Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Firearm dealers told to ignore federal law, begin de facto registration of gun owners
Coach is Right ^ | 1/19/13 | Doug Book

Posted on 01/19/2013 10:38:52 AM PST by Oldpuppymax

Barack Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has sent an open letter to all Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders/licensed gun dealers in the United States, recommending they “…enhance public safety and assist law enforcement by encouraging and facilitating transfers of firearms between private individuals through their business.” In short, FFL holders are being told to perform background checks and keep records of private gun sales between American citizens, EVEN THOUGH federal law may NOT require that they do so! (1)

According to current federal law, gun sales between private individuals must be...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: atf; backgroundcheck; banglist; barackobama; connecticut; ffl; guncontrol; gundealers; gunpurchase; gunregistration; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 01/19/2013 10:39:08 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Alinsky Rule 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have”.


2 posted on 01/19/2013 10:43:21 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

So private sellers are supposed to, what? Just show up at a licensed dealer and say “please run this person through NICS.”? And how are licensed dealers supposed to “encourage” folks to do this? Advertise? Go door to door?

Who handles the 4473? The dealer? The seller?


3 posted on 01/19/2013 10:44:40 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I don’t recall him saying that in his speech. Also, it wasn’t in the news.
You mean he deliberately held back information from the people?
Shocking.


4 posted on 01/19/2013 10:45:03 AM PST by I want the USA back (Democrat party: criminal enterprise masquerading as a political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

For all the talk about laws, most people have never read any and don’t know what’s therein.


5 posted on 01/19/2013 10:45:19 AM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
This letter is almost pointless. If two private citizens in the same state decide to buy/sell a firearm between themselves, why would they even bother to go anywhere near an FFL?

It almost seems to me that the government is encouraging FFL’s to simply lie to people by basically telling people that it is “required” to do a background check with an FFL even for private transactions, even though there is no law at this time that states such.

6 posted on 01/19/2013 10:47:50 AM PST by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Free Ammo with background ck?


7 posted on 01/19/2013 10:52:58 AM PST by al baby (Hi Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I know what all FFLs in Tx will say.

FUBO!!


8 posted on 01/19/2013 10:53:35 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pox

I know of cases where a private sale was cancelled because one of the parties was “uncomfortable” about NOT going through a dealer. Brainwashing does work.


9 posted on 01/19/2013 10:54:35 AM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Confucius say man who poke hornets` nest get stung.


10 posted on 01/19/2013 10:55:30 AM PST by bunkerhill7 (The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

It is ridiculous on the face of it.
If it is a “private sale” why would you have to pay a 3rd party (the FFL) and subjugate to a 4th party (FBI)???


11 posted on 01/19/2013 10:56:48 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Please. Zero's executive order doesn't force private face-to-face transfers to be conducted through an FFL, it is telling FFLs that they are allowed to access the NICS system for these transfers, if the private parties wish to do so.

Currently, FFLs aren't allowed to use the NICS system to simply run someone's name to see if they would be accepted or rejected. An actual transaction must be in the process of taking place. This is telling FFLs how to process these private transfers.

The next step will be requiring that all private sales be done through an FFL, but that will take an act of Congress, not an EO.

12 posted on 01/19/2013 10:57:11 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Nobody except an idiot is going to sell their gun to another private party through an FFL dealer.


13 posted on 01/19/2013 10:57:40 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I can see some unscrupulous FFL’s lying to people so they can make money for doing NICS checks.

If you hear about it, send them a nasty email. Or, visit them in person and inform them you will NOT patronize a business that goes along with the Obama disarmament agenda.


14 posted on 01/19/2013 10:58:01 AM PST by FLAMING DEATH (I'm not racist - I hate Biden too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Exactly. Very, very few private sellers are going to comply.


15 posted on 01/19/2013 11:04:10 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The only thing that Hollywood gets right about guns is that criminals will always get them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
If I was in any way uncomfortable with a private sale, an FFL background check would not make me feel any better. If someone makes me uneasy, the sale is not going through. If someone does not make me uneasy, why would I create a paper trail that could be used by some hypothetical future regime that wishes to trample our Constitution?

No, thank you. I will not use an FFL simply to make a communist happy. This is about good and evil, and the "request" that we use an FFL and create an audit trail is not coming from those who side with good. In the unlikely(?) event that the federal government becomes an enemy of freedom, every untraceable firearm in the hands of a decent person is a very good thing.

16 posted on 01/19/2013 11:07:45 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

F troop has a long history of overstepping the laws that they are supposed to obey.

Private sales are just that - PRIVATE. Until CONGRESS changes the law there is no legal obligation for FFL dealers to encourage NICS checks for private transactions.

I’m sure a lot of them will tell the F troopers that they are available to do that should a subject, er citizen, request it just to keep them off their backs.


17 posted on 01/19/2013 11:08:20 AM PST by 43north (BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Here in PA, all private handgun sales must go thru the FFL to legally transfer the original owner from the title and absolve all future responsibility of usage. Long guns aren’t required to go thru that; a simple receipt between parties is all that’s required. I thought that the handgun transfer requirement was a federal law. No?


18 posted on 01/19/2013 11:12:06 AM PST by carriage_hill (AR-10s/15s are the 21st Century's Muskets. Self-Defense is The First Human Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 43north

Lots of people in a VA ad paper sell guns privately.

Is it legal for a non-VA person to buy them?


19 posted on 01/19/2013 11:12:35 AM PST by Salamander (Put some workboots in the drier. Recite Dr Seuss. Now you're a rapper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

Absolutely not. In Arizona we buy,sell and trade firearms as private individuals without any paperwork required.


20 posted on 01/19/2013 11:18:19 AM PST by cbvanb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Alabama :

“Most states do not require registration of firearms, with the exception of NFA firearms, such as machine guns. When purchasing a firearm from a dealer, the dealer must maintain a record of the sale, but there is no registration per se. Welcome to the South, y’all! “


21 posted on 01/19/2013 11:19:34 AM PST by imemyself
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
From the article:

"According to current federal law, gun sales between private individuals must be handled by FFL holders ONLY if the private parties are residents of different states. Residents of the same state may conclude the sale of a firearm without submitting to a background check, having the sale recorded or paying a fee to a FFL holder/licensed gun store. Yet in the ATF’s January 16th letter to gun dealers, this vitally important distinction in federal law is ignored."

2 FFL friends here in PA told me 13+ years ago, that they had to do the legal transfer of a handgun. Now I'm really confused. Crap; I just sold/transferred a Bushy Carbon 15 Type 21S Pistol to my cousin's daughter's husband, thru our local FFL.

22 posted on 01/19/2013 11:22:18 AM PST by carriage_hill (AR-10s/15s are the 21st Century's Muskets. Self-Defense is The First Human Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: imemyself

What if the buyer lives in the people’s republic of MD?


23 posted on 01/19/2013 11:22:24 AM PST by Salamander (Put some workboots in the drier. Recite Dr Seuss. Now you're a rapper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

“So private sellers are supposed to, what? Just show up at a licensed dealer and say “please run this person through NICS.”?”

Kind of like that. It’s more of a transfer. The dealer (FFL) logs it in and transfers it to the buyer, along with doing a background check.


24 posted on 01/19/2013 11:22:55 AM PST by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pox

“This letter is almost pointless. If two private citizens in the same state decide to buy/sell a firearm between themselves, why would they even bother to go anywhere near an FFL?”

I’m far from an expert in this, but one reason that I could see is to get a background check on the buyer - since it is not legal to sell a gun to a felon.

...of course, with the Internet, one can do that themselves just as easy.

I think the result of this de-facto registration is to move more gun sales underground...which actually is good, in the end.

As to sales out of state, I think people will just risk it, and claim ignorance if later told the guy was from out of state...but I’m only guessing here.


25 posted on 01/19/2013 11:25:37 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cbvanb

Big duh on me.

Is a dual-signed receipt required, for proof of non-ownership, in case the firearm is used in a future crime, to absolve you of responsibility?


26 posted on 01/19/2013 11:27:31 AM PST by carriage_hill (AR-10s/15s are the 21st Century's Muskets. Self-Defense is The First Human Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: imemyself

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/maryland.aspx

Jackboots-R-Us


27 posted on 01/19/2013 11:27:58 AM PST by Salamander (Put some workboots in the drier. Recite Dr Seuss. Now you're a rapper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; smokingfrog

Read whole article, but particularly 3rd from last paragraph:

http://www.coachisright.com/firearm-dealers-told-to-ignore-federal-law-begin-de-facto-registration-of-gun-owners/

Here it comes, as I said in a TGO post last week.


28 posted on 01/19/2013 11:36:48 AM PST by carriage_hill (AR-10s/15s are the 21st Century's Muskets. Self-Defense is The First Human Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

No paperwork is ever required, although some sellers ask for a bill of sale. Even that is not very common.


29 posted on 01/19/2013 11:45:16 AM PST by cbvanb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2978298/posts?page=27#27


30 posted on 01/19/2013 11:48:22 AM PST by carriage_hill (AR-10s/15s are the 21st Century's Muskets. Self-Defense is The First Human Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

P4L


31 posted on 01/19/2013 11:54:44 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cbvanb

From the NRA-ILA site:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/pennsylvania.aspx

A synopsis of Pennsylvania state laws on purchase, possession and carrying of firearms.

“PURCHASE
Any individual or dealer selling a handgun is required to sell or transfer it at the place of business of a licensed dealer or county sheriff’s office. ...”

Looks like it’s a PA state law.

AZ is very different:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/arizona.aspx


32 posted on 01/19/2013 12:04:56 PM PST by carriage_hill (AR-10s/15s are the 21st Century's Muskets. Self-Defense is The First Human Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pox

Unfortunately, this is already the law in my red state of TN


33 posted on 01/19/2013 12:07:16 PM PST by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Class action suit time.


34 posted on 01/19/2013 12:09:47 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Here’s my advice to take or leave as appropriate. If there is not state law against a private sale of firearms, do nothing with respect to a Form 4473 - the government can just suck it. They are going to have to LEGISLATE any requirement otherwise, not some bullshit ‘request from the ATF because Obama spoke so’

Execute due diligence in your private sale - get identification and make out a bill of sale with signatures and dates included like you would any other merchandise where you’d want a record of the sale.

My best advice is that your gut reaction on what kind of person is buying your gun should indicate to you what level of documentation is needed.


35 posted on 01/19/2013 12:10:20 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

How would FFL’s be involved in deals between two people? There is no federal laws saying you have to use a FFL to buy or sell a used firearm between two people, so I don’t see how FFL’s would be involved unless you are shipping the firearm.

Whole thing is nonsense.


36 posted on 01/19/2013 12:13:56 PM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
I don’t recall him saying that in his speech.

Here's the language from the information that the White House provided to the press before the announcement:

Call on licensed dealers and private sellers to do their part through executive action: Private sellers can already choose to sell their guns through licensed dealers so the dealer can run a background check on the buyer, and the Administration is calling on them to do so. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will send an open letter to licensed dealers giving them guidance on how best to facilitate these checks.

As you can see, nothing has really changed, private sellers were already able to do this. All that they have done is sent a letter to FFL dealers asking them to run the transaction. My local FFL charges $25 when you are not buying a gun from him, but having it shipped to him from out of state. He could also choose not to accept shipment, but doesn't. The $25 is a nominal fee that helps him cover costs. Will he do the same for private sellers? I don't see why not, it gets them in his shop and will increase his sales. Thanks Obama for the extra business. Of course, private sellers are still free to forgo this formality.

37 posted on 01/19/2013 12:26:46 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pox
So, let me understand what the ATF and E (Freddy’s) are demanding Americans do. If Johnny wants to sell or give a firearm to Sally in the privacy of his or her home, they have to go to their nearest Gun Shop (FFL holder) and demand he or she run a background check on Johnny and Sally before the transaction can occur? This of course is data mining and the Freddy’s get to place in their new computer tracking the make, caliber, serial number, and owner of the firearm being transferred. Its location for confiscation e.g. can't take what the Freddy’s don't know exists.

Is there as single “stupid” American in this Nation who is dumb enough to tell anyone other than the immediate party's to the transaction about the sale, or gift of a firearm to anyone?

God help us all if the Freddy's really believe this Nation has slipped so far down the socialist hole that 310 million firearms will be located, logged, and, tracked by Freddy from 310 million stupid, ignorant, and drone Americans? I know Americans who have buried numerous weapons, and ammunition for several years now, long before this confiscation threat and were called stupid black helicopter conspiracy nuts!

Not so stupid now unless you tell anyone about your firearms, or your intent to sell or give anyone a firearm.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

Purchase, sell, or give a firearm and SHUT THE F%$# UP! PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

38 posted on 01/19/2013 12:58:31 PM PST by paratrooper82 (82nd ABN Div. 1/508th BN "Fury From the Sky")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Going to be thousands of new jobs out there...Undercover agents will be trying to buy guns from private citizens all over the country...


39 posted on 01/19/2013 1:01:15 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
I sold most of my guns after Newtown when the price was very high. These sales were to private individuals who were willing to pay the max. I will tell you what guns I sold after the Gun Control people get done with the latest 2nd amendment abridgement.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I believe the second part of this Amendment is an answer to the first part.

40 posted on 01/19/2013 1:05:20 PM PST by Starstruck (The police carry weapons for self protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Because the real goal is registration. They’ll use any sneak-around they can, because they know if the come out and state their objectives clearly, they’ll lose.


41 posted on 01/19/2013 1:09:10 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: absalom01
“Because the real goal is registration.” WRONG!

The true gaol is CONFISCATION! The Executive Orders from Obumbum is a “Data Mining” operation to locate and then place in the Feds new computer for tracking Americans Firearms and eventually CONFISCATION under another contrived crises.

The Feds cannot confiscate a firearm until they first find out where it is, what kind it is, and who has possession of it! The latest liberal fascist move is nothing more than an intelligence operation designed to locate American firearms for confiscation. Yesterday it was “machine guns,” then handguns had to have a serial number to prevent crime, today it is “semiautomatic” (assault) rifles with “military style” features and large capacity magazines, tomorrow it will be any firearm with a caliber of more that .22 or some thing similar. The idea is to get firearms out of the hands of Americans, liberals know they do that, they also have to find all other firearms and confiscate them or any true gun prohibition will be meaningless if all Americans have to do is go to their closets and pull out another firearm!

Americans had better wrap their heads around what is really going on or they will find out way too late to do anything about it!

Gun confiscation = making Americans subjects to their government!

42 posted on 01/19/2013 1:30:14 PM PST by paratrooper82 (82nd ABN Div. 1/508th BN "Fury From the Sky")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BobL
"I’m far from an expert in this, but one reason that I could see is to get a background check on the buyer - since it is not legal to sell a gun to a felon."

I'm aware of statutes that make it illegal to knowingly do so. It's a bit difficult to prove that someone knowingly did so or had reason to believe, etc. I'm not aware of any laws that would mandate background checks or make private sellers responsible for what they don't know about a buyer. Maybe an attorney could tell us whether there's such a law in some state.


43 posted on 01/19/2013 1:32:03 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Looks like there’s such a law regarding handguns in PA.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2979865/posts?page=32#32


44 posted on 01/19/2013 1:38:08 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

And just how many mass killings would this have prevented?

GET REAL!


45 posted on 01/19/2013 1:38:21 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Checked with a friend who has a small gun shop here in Texas and he has not received such a letter yet.

So....kinda skeptical about all of this right now.

But, his response was kinda like yours....they could just pound sand


46 posted on 01/19/2013 1:45:10 PM PST by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; All
C'mon Freepers! The first thing that patriots need to do when hearing unwelcome news about a government agency like the ATF within our corrupt, Constitution-ignoring federal government is the following. Go to the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I and try to find a clause which clearly supports the existence of such a federal agency. And in the case of ATF, since all three aspects of ATF arguably fall under intrastate commerce, we need to consider the Commerce Clause (1.8.3).

The Commerce Clause indirectly clarifies that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce. And I will substantiate my statement about the Commerce Clause with the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's writings. Using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Jefferson had clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.

So the federal government originally had no constitutional authority to regulate (interfere) with iintrastate agricultural products like alcohol and tobacco. In fact, the Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Butler that the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate intrastate agricultural production, the Founding States having made the 10th Amendment to clarify in general that the Constitution's silence about things like agriculture automatically made it uniquely a state power issue.

"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)." --United States v. Butler, 1936.

On the other hand...

Note that the states had ratified the 18th Amendment, essentially delegating to Congress the specific power to prohibit intrastate agricultural production, specifically the production of alcoholic beverages. So there had been a constitutional exception to the Commerce Clause.

The problem is...

While the federal Bureau of Prohobition (BOP), which evolved to become the ATF, had been established to support federal government enforcement of the 18th Amendment, I think that the BOP was wrongly ignored by Constitution-ignorant voters after the states ratified the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment. In other words, instead of the constitutionally obsolete BOP being decommissioned after 18A was repealed, its shell arguably provided the perfect smoke-and-mirrors vehicle for the corrupt federal government to interfere with intrastate agriculture and gun rights.

Finally, problems with the intrastate firearms aspect of ATF has been addressed, imo, by the Supreme Court's clarification of the purpose of 2A in United States v. Cruikshank.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes (emphasis added), to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.

47 posted on 01/19/2013 1:48:57 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

The movement is now an out of control avalanche and the ATF cannot keep up with the flood of records keeping, they are fully aware that for every registered gun there are several hundred unregistered private sales, and they are all wrought with concern that this will lead to millions of untraceable weapons should they be forced to search and destroy.

essentially its desperation on their part, and it sure smells good.


48 posted on 01/19/2013 1:50:52 PM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

“I’m aware of statutes that make it illegal to knowingly do so. It’s a bit difficult to prove that someone knowingly did so or had reason to believe, etc. I’m not aware of any laws that would mandate background checks or make private sellers responsible for what they don’t know about a buyer. Maybe an attorney could tell us whether there’s such a law in some state.”

Yea, you’re probably right...if the guy is dancing to rap, has his baseball cap on backwards, and is making his fingers go into funny positions - and you still sell to him, you might have some explaining to do. But if it looks like the family from Father Knows Best, then you’re probably ok.


49 posted on 01/19/2013 2:20:42 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Anybody seen the actual “official” letter from ATF?
The source doesn’t show one. Maybe this is false and designed to make gun owners react.


50 posted on 01/19/2013 2:31:18 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll eventually get what you deserve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson