Anything bigger than .22 is "high powered"?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by bkt, Dec 20, 2010.

  1. bkt

    bkt New Member

    I know this has been discussed before, but this made me laugh out loud.

    Feds want reporting for high-powered rifle sales


    Associated Press

    The federal agency that monitors gun sales wants weapons dealers near the Mexican border to start reporting multiple sales of high-powered rifles, according to a notice published in the Federal Register.

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has asked the White House budget office to approve an emergency request requiring border-area gun dealers to report the sales of two or more rifles to the same customer within a five-day period.

    The emergency request, published Friday in the Federal Register, is likely to face stiff opposition from gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association. ATF wants the Office of Budget Management to approve the request by Jan. 5.

    NRA officials did not immediately return a telephone message for comment Monday. Last week the group's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, told the Washington Post that the "NRA supports legitimate efforts to stop criminal activity, but we will not stand idle while our Second Amendment is sacrificed for politics." The Post first reported the proposal.

    High-powered rifles have become the weapon of choice for Mexico's warring drug cartel. More than 30,000 people have been killed in Mexico's drug war since President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against the powerful drug gangs shortly after taking office in late 2006.

    Officials on both sides of the border have said weapons bought legally in the United States are routinely smuggled into the Mexico. The proposed reporting requirement would apply to sales of two or more semi-automatic guns more powerful than .22-caliber rifles that use a detachable magazine within a five-day period.

    ATF, which tracks weapons found in Mexico and has tied tens of thousands of recovered guns to U.S. dealers, has been criticized for not doing enough to curb the flow of guns to Mexico, where firearms sales are highly restricted.

    Last month a Justice Department report on the agency's Operation Gunrunner criticized the program as being narrowly focused on individual gun buyers and not larger smuggling organizations believed responsible for significant numbers of guns being shipped across the border.

    Currently there are no reporting requirements for rifles.

    If approved by the White House, the new reporting requirement would affect nearly 8,500 border-area gun dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas and be in place for 180 days.
  2. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    Yep, that's the answer, more govt intrusion.

  3. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    The Jack Boots are a coming!

    More left-wing BS!
  4. Davyboy

    Davyboy New Member

    Anything more powerful than a .22 is high powered in UK :rolleyes:
  5. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    "the reporting of two or more larger than .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles in a 5 day period".

    Unless I somewhere missed a memo, aren't people filling out forms for the purchase of those weapons anyways? And the press release says 'Weapons Dealers" meaning this is not person to person sales in a backlot somewhere.

    I fail to see the problem. They are already filing the paperwork, if they are selling legally and thus would follow this new "rule', the people that are supposed to be looking at aren't, so the new request is for budget money to do that??

    Again I say, our Government, wasting money?! What?! :eek:
  6. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    Of course they are filling out the paperwork, and the FFL is doing the check. They want to go after the dealers who don't follow their stupid rules and yank ffls, I suppose. How's the dealer up the street gonna know if I buy one from him and the next day buy one from the dealer down the street? That is 2 in 2 days. Is the second guy responsible for the reporting? Wouldn't the check on me twice in 2 days raise a flag with the BATFE?

    +1 on the gubmit wasting more money
  7. Yunus

    Yunus Active Member

    Two parts of this phrase can be interpreted very liberally I think.

    First AR's without detachable magazines wouldn't be covered, nor would any other semi-auto weapon that is SOLD without the ability to use a detachable magazine.

    Second, isn't ".22-caliber" a bit vague, do they mean .22LR(I'm sure they do) or are they saying .22 caliber bullet, in the case of bullet then AR's are not covered at all, nor any other .223.
  8. bkt

    bkt New Member

    Right, exactly. A WWII era rifle that uses (stripper) clips is evidently exempt. SKS's and Garands are OK, but a Ruger 10/22 is a no-no? Say what?

    I think they mean ".22 or bigger" which would catch the .223 and above.
  9. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    Plus 1 and a *fistbump*

    That is in the same direction as I was going with my post, but you put it in clearer form.

    If we sell a weapon through the shop, we call in, we get a yay, nay or a hold.

    In my time there, I have probably called in somewhere between 35 and 50. I don't know how many, but it's happened more than a few times.


    Did anyone on the other end of the line say anything like "You do know he just bought a gun across town, don't you?!" or anything even REMOTELY close to it.

    There was one time where the person on the other end took the information, put me on hold, then came back on and asked me to repeat the name and the social security number. She confirmed the social security number and said something "Uh, no. This is going to be a categorical denial". That was on a pistol that was transferred in off gunbroker and the dude, while pissed, didn't seem to put too much of a fight and asked about getting his money back. Since we had not paid for the weapon, we didn't have any to give him, as he owed us $50 for the transfer, which we ended up getting out of the shipper to send it back to him.

    The people that answer those calls don't just VOLUNTEER information. It could not be anymore informal than if you were at the DMV behind 6 inches of plexiglass. It's "name, address, soc, weapon type" and on down the list.

    I just don't see spending this extra money in this instance achieving anything but now making the case that "this" little FFL over here in SE Texas is the one to blame for this latest carnage. :mad:
  10. AcidFlashGordon

    AcidFlashGordon New Member

    Among all the other manure in this farce, is anyone else going to throw the Bulls**t flag on this "180 days" crap? How many other "temporary" regulations are still in force years and decades after they were supposed to expire?

  11. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter


    This is pure unadulterated bullcrap designed to get some anti-gun action from the lame ducks in congress.
  12. bkt

    bkt New Member

    You mean like the Jonestown flood emergency tax? Or the cigarette tax? Or the California earthquake tax?

    I suppose everything is temporary when looked at from the perspective that eventually, as our sun dies, it will expand, cook off our atmosphere (if it doesn't engulf the planet completely) and all life here will die. Maybe that's what they mean by "temporary".

    Incrementalism is the name of the game with government. Give them an angstrom and they'll take an AU.
  13. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    So they have a border problem huh? I'll take 250 ARs, round up Marine and Army friends and we'll take care of the border so they don't have to keep passing dumbass laws like this one and intruding on every American's privacy.