ATF to Reclassify Semi-Automatics and Large Capacity Mags? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : ATF to Reclassify Semi-Automatics and Large Capacity Mags?


redbaron007
11-27-2012, 07:18
Question, Can they do it? Will they do it?

Here is the link to the story (http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-bypass-congress-to-ban-semiautomatic-firearms-warns-expert).

I believe this was theorized in 2010; however, reality may be a little closer.

:wavey:

red

CitizenOfDreams
11-27-2012, 07:33
Question, Can they do it?

If they can declare a shoe lace a "machine gun", I would imagine they can do pretty much anything they want. What is there to stop them?

Z71bill
11-27-2012, 07:36
Can do anything they want -

I was talking with a dealer at a gun show - he said that the AFT has ruled that using your FFL at a gun show is an acceptable "EXTENSION" of the license - and it allows those with an FFL to sell guns at shows. All perfectly legal.

But one stroke of the pen - the ATF could rule that it is NOT an acceptable extension of the license and - no more gun shows for FFL holders.

How long will guns shows last if the FFL holders can't participate? :upeyes:

Power is limited by some other force to stop it - what force can stop Obama and the AFT from changing the rules?

redbaron007
11-27-2012, 07:54
Can do anything they want -

...snip...

Power is limited by some other force to stop it - what force can stop Obama and the AFT from changing the rules?

This is my thoughts. If the ATF were to pursue this avenue, I'm curious as to what congress could do. I'm sure there could be some political maneuvering, but from a legal standpoint, how would it be countered. :dunno:

:wavey:

red

HerrGlock
11-27-2012, 07:57
This is my thoughts. If the ATF were to pursue this avenue, I'm curious as to what congress could do. I'm sure there could be some political maneuvering, but from a legal standpoint, how would it be countered. :dunno:


Defund the ATF entirely. It's possible. Filibusters in the Senate and passing in the House. Refuse to pass any funding of any organization until the ATF is removed from the bill.

Fear Night
11-27-2012, 07:59
This is my thoughts. If the ATF were to pursue this avenue, I'm curious as to what congress could do. I'm sure there could be some political maneuvering, but from a legal standpoint, how would it be countered. :dunno:

:wavey:

red

"Such a move surely would galvanize the law-abiding grass roots gun-owning American public into opposition as it never has before. At the very least, it would lead to an action in the U.S. House of Representatives to defund if not eliminate entirely the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. To what it would lead at the very most is anyone's guess," warns Snyder.
I sure hope they would take action.

Logically, if a new AWB could not pass through Congress, doesn't that tell Obama something? The American people don't want this garbage shoved down their throats.

Gallium
11-27-2012, 08:00
The link is rife with pop ups.

Bren
11-27-2012, 08:03
Question, Can they do it? Will they do it?

Here is the link to the story (http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-bypass-congress-to-ban-semiautomatic-firearms-warns-expert).

I believe this was theorized in 2010; however, reality may be a little closer.

:wavey:

red

The story looks like BS to me.

NFA items are defined by statute I believe - 26 USC 5845 and 18 USC 921. They can further define within those statutory defintions, where things are unclear or not addressed, but they can't change the definitions.

Wake_jumper
11-27-2012, 08:05
I sure hope they would take action.

Logically, if a new AWB could not pass through Congress, doesn't that tell Obama something? The American people don't want this garbage shoved down their throats.

The "People" didn't want Obamacare either. We know how that turned out.

Bren
11-27-2012, 08:07
I sure hope they would take action.

Logically, if a new AWB could not pass through Congress, doesn't that tell Obama something?

Why could it not? The democrats have control of the Senate and the White House and aren't too far behind in the House - let them convince a few New England Republicans to go along and they can easily do it.

All Obama knows is that the American people reelected him, after he said he would do it, and they elected mostly democrat senators.

(BTW, where is the outcry about that lesson conservatives taught the Republicans by staying home on election day? :upeyes:)

Tango 1Zero
11-27-2012, 08:17
I could see something like this happening.

Z71bill
11-27-2012, 08:34
The story looks like BS to me.

NFA items are defined by statute I believe - 26 USC 5845 and 18 USC 921. They can further define within those statutory defintions, where things are unclear or not addressed, but they can't change the definitions.

:rofl:

I guess it

Depends on what the meaning of the word is is.


Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube

EDITED TO ADD

If you disagree with the definitions Obama wants to use then you will be labeled a RACIST.

redbaron007
11-27-2012, 08:37
Defund the ATF entirely. It's possible. Filibusters in the Senate and passing in the House. Refuse to pass any funding of any organization until the ATF is removed from the bill.

If something would occur, I'd hope something could be accomplished on the back side.

The story looks like BS to me.

NFA items are defined by statute I believe - 26 USC 5845 and 18 USC 921. They can further define within those statutory defintions, where things are unclear or not addressed, but they can't change the definitions.

After your post, I went in and perused Title II. It is interesting if they choose to follow the path on how they will reclassify them. This is my reading for Title 2. (http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html)


:wavey:

red

JBnTX
11-27-2012, 08:44
The path of least resistance for the government is to just make firearms
too expensive and too hard to get.

That's a sneaky way of getting around the second amendment.
Nothing is banned and gun owners can own all the guns they want.

That is IF they can afford them, can find one, and are willing to do the paperwork to get one.

Just like machineguns are now.


..

itstime
11-27-2012, 08:47
The "People" didn't want Obamacare either. We know how that turned out.

The election proved this also. "we" appararantly don't have enough numbers to matter anymore.

Andy W
11-27-2012, 09:58
It would have to go to the courts.

Atlas
11-27-2012, 10:03
Why could it not? The democrats have control of the Senate and the White House and aren't too far behind in the House - let them convince a few New England Republicans to go along and they can easily do it.

All Obama knows is that the American people reelected him, after he said he would do it, and they elected mostly democrat senators.

(BTW, where is the outcry about that lesson conservatives taught the Republicans by staying home on election day? :upeyes:)

Well said.

Atlas
11-27-2012, 10:04
The path of least resistance for the government is to just make firearms
too expensive and too hard to get.

That's a sneaky way of getting around the second amendment.
Nothing is banned and gun owners can own all the guns they want.

That is IF they can afford them, can find one, and are willing to do the paperwork to get one.

Just like machineguns are now.


..

The power to tax is the power to destroy.
A massive tax on ammo would accomplish this.

dennis3dflyer
11-27-2012, 10:49
Theweetsweeper had to be turned in I think? What weapons firearms would be safe?



Thanks Dennis

P99er
11-27-2012, 11:16
Conservatives slept through the last two elections. I doubt Obama and the democrats want to wake them up.

Bren
11-27-2012, 11:17
The path of least resistance for the government is to just make firearms
too expensive and too hard to get.

That's a sneaky way of getting around the second amendment.
Nothing is banned and gun owners can own all the guns they want.

That is IF they can afford them, can find one, and are willing to do the paperwork to get one.

Just like machineguns are now.


..

They have already done that in the past, by imposing excise taxes and licensing fees, but they can always increase them. Right now, part of what you pay for a gun is simply federal tax designed to make guns more expensive.

CAcop
11-27-2012, 11:44
Defund the ATF entirely. It's possible. Filibusters in the Senate and passing in the House. Refuse to pass any funding of any organization until the ATF is removed from the bill.

Will never happen. Besides the ATF helps out local LE with arson and bomb investigations. It would have to go to the FBI.

Anyway it doesn't matter as long as there are federal gun laws there will have to be an agency enforcing or regulating it. You should focus your efforts on elimintating the regulator aspects of the ATF where the abuses are most likely to occur.

sourdough44
11-27-2012, 11:46
I still have sleepless nights when I am reminded of that boating accident years ago. I lost many possessions & barely made it out with my life.

I think they are working on the next generation. Years down the road maybe they'll get people to think, 'You guys were able to own AR's privately'? Incrimentalism at work, be wary.

HexHead
11-27-2012, 11:53
Like all the other fear mongering strewn around the Internet, I'll start worrying about this when the NRA sends me an email about it.

oldman11
11-27-2012, 12:03
I sure hope they would take action.

Logically, if a new AWB could not pass through Congress, doesn't that tell Obama something? The American people don't want this garbage shoved down their throats.
Yeah you're right; but the problem is Obama doesn't care what the people want. The liberal Democrats are trying to turn this into a witch hunt to try and scare people into thinking we shouldn't own guns. The main reason for the 2nd amendment was for people to protect themselves from the Government turning into another dictatorship. Unfortunately our children are being brainwashed in school to accept the communist leaning teachings. Unfortunately the brainwashing is working, on our children as well as the adults.

HerrGlock
11-27-2012, 12:08
Will never happen. Besides the ATF helps out local LE with arson and bomb investigations. It would have to go to the FBI.

Anyway it doesn't matter as long as there are federal gun laws there will have to be an agency enforcing or regulating it. You should focus your efforts on elimintating the regulator aspects of the ATF where the abuses are most likely to occur.

Get the ATF back into treasury, where it belongs, collecting taxes for firearms.

Get the arson and bomb stuff to the FBI, where it belongs.

One thing Clinton did that made and makes absolutely zero sense. The ATF was/is trying to keep expanding its charter to the point of absurdity. Defund it and get the taxing to the IRS and and LEO to the FBI, would be my suggestion about the whole mess.

Defund DHS while we're at it as well.

redbaron007
11-27-2012, 13:51
Get the ATF back into treasury, where it belongs, collecting taxes for firearms.

Get the arson and bomb stuff to the FBI, where it belongs.

One thing Clinton did that made and makes absolutely zero sense. The ATF was/is trying to keep expanding its charter to the point of absurdity. Defund it and get the taxing to the IRS and and LEO to the FBI, would be my suggestion about the whole mess.

Defund DHS while we're at it as well.
^^^
I'll vote for this too!!

:wavey:

red

ray9898
11-27-2012, 16:46
LOL....'defund everything'. I am sure that's the answer.

Andy123
11-27-2012, 17:10
The story looks like BS to me.

NFA items are defined by statute I believe - 26 USC 5845 and 18 USC 921. They can further define within those statutory defintions, where things are unclear or not addressed, but they can't change the definitions.

Having read the article, it reads more like fear mongering than real news.

However,

If they were to try this, their likely tactic would be to first arrest and charge someone under the rules who were guilty of multiple crimes - maybe white supremacist biker gangs transporting meth. When they plead out, they may them take the firearms rap. Now they have a federal precedent of their new rule making interpreting the statute.

Really all they would be reinterpreting is the "easily converted" rule.

It probably wouldn't stand up to full review, but they could screw a lot of people over long before it got to an appellate court.

Edited to add: Obviously, this just applies to semi autos. I have no idea how they would roll hi caps into that.

stevelyn
11-27-2012, 19:33
The sturmtruppen thug bastards of the waffen BATFEces routinely take creative license to twist, turn, fold, spindle and mutilate "sporting purposes" to mean anything they want it to.

Afterall what else would you expect from a group of govt thugs with no integrity that have the reputation of lying under oath, manufacturing evidence and running guns to create a contrived crisis? :steamed:

Deanster
11-27-2012, 19:51
Since the entire article hangs its hat on the following:

'forces linked with the administration suggest the government...'

Un-named sources. Linked in a way unspecified with some unknown segment of the government, have suggested this.


That's a long damn way from 'Obama is going to...'

Total conspiracy fear-mongering, and you've all bought it hook, line and sinker.

Scott3670
11-27-2012, 19:57
Get the ATF back into treasury, where it belongs, collecting taxes for firearms.

Get the arson and bomb stuff to the FBI, where it belongs.

One thing Clinton did that made and makes absolutely zero sense. The ATF was/is trying to keep expanding its charter to the point of absurdity. Defund it and get the taxing to the IRS and and LEO to the FBI, would be my suggestion about the whole mess.

Defund DHS while we're at it as well.

Now that could be very be interesting. Can you see the look on Obama's face when he signs the bill to defund the DHS only then realizing that the Secret Service is part of DHS?

Fox
11-27-2012, 20:13
Can do anything they want...


Democrats are the party of gun control and they won the election.

Three million conservatives, most of them gunowners, abstained from voting because Romney was not pure enough for them. They threw the election to the Democrats knowing it would bring us new draconian gun control and they did it out of childish spite.

ray9898
11-27-2012, 20:19
Now that could be very be interesting. Can you see the look on Obama's face when he signs the bill to defund the DHS only then realizing that the Secret Service is part of DHS?

Along with the Coast Guard and Border Patrol. Sounds like a great plan.:upeyes: