Skip to comments.ATF quietly laying groundwork to expand multiple rifle sales reporting
Posted on 05/12/2014 7:58:38 AM PDT by marktwain
A little noticed and virtually unreported April 15 notice posted in the Federal Register suggests the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives intends expanding the multiple rifle sale requirement currently imposed on four border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas) to all states.
Titled Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles, and assigned OMB Number 11400100, the 60-day notice abstract declares The purpose of this information collection 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 16, 2014, the notice advises. That means much of the comment period has already passed with most unaware it ever began. And the ATF website offers no additional information other than links to the notice and to various forms.
The question now becomes, especially with a seeming total lack of publicity, is ATF attempting an under the radar action to impose on the entire country what they previously imposed (over objections that could have been stronger) on southwest gun buyers and sellers?
That's what it looks like, one legal adviser approached for his read on this development offered. And no, I haven't seen this yet, which is strange as I'm subscribed to the ATF Federal Register filings.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
This looks like congressional inquiry material to me, not that the current administration pays any attention to the rule of law.
I went to the ATF website, and see no way to post a comment online, as was done with the proposed NFA change.
Not sure what the problem is here. Just go to the rail yards in shi-town and you can “liberate” multiple long guns when ever you feel like it. Or do like most “domestic terry wrists” do and just buy them up out of the trunk of a car or out of the bed of a pick-up truck parked outside most gun shows. :>} See. No problem.
It is already in place in the southern border states which I find, capricious and arbitrary.
An uneven and unjust application of law.
But I would rather have us bear the unjustness of the law than force it on all the other states.
I emailed Hartzlers office about this. I too could not enter a comment or see any posted comments.
I will send a note to Blunt as well.
Anyone here think there is no data base of firearms purchases?
Had ENOUGH Yet ?
Meanwhile violent criminals are laughing.
Meanwhile convicted illegals are getting released. So what difference does it make?
Any update on this? I still cannot access FR to post a formal comment.
No response from either Hartzler or Blunt as of yet.
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.