Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

bevo

Bronze Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
662
Golden Thread
0
Location
eastern wa
Detector(s) used
minelab eureka,fisher f2,ace 150,fisher gold tick,whites coin classic II
[h=3]Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement[/h]By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court panel Friday unanimously upheld an Obama administration requirement that dealers in southwestern border states report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.
The firearms industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and two Arizona gun sellers had argued that the administration overstepped its legal authority in the 2011 regulation, which applies to gun sellers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
The requirement, issued in what is known as a demand letter, compels those sellers to report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives when anyone buys — within a five-day period — two or more semi-automatic weapons capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber greater than .22. The ATF says the requirement is needed to help stop the flow of guns to Mexican drug cartels.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, writing for the three-judge appeals panel, said the agency was within its legal authority when it issued the demand letter. She said that that the Gun Control Act of 1968 "unambiguously authorizes the demand letter." Henderson, who was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judges Judith W. Rogers, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, and Harry T. Edwards, an appointee of Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
Congress annually passes legislation banning the ATF from establishing a national firearms registry, but Henderson rejected arguments from the challengers that the requirement unlawfully created one.
Because ATF sent the demand letter to only 7 percent of federally licensed gun dealers and required information on only a small number of transactions, "the July 2011 demand letter does not come close to creating a 'national firearms registry'," she wrote.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation had argued that even if the ATF had the legal authority to issue the requirement, its decision to impose it on every retailer in the border states was arbitrary and capricious. In its appeal brief, the group wrote, "There is no rational law enforcement connection between the problem ATF sought to address — illegal firearms trafficking from the United States to Mexico — and merely conducting a lawful retail firearms business from premises located in one of the border states."
But the panel dismissed this challenge as well. Henderson wrote that an agency has "wide discretion" in making line-drawing decisions, and that the problem ATF sought to address is most severe in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation did not immediately return email and phone messages. An attorney for the two Arizona gun dealers that had challenged the requirement, J&G Sales, Ltd., of Prescott, Ariz., and Foothills Firearms, LLC, of Yuma, Ariz., also did not immediately return email and phone messages.





 

A good example if our legal system at work. Challenged and upheld. Reasoning seems solid whether you agree or not with the outcome. How quickly before this becomes a fast and furious debate on the thread is the big question. I think because of fast and furious, the government does not have a right to say or do anything about guns. Is that good logic?
 

Need to take it to supreme court Bevo, it is an attack on our gun rights. See if local law enforcement supports this attack too......





Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

What would be the basis for an appeal to the Supreme Court? Seems pretty clear cut?
 

Report's of multiple sales,(3 or more) have always been a reportable item on the Fed, 4473 form you all fill out, and answer all the questions NO on. This is possibly just an enforcement enhancement scheme since most FFL holders never did. I was licensed for over 10 years, and never reported, or knew of any dealer who reported, unless they had suspicions of the purchaser, and his intent. I have always felt that the dealer had a good handle on what was going on, and on occasion, I even refused a deal because I felt uneasy. This is hard to do when each deal is part of your livelihood, but each deal is also your responsibility.
 

What do you challenge this with that would influence the supreme court to take the case? The question of interpretation and constitutionality of the 2011 executive order. Not a problem, you're welcome...
 

What do you challenge this with that would influence the supreme court to take the case? The question of interpretation and constitutionality of the 2011 executive order. Not a problem, you're welcome...

Challenge it with what's laws/rights that the law was denying etc. read the article. It describes how they challenged it to begin with and what the courts ruling was. Again, pretty much made sense. Just because you don't like a law does not make it unconstitutional.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top