Firearms Industry Files Suit Against ATF to Stop Multiple Sales Reporting of Rifles

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Firearms Industry Files Suit Against ATF to Stop Multiple Sales Reporting of Rifles

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for America's firearms industry, today filed a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to compel 8,500 federally licensed firearms retailers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report the sale of two or more rifles.

NSSF's lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks an injunction to block ATF from implementing the reporting requirement. ATF has sent "demand letters" to firearms retailers in the four states to inform retailers they must begin reporting such sales by August 14.

NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane pointed out that if ATF can require this record-keeping and reporting requirement of law-abiding retailers in these four states simply by sending a letter demanding the information, then there is no record or report ATF cannot require of any licensee, anywhere in the country, for as long as ATF wants. "This is the proverbial 'slippery slope,' and our industry is extremely concerned about it," said Keane.

Keane added, "At the time Congress authorized the reporting of multiple sales of handguns, it could have required it for the sale of long guns, but it did not. Acting ATF Director Ken Melson himself has questioned ATF's legal authority to impose this new requirement..."

Full story: http://nssf.org/NewsRoom/releases/show.cfm?PR=080311-IndustryFilesSuit.cfm&path=2011

[quade 4]

Without further comment about why that might be right or wrong, I'm curious about why those four states? There must be some logic to it somewhere otherwise they'd have sent letters nation-wide; no?

I wonder if the intent has anything to do with the border situation and sales to people that might transport them across to Mexico?

Again, I'm not saying that makes it right or wrong, but I wonder if there's some other logical explanation or maybe even some higher authority the ATF is getting their marching orders from on this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Without further comment about why that might be right or wrong, I'm curious about why those four states? There must be some logic to it somewhere otherwise they'd have sent letters nation-wide; no?

I wonder if the intent has anything to do with the border situation and sales to people that might transport them across to Mexico?

Again, I'm not saying that makes it right or wrong, but I wonder if there's some other logical explanation or maybe even some higher authority the ATF is getting their marching orders from on this.

You are correct in your assumption

I think, some how, the mess that is the fast and furious, and that other program are linked

This was being discussed before the agent died and they have kept this going

Many thought it would die after all the hearing but it appears they were wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Without further comment about why that might be right or wrong, I'm curious about why those four states? There must be some logic to it somewhere otherwise they'd have sent letters nation-wide; no?

They are the border states with Mexico, though I believe we established already that this isn't the primary source of guns, other than the ones that the ATF has been deliberately giving to the drug runners.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Without further comment about why that might be right or wrong, I'm curious about why those four states? There must be some logic to it somewhere otherwise they'd have sent letters nation-wide; no?

They are the border states with Mexico, though I believe we established already that this isn't the primary source of guns, other than the ones that the ATF has been deliberately giving to the drug runners.

'Zackly - and, since the reporting goes beyond the bounds of GCA 68, it's probably going to go to the Supremes and get defeated.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

NY Times article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04guns.html


I'm confused. Is the NRA suit the same as the NSSF suit or are they one in the same and if so why would one be listed as NSSF in the NSSF article and the NRA in the NY Times article. Additionally, the NY Times article says the suit is being filed on behalf of two Arizona gun sellers, yet the NSSF article seems to say it's doing it all on its own and not on behalf of anyone.

Additionally, according to the NYT article;

Quote

The dispute over the regulation comes at a time when the firearms bureau’s efforts to investigate straw purchasing and smuggling across the border to Mexico has come under sharp Congressional scrutiny related to Operation Fast and Furious, an effort by the agency’s Phoenix division to uncover a large network of cartel-linked gunrunners.

In that operation, federal agents monitored straw buyers who bought about 2,000 guns, but did not intervene to arrest them or seize the weapons because they were trying to identify higher-ups in the network. But the bureau then lost track of many of the guns, some of which were smuggled into Mexico and two of which later turned up at the scene of a shootout in Arizona where an American Border Patrol agent was killed.

So it appears as if the BATF effort to look at the strawman purchases sort of was justified by the sales of roughly 2,000 weapons, just not executed as well as it could have been.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So it appears as if the BATF effort to look at the strawman purchases sort of was justified by the sales of roughly 2,000 weapons, just not executed as well as it could have been.

No, not really - store owners contacted ATF about suspicious buyers and were told to let the sales go through.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

So it appears as if the BATF effort to look at the strawman purchases sort of was justified by the sales of roughly 2,000 weapons, just not executed as well as it could have been.

No, not really - store owners contacted ATF about suspicious buyers and were told to let the sales go through.

Again, quoting from the NY Times article;

Quote

In that operation, federal agents monitored straw buyers who bought about 2,000 guns, but did not intervene to arrest them or seize the weapons because they were trying to identify higher-ups in the network.

Which seems to be at odds with your statement. Quibbling point really . . . you say potatoe, they're saying potato.

Can you explain that NSSF NRA issue with the lawsuits? Are they one in the same? I thought they were different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"In that operation, federal agents monitored straw buyers who bought about 2,000 guns, but did not intervene to arrest them or seize the weapons because they were trying to identify higher-ups in the network. But the bureau then lost track of many of the guns, some of which were smuggled into Mexico and two of which later turned up at the scene of a shootout in Arizona where an American Border Patrol agent was killed."

Wow - the ATF is putting lipstick on that pig, alright. Still smells like shit.

It was a Waco level fuckup on their part, but interesting to see that the NYT will print this fantasy version.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

"In that operation, federal agents monitored straw buyers who bought about 2,000 guns, but did not intervene to arrest them or seize the weapons because they were trying to identify higher-ups in the network. But the bureau then lost track of many of the guns, some of which were smuggled into Mexico and two of which later turned up at the scene of a shootout in Arizona where an American Border Patrol agent was killed."

Wow - the ATF is putting lipstick on that pig, alright. Still smells like shit.

It was a Waco level fuckup on their part, but interesting to see that the NYT will print this fantasy version.

Be that as it may, I'm just asking for some help here. Can you explain that NSSF NRA issue with the lawsuits? Are they one in the same? I thought they were different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,183]

BATFE routinely oversteps its mandate. Lawsuits seem to work but are costly for the plaintiffs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So it appears as if the BATF effort to look at the strawman purchases sort of was justified by the sales of roughly 2,000 weapons, just not executed as well as it could have been.

No, not really - store owners contacted ATF about suspicious buyers and were told to let the sales go through.

Again, quoting from the NY Times article;

Quote

In that operation, federal agents monitored straw buyers who bought about 2,000 guns, but did not intervene to arrest them or seize the weapons because they were trying to identify higher-ups in the network.

Which seems to be at odds with your statement.

No, it doesn't. You're saying that the ATF looking at strawman purchases was needed due to the 2k purchases. What I'm telling you (and just a bit of reading would tell you as well) is that the ATF *CREATED* the situation where those 2k purchases happened.

They told gunstore owners to let the sales go through,

Quote

The gun dealer, unnamed in the emails, replied with a request for an official letter that would prevent the dealer from being held accountable if the guns did end up involved in criminal activity.

"For us, we were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items. We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to bad guys," the dealer wrote.

then let the guns 'walk' to Mexico where they have no way to track them.

And THEN they claim that the 2k purchases are proof that more documentation is needed.

Sorry, no.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

We'll have to agree to disagree what the article says then.

In any case . . .

Can you explain that NSSF NRA issue with the lawsuits? Are they one in the same? I thought they were different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Be that as it may, I'm just asking for some help here. Can you explain that NSSF NRA issue with the lawsuits? Are they one in the same? I thought they were different.

They're separate suits, evidently. The main thrust seems to be that ATF does not have the legal authority to demand the info on their own hook - they need to pass a bill to modify the reporting requirements of GCA 68 to legally demand the info.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We'll have to agree to disagree what the article says then.

It's a difference of interpretation.

ATF directed the gunstores to let the sales happen, then use the sales as 'proof' that more regulation is needed?

Doesn't that sound a bit like self-dealing to you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

We'll have to agree to disagree what the article says then.

It's a difference of interpretation.
ATF directed the gunstores to let the sales happen, then use the sales as 'proof' that more regulation is needed?
Doesn't that sound a bit like self-dealing to you?

Not to me because it says to me at least there were 2,000ish times it would have at least been attempted. Maybe the ATF would have caught and stopped them under "normal" circumstances, but the fact remains that it would have been attempted at least 2,000ish times. To me, that means there are some pretty ballsy people out there willing to give it a shot. Certainly they aren't all first time offender morons simply unaware of "the rules." Somewhere along the line people are getting the idea they can do this and make a buck doing it without too much fear of getting caught.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Can you explain that NSSF NRA issue with the lawsuits? Are they one in the same? I thought they were different.

The last sentence in the linked NSSF press release:

"Also today lawyers representing the National Rifle Association filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging ATF's requirement for reporting multiple sales of rifles."

Why are you so concerned about whether it's one or two lawsuits?

Both have been filed in D.C., so the court will probably combine the actions for the sake of expediency.

There are also Bills filed in Congress to de-fund any such reporting requirement, so that it can't be implemented.

The BATF already has the right to inspect gun licensee's records for investigations, so I don't know why they want the gun store owners themselves to do their work for them. But hey, if the gun stores miss something, it gives the BATF another excuse to shut them down for a violation, and that's always good in the eyes of the gun-grabbers - so more burdensome regulation is always a good thing.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We'll have to agree to disagree what the article says then.

It's a difference of interpretation.
ATF directed the gunstores to let the sales happen, then use the sales as 'proof' that more regulation is needed?
Doesn't that sound a bit like self-dealing to you?

Not to me because it says to me at least there were 2,000ish times it would have at least been attempted. Maybe the ATF would have caught and stopped them under "normal" circumstances, but the fact remains that it would have been attempted at least 2,000ish times. To me, that means there are some pretty ballsy people out there willing to give it a shot. Certainly they aren't all first time offender morons simply unaware of "the rules."

So it's ok for the ATF to set up a sting and then use that sting as an excuse to increase their own regulatory power?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

So it's ok for the ATF to set up a sting and then use that sting as an excuse to increase their own regulatory power?

You're mixing two issues. Reading the different articles today, it's not 100% clear they don't already have the authority to already do this and indeed had it pre-'68. That's why it would have to go to court.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So it's ok for the ATF to set up a sting and then use that sting as an excuse to increase their own regulatory power?

You're mixing two issues.

No sir, I am not. The 2k sales you keep referring to were from the ATF Gunwalker sting - sales they directed the gunstores to process.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Why are you so concerned about whether it's one or two lawsuits?

Just confused by the coincidence of the date.

It's like if somebody said the USPA and the PIA had filed actions and didn't know what, if any, relationship there was between them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So it's ok for the ATF to set up a sting and then use that sting as an excuse to increase their own regulatory power?

You're mixing two issues.

No sir, I am not. The 2k sales you keep referring to were from the ATF Gunwalker sting - sales they directed the gunstores to process.

They OKed the guns to walk out of the stores, but they certainly didn't OK the buyers to walk in to them.

You make it sound as if the ATF told the buyers to commit the act. I've seen nothing to suggest that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So it's ok for the ATF to set up a sting and then use that sting as an excuse to increase their own regulatory power?

You're mixing two issues.

No sir, I am not. The 2k sales you keep referring to were from the ATF Gunwalker sting - sales they directed the gunstores to process.

They OKed the guns to walk out of the stores, but they certainly didn't OK the buyers to walk in to them.

Last time I went to the gunstore, there wasn't an ATF agent checking ID at the door - your experience evidently may vary.

Quote

You make it sound as if the ATF told the buyers to commit the act. I've seen nothing to suggest that.

And you won't, since it was a sting AGAINST the cartels - remember?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Why are you so concerned about whether it's one or two lawsuits?

Just confused by the coincidence of the date.

Their lawsuits have been prepared well in-advance, and ready to file the moment the BATF demand letters were in the mail. The pro-gun organizations needed to wait until that happened, in order to have legal standing to sue. If they had done it earlier, the courts would have just rejected them for not being "ripe" for action - you can't sue over something that hasn't happened yet. So once those letters started arriving at gun stores, the pro-gun orgs pulled the trigger on their lawyers and filed their suits.

I'm curious why they didn't coordinate better and combine their suits. Usually one will take the lead and file the suit, and other gun orgs will file a "friend of the court" brief to support the lawsuit. That way everyone is in on the action in some way, but without duplicating each other's efforts and expenses.

Another legal strategy where two orgs might file the same lawsuit, is when they're filed in different federal districts. For example, one might be filed where they expect to win, and the other in a district where they expect to lose, like the liberal 9th circuit in California. That way there is a conflict between two federal districts and it requires the Supreme Court to break the difference. Thats the way to get something to the top "quickly", to get a rulling that applies nationwide, instead of in just one district. It may seem weird to file a lawsuit you expect to lose, but sometimes that's actually a good strategy, when done in conjunction with other things.