ATF New "White Paper" interesting reading!

[Tracer1951]

Couldn't find it posted...sorry if its is a dup.... maybe with Trump in charge some things may change!!!

It still makes for an interesting read!!!

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...d-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations.pdf

 

[Minuteman Armament]

I almost don't believe someone from the ATF wrote some of these opinions

 

[mecheenop]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...d-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations.pdf

 

[glide]

So they are saying what everyone already knows.
Shouldering a brace does not constitute manufacturing
Suppressors should be removed from the NFA

Sounds suspicious.

 

[JJ4]

Interesting for sure! Wonder if this is real.

A few that caught my eye:

There is no clear public safety reason why taxpayer-funded US-origin C&R defense articles should be denied re-importation to the American public, while many non-U.S.- origin C&R items are approved

Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as “modern sporting rifles” has increased exponentially in sport shooting. These firearm types are now standard for hunting activities. ATF could re-examine its almost 20-yearoldstudy to bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today, which is vastly different than what it was years ago. Action shooting sports and organizations such as 3 Gun and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have also drastically expanded in recent years. Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States.

Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.

Also one about about allowing interstate gun show purchases

 

[LoginName]

WaPo article about this...

Senior ATF official proposes loosening gun regulations

The second-highest-ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has written a proposal to reduce gun regulations, including examining a possible end to the ban on importing assault weapons into the United States.

The “white paper” by Ronald B. Turk, associate deputy director and chief operating officer of the ATF, calls for removing restrictions on the sale of gun silencers; allowing gun dealers to have more guns used in crimes traced to their stores before the federal government requires additional information from the dealer; and initiating a study on lifting the ban on imported assault weapons.

More @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...eedf1627882_story.html?utm_term=.dc0a265dbab6

Unfortunately, unless there is a change in the MA laws (either judicially or legislatively), gun owners here will be left out in the cold. [sad2]

 

[Spanz]

1) Trump: "if you want to keep your jobs, you will help me to reduce firearms regulations"
2) ATF workers: "President Trump, how soon would you like our proposal to do just that?"


He just made them a deal they could not refuse

 

[JJ4]

Unfortunately, unless there is a change in the MA laws (either judicially or legislatively), gun owners here will be left out in the cold. [sad2]

All we need is an executive order that reads:



WHEREAS the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"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."; and,

WHEREAS Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."; and,

WHEREAS Laws of States exist to the Contrary notwithstanding the above.

NOW THEREFORE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America it is hereby ordered as follows:

1) Laws or Regulations of the states, limiting the capacity of firearms magazines, are deemed an infringement on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are null and void.

2) Laws or Regulations of the states, restricting the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of firearms previously classified as "Assault Weapons" under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, or currently classified as such, or classified due to a feature test, or classified as such as a "copy or duplicate", are deemed an infringement on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are null and void.

3) Laws or Regulations of the states, restricting the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of firearms through any consumer protection, or unfair and deceptive business practice regulation, are deemed an infringement on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are null and void.

Donald J. Trump

The White House

February 6, 2017

 

[Kevin_NH]

It's not all (guns and) roses

Looks to be authenticated.

The white paper has the ATF seal on its cover and lists (associate deputy director and chief operating officer of the ATF) Turk’s name and ATF title. But an agency spokeswoman said it doesn’t represent the views of the ATF.

“It’s simply his opinion, and it’s to generate dialogue,” said (public affairs specialist at the BATFE) Jan Kemp.

Having an ATF spokesperson not disavow the paper may be as good as we're going to get.


There are some nasty BATFE wishlist items in this document:

• Create a new "gun show dealer" FFL class (close the "loophole".
• Another stab at AP ammo classification
• Require FFLs to retain data beyond the current 20 year cap

 

[42!]

I would think this line will help in the current 2a suits in MA. Isn't common use significant in 2a cases?
"Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as “modern sporting rifles” has increased exponentially in sport shooting. These firearm types are now standard for hunting activities."

 

[exo]

Be careful what you wish for; an EO to declare state laws invalid? That's a pretty dangerous precedent if ever allowed. What would be more appropriate is for the DOJ to start suing anti states for civil rights violations

 

[42!]

Be careful what you wish for; an EO to declare state laws invalid? That's a pretty dangerous precedent if ever allowed. What would be more appropriate is for the DOJ to start suing anti states for civil rights violations

I'd settle for a specific preemption clause. Might be easier to accomplish since; 1) it's not an EO, 2) States could still require permits (as a physical means to quickly determine a person isn't PP), just not add to the fed requirements to issue one (I'm not saying I agree with this, just that it would help it get passed).

 

[bigblue]

Be careful what you wish for; an EO to declare state laws invalid? That's a pretty dangerous precedent if ever allowed. What would be more appropriate is for the DOJ to start suing anti states for civil rights violations

I don't see a proposal for an EO that invalidates state law, where do you pull that from?

 

[JJ4]

Be careful what you wish for; an EO to declare state laws invalid? That's a pretty dangerous precedent if ever allowed. What would be more appropriate is for the DOJ to start suing anti states for civil rights violations

I'd settle for a specific preemption clause. Might be easier to accomplish since; 1) it's not an EO, 2) States could still require permits (as a physical means to quickly determine a person isn't PP), just not add to the fed requirements to issue one (I'm not saying I agree with this, just that it would help it get passed).

I agree. But
1) Trump is like Honey Badger, he don't give a shit.
2) EO's have been used to override/enforce Federal control over state laws/regulations/actions. For example, the EO forcing the desegregation of the high school in Little Rock: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/desegregation-doc.html
3) I made up the wording myself. I'll take whatever works. I left out the part where the National Guard was to arrest Healey.

I don't see a proposal for an EO that invalidates state law, where do you pull that from?

They're commenting on my fake EO in Post #8.

 

[firestorm]

Looks to be authenticated.

Having an ATF spokesperson not disavow the paper may be as good as we're going to get.


There are some nasty BATFE wishlist items in this document:

• Create a new "gun show dealer" FFL class (close the "loophole".
• Another stab at AP ammo classification
• Require FFLs to retain data beyond the current 20 year cap

The gun show FFL thing doesn't seem to be an attack on the nonsense gun show loophole, just allowing an out of state dealer to sell to you in your state following your state laws and doing a normal fed background check. Instead of selling to you, but shipping to an FFL in state or working some deal where they transfer through an FFL in state at the gun show.

 

[loneranger]

Well the white paper reads like a job pitch by current Associate Deputy Director/COO of ATF, Ronald Turk, to the incoming Trump Administration
- dated Jan 20, which was Inauguration Day
- the last Director of ATF, B. Todd Jones resigned in 2015
- the acting Director Thomas Brandon (former Deputy Director) was not nominated by Obama to be new Director perhaps because former Director Jones said Brandon was responsible for NOT disciplining any ATF personnel involved in Fast and Furious.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ng-director-brandon-campaigning-gun-registry/

 

[amm5061]

I just skimmed that white paper, but I feel lightheaded and giddy. Sort of school-girlish.

I can't believe this is coming out of the BATFE.

 

[crazymjb]

I'm sure even the not so pro-gun people in the ATF would rather see their resources going towards going after real criminals, rather than harassing FFLs and threatening the most law abiding people in the US, and making everyone hate them.

Mike

 

[CoastieRon]

My key take aways:

C&R

There is no clear public safety reason why taxpayer-funded US-origin C&R defense articles should be denied re-importation to the American public, while many non-U.S.- origin C&R items are approved.

"Sporting Rifles"

ATF could re-examine its almost 20-year oldstudy to bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today, which is vastly different than what it was years ago. Action shooting sports and organizations such as 3 Gun and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have also drastically expanded in recent years. R

Silencers

In the past several years, opinions about silencers have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized. /snip/

While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. /snip/

Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not 7be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.

Conclusion

There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.

interesting paper. I wonder how long before his liberal peers crucify him

 

[ScottS]

All we need is an executive order that reads:



WHEREAS the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"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."; and,

WHEREAS Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."; and,

WHEREAS Laws of States exist to the Contrary notwithstanding the above.

NOW THEREFORE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America it is hereby ordered as follows:

1) Laws or Regulations of the states, limiting the capacity of firearms magazines, are deemed an infringement on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are null and void.

2) Laws or Regulations of the states, restricting the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of firearms previously classified as "Assault Weapons" under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, or currently classified as such, or classified due to a feature test, or classified as such as a "copy or duplicate", are deemed an infringement on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are null and void.

3) Laws or Regulations of the states, restricting the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of firearms through any consumer protection, or unfair and deceptive business practice regulation, are deemed an infringement on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are null and void.

Donald J. Trump

The White House

February 6, 2017

Civics. How does it work?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure SCOTUS held in Marbury vs. Madison that judicial review is the purview of the Judiciary, not the Executive Branch.

 

[JJ4]

Civics. How does it work?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure SCOTUS held in Marbury vs. Madison that judicial review is the purview of the Judiciary, not the Executive Branch.

I agree, but that didn't stop Healey from re-defining words in her 7/20 gun ban.

 

[Serapis]

Silencers are a losing battle for the left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob P]

So you just got finished with 8 years of complaining about how the Executive branch was too powerful and now that you like the guy in the office you want it to usurp more power? Bad idea. Eventually you're going to see an occupant in that seat you don't like. You don't want him, or her, to have that kind of power.

 

[EC1]

drain the swamp, get rid of anyone appointed with the zero in office.

 

[Dennis in MA]

For sure the "MSR" change will be huge. First, it will allow all those import-restrictions to go away on a whole class of firearms.

SECOND, it reinforces "common use." Exactly what we are arguing in the MA lawsuits. Even the ATF acknowledges the fact that these guns that MUUAAAAARRRAAHHHHH wants banned as common use in sporting and non-sporting (read: self defense) activities.


EDIT:

Oh, and even WRITING this, let alone publishing it, is giving Obama the trots.

 

[beriky]

How sure is everyone that this isn't a fake? I won't believe it till I see it posted on the ATF website. I won't even give it a second thought until at least this political hack is shown on video saying any of it.

 

[JJ4]

On the plus side, it seems this exists. That there are people in the ATF who are aware that they can make certain things easier on people when there is no rationale for certain regulations. It's possible it's faked as noted above, but it's not outrageous on any direction. As noted, it is dated on inauguration day, so it may be a quasi job interview for ATF director position.

If you look at the words on the last page - it's clear that this is really an internal brainstorming document written by one person. It says it's not intended for public consumption, and it doesn't represent any more that one person's idea. So I don't think we're going to see this on the ATF website unless it somehow becomes ATF policy or planning going forward. Even then, I'd expect it would have substantial revisions as input from other people are incorporated.

 

[Bob P]

How sure is everyone that this isn't a fake? I won't believe it till I see it posted on the ATF website. I won't even give it a second thought until at least this political hack is shown on video saying any of it.

Very likely it's a fake. Or if it's real it's never acted on. Don't bother getting too excited y this. When they actually change policy then I'll cheer.

 

[42!]

Unfortunately it's probably fake. If it was real it would be a public record and the writer would know that, so it would not state that it shouldn't be made available to the public. A quick FOIA request would settle this.

 

[DarthRevan]

Maybe Attila wrote this...