Archive for the 'BATFE' Category

Oh, I don’t think they’re insane.  They’re just communists and this is what communists do.  And lest you think that there must be some good people left in FedGov law enforcement, no, they’re all for this.  They will enforce this without so much as one ounce of remorse, as well as any other law, rule or regulation their superiors tell them to.  They have already sold their souls.

I initially read a Reddit/Firearms post on whether it’s important who spends the money on a firearm versus whose name is on the 4473.  Here is the thread.

I hope this isn’t a stupid question, I have payed for a gun as a gift for someone else, so can they fill out the 4473 as it is/going to be theirs?

ModestMarksman answers.

Yes you can. Anyone saying no doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Source : I have my FFL and SOT

The 4473 asks if you are the actual buyer OR transferee. If it’s a gift then they are the actual transferee.

When I read that I said out loud to myself, “That’s the right answer.”

In order more fully to explain this, he makes an updated discussion thread where he explains more.  This is that discussion thread.

FFLs don’t need to give one whit where the money comes from.  As long as they are transferring the firearm to the transferee on the Form 4473, it’s legal.

Now, just to remind everyone, all gun control laws are unconstitutional.  All of them, with no exceptions.

It’s an American tradition for as long as there has been an America – making your own firearms.  And back when individuals contracted skilled tradesmen and craftsmen to do it for them, the government had no say in the matter.

But here we are.  I told you the ladies on the court, including Barrett and Roberts, would side with the communists, didn’t I?

Missouri should just ignore federal court rulings.  Because.  The tenth amendment.  Never cooperate with federal gun control laws.  Every state and local LEO who does so is a traitor.

Recoil.

Shared via Instagram by Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics, a UTM memo detailing how the BATFE has ordered UTM to stop selling their non-lethal training ammo (NLTA) to anyone other than law enforcement and the military. RECOIL has confirmed this directly with UTM.

How and why the BATFE feels they have this authority to decide law-abiding civilians can’t have NLTA arbitrarily is a mystery to us at this time.

We know force-on-force training isn’t something most of us do every weekend. The fact is, most of us never do it in our lives. That said, it is extremely useful training that should be available to every legal firearm owner.

This is another example of the BATFE using its made-up power to invent de facto laws and regulations to suppress Americans’ right to bear arms. Training and access to ammunition are central to our Second Amendment rights.

Beyond that, this ban is simply an absurd federal overstep since non-lethal training ammunition is non-lethal. No one is being protected by this ban. No one is being saved. This is purely about the BATFE and the executive branch as a whole furthering their crusade of civilian disarmament.

They don’t have the authority.  They just made that up out of whole cloth.  Hopefully this will be taken to court and the ATF slapped down.

Basically, the ATF doesn’t want you to engage in force on force training.

But notice what they did.  They banned it for civilian use, but didn’t include LE in that category.  This is a sinful omission, and probably intentional.

I believe the founders had something to say about occupying armies.

I searched for the brief but couldn’t find it.

From the comments: “This is a TACIT ADMISSION that there is no AMERICAN precedent or commonly-used standard.”

From a reader …

ZH, submitted by GOA.

Earlier this year, the Biden Administration announced its intent to move the United States “as close to Universal Background Checks as possible without additional legislation.”

After much speculation on how far-reaching the rule would be, it has finally arrived, and it’s worse than expected.

In its current form, the universal background check rule could subject those who sell even a single firearm to dealer requirements, including a background check.

ICYMI

We hate to say we told you so, but it's official.

The Justice Department announced a new rule to amend ATF regulations and expand the definition of a firearms dealer to include those who sell even a single firearm. https://t.co/HIpxe0xYv6

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 5, 2023

While it is worth noting that none of this would be possible without the Republican-backed gun control known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. There’s still something that gun owners can do to combat this rule.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, when agencies like ATF make rules, they must first submit the rule for public comment on the Federal Register.

During this period, citizens can give their thoughts on the rule and describe their unique situations as to how it will affect them.

If enough comments are negative, the agency will pull the rule and not proceed. Gun Owners of America has experienced massive success in defeating the ATF through this method. Most significantly, in 2015, we defeated the Obama administration’s attempt to ban M855 “green tip” ammunition during the notice and comment period.

The first attempt at a pistol brace ruling during the Trump Administration was also defeated through the notice and comment period. ATF retracted the rule and “acknowledged there were legitimate uses for the devices,” a statement that encapsulates the hypocritical nature of the agency itself.

And even if the rule goes through and becomes the law of the land, we’re not out of options, but your comments are still extremely important to the next steps.

I get why someone would comment, and I get why they would want to be gray man.  I don’t fault anyone for the choice.  My profile is pretty visible anyway, and you can guess what I think about this sort of rule-making.

I do doubt that comments will deter the FedGov.  But if you feel so-inclined, the link is in the article.

I just wish ATF employees would go get a job doing something that isn’t parasitic on society.  I don’t think they really care how dreary and dreadful they have become.

The supreme court reversed the vacatur order by Reed O’Connor.  Some lawyer is doing some clever thinking.  This time they went for an injunction against enforcement of the unconstitutional and immoral ATF frame and receiver rule.  They got it.  This will eventually be heard by the supreme court.  I stand by my original prediction.  The women on the court, including Roberts, will side with the FedGov.

The downside is what the SCOTUS did, i.e., stay the vacatur until heard by the supreme court.  So regardless of what is found in the Fifth Circuit, it’s got to go back to the Supreme Court again.  So this is a right delayed one more time.