1934 NFA. All of those are places where NRA had a bad bill that was going to become law changed for the better. If you guys to say that NRA is no better than the Brady Bunch or VPC I can't stop you. If "madashell" wants to blame all of Illinois gun owners problems on the NRA I can't stop him either. But I will be here to tell you that you are wrong.
Sure, let's help the NRA screw us partly for surely being screwed partly is much better than being screwed fully! If a group is too useless to fully fight for rights, they are the useful idiots, not the people that point out their flip flopping. What more could we expect from a shill for the NRA? Being a shill for the NRA is no different than being a shill for the VPC or Brady Center, all three use fear to garner funds. People have the right to believe anything they want, if they believe being screwed by the NRA is better than being screwed by the VPC, Brady Center or Government then that is their choice. I and obviously a couple of others choose to live in this world with an open mind.
John Samuels says:
"If a group is too useless to fully fight for rights,...."
Politicians care about only two things. Those two are not "Law and Order", not "Peace and Security", or "Equality and Fairness". They care only about "Money and Votes". NRA has 4 million members who vote more dependably than any other group and a huge ability to raise cash. Cash that can be used to help a politician or punish them. Politicians pay attention to what the NRA thinks. For all their dedication and good intentions, SAF, GOA, and JPFO combined don't come close to the influence NRA has. So you've added you two cents to the others that seem to think we'd all be better off without the NRA. I have one question for you. What are you personally going to replace it with?
DDS, we don't need influence, we need people that will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. You are correct that the 4 million NRA members are vote dependably. The continue to elect the Tyrants that are helping to destroy the Constitution of the United States. They had a big voting block for John McCain. Mr. McCain or Mr. Amnesty if you wish is not a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, He is not a supporter of the Fourth Amendment. He is not a supporter of Article 1, Section 8. Yet the NRA supported him. Yes, politicians listen to what the NRA thinks. However, the NRA also listens to what the politicians think and the are starting to side more and more with the politicians and less and less with the Constitution, Freedom and Liberty. You are a free man, you may do an believe what you like as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others. I don't give money to the NRA or other groups. I use my money wisely.
John Samuels says:
"I don't give money to the NRA or other groups. I use my money wisely."
You don't support NRA because you feel they are a bunch of compromising sellouts who are only in it for the money. Fair enough, that is your right, Sir. But what reason do you have for not supporting SAF, GOA, or JPFO? And if you don't financialy support any pro-2A group, what, other than banging away on your keyboard, are you doing to support our struggle to restore our rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment?
DDS, one thing your essay on the impact of NRA overlooks is that by being recognized by government and media as the 800 pound gorilla they avoid through misdirection having to deal with groups who would be more principled. Those groups would also have much more membership if people realized the NRA is the "government approved" lobby.
Liken it to Jackson or Sharpton being lauded as leaders of the black minority. I know a Hell of a lot of black people who don't like those charlatans any better than I do, but because they have been anointed by media and government they find they have no other voice to b heard. NRA is like that.
There must be a reason!
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!