Comments on: ATF Reform Act http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:05:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ameliorations http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-123416 Ameliorations Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:35:13 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-123416 [...] SayUncle brings us news of ATF Reform being imminent. As he says, good! Some some more info, apparently. What’s bad about the bill, SayUncle? Well if the commenter is right and it does allow the U.S. to use mercenaries inside the borders of the U.S. that would be bad. Not having any gun control laws, on the other hand, is very good indeed. [...] [...] SayUncle brings us news of ATF Reform being imminent. As he says, good! Some some more info, apparently. What’s bad about the bill, SayUncle? Well if the commenter is right and it does allow the U.S. to use mercenaries inside the borders of the U.S. that would be bad. Not having any gun control laws, on the other hand, is very good indeed. [...]

]]> By: Standard Mischief http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64328 Standard Mischief Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:22:08 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64328 well OK then, here's a link to the entire thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2349024 well OK then, here’s a link to the entire thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2349024

]]> By: beerslurpy http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64297 beerslurpy Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:30:15 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64297 That was an early analysis that I retracted later in that thread. The bill does not create loopholes in 922(o) that civilians can use. The "date of enactment" will remain May 86 so all of the post 86 guns stay off the books. That was an early analysis that I retracted later in that thread. The bill does not create loopholes in 922(o) that civilians can use. The “date of enactment” will remain May 86 so all of the post 86 guns stay off the books.

]]> By: Standard Mischief http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64240 Standard Mischief Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:07:40 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64240 someone else's analysis over at TheHighRoad: (thanks beerslurpy) http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2349024&postcount=24 <a href="http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2349024&postcount=24" rel="nofollow"> http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2349024&postcount=24 </a> still have not gotten time to look at it., AND my <a href="www.gunlaws.com" rel="nofollow"> "Gun Laws" </a>book is a decade out of date. stay tuned. someone else’s analysis over at TheHighRoad: (thanks beerslurpy)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2349024&postcount=24

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2349024&postcount=24

still have not gotten time to look at it., AND my “Gun Laws” book is a decade out of date.

stay tuned.

]]> By: beerslurpy http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64162 beerslurpy Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:43:37 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64162 Yes, the NRA is attempting to deceive us. READ THE BILL ON THOMAS.GOV. You will see everything that I have described. This bill is a huge wolf in sheeps clothing. It is not a progun bill so much as it a pro-hessian bill. WAKE UP. Yes, the NRA is attempting to deceive us. READ THE BILL ON THOMAS.GOV. You will see everything that I have described. This bill is a huge wolf in sheeps clothing. It is not a progun bill so much as it a pro-hessian bill.

WAKE UP.

]]> By: beerslurpy http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64160 beerslurpy Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:40:01 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64160 Oh my god I cant beleive how this crap has spread everywhere. THIS BILL DOES NOT DO WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES. You have all been deceived. If you analyze the text of the bill (which I did on thehighroad.org legal and politics section) you will see that this is basically a bill exempting federal security contractors (blackwater etc) from most of the NFA regulations including the 86 ban. Everything else is just recodification of things that are already law. This will CHANGE NOTHING AT ALL FOR US. Every single one of the "reforms" was already implemented earlier in appropriations bills. The huge change which no one mentions is the fact that the government can now equip and use mercenaries inside the US without obeying federal or state gun control laws. This is huge. HR5005 IS A VERY BAD BILL. Please stop promoting it. Ask for real reform or nothing. Oh my god I cant beleive how this crap has spread everywhere. THIS BILL DOES NOT DO WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES. You have all been deceived.

If you analyze the text of the bill (which I did on thehighroad.org legal and politics section) you will see that this is basically a bill exempting federal security contractors (blackwater etc) from most of the NFA regulations including the 86 ban. Everything else is just recodification of things that are already law. This will CHANGE NOTHING AT ALL FOR US. Every single one of the “reforms” was already implemented earlier in appropriations bills. The huge change which no one mentions is the fact that the government can now equip and use mercenaries inside the US without obeying federal or state gun control laws. This is huge.

HR5005 IS A VERY BAD BILL. Please stop promoting it. Ask for real reform or nothing.

]]> By: Standard Mischief http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64058 Standard Mischief Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:02:15 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64058 no permlinks for congress-critters. you have to go to thomas: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://thomas.loc.gov/</a> and plug in <b>H.R. 5005</b>, and serch for the bill itself. no permlinks for congress-critters. you have to go to thomas:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

and plug in H.R. 5005, and serch for the bill itself.

]]> By: Publicola http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64057 Publicola Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:59:30 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64057 X, Explosives. Though I think Expletives would be a more apt interpretation fo said E. Personally I prefer to substitute the E with a U. But I'm still skeptical. What I believe this amounts to is giving the ATFU more power (in the form of fines & such) to carry out their "core mission". Let us not forget that their "core mission" is unconstitutional & therefore little good will ever come from them. Even if we set the constitution aside (which they seem to do with regularity) the ATFU has seemingly been focused on discouraging as many folks as possible from being FFL's. Giving them the power to lay fines & suspend licenses temporarily on FFL's instead of just outright taking away their license doesn't seem to me to be anything we should be happy about. Sure, if someone accepts a Y instead of a yes on a form a fine would be more appropriate than a revokation of their license, but this is the ATFU we're talking about here. What will happen is they'll use the fining & suspension process as much as they can to get people to drop their FFL's without them having to officially revoke them. Still, the congresscritters seem to be trying to do something, bless their little hearts. X,
Explosives. Though I think Expletives would be a more apt interpretation fo said E. Personally I prefer to substitute the E with a U.

But I’m still skeptical. What I believe this amounts to is giving the ATFU more power (in the form of fines & such) to carry out their “core mission”. Let us not forget that their “core mission” is unconstitutional & therefore little good will ever come from them. Even if we set the constitution aside (which they seem to do with regularity) the ATFU has seemingly been focused on discouraging as many folks as possible from being FFL’s. Giving them the power to lay fines & suspend licenses temporarily on FFL’s instead of just outright taking away their license doesn’t seem to me to be anything we should be happy about. Sure, if someone accepts a Y instead of a yes on a form a fine would be more appropriate than a revokation of their license, but this is the ATFU we’re talking about here. What will happen is they’ll use the fining & suspension process as much as they can to get people to drop their FFL’s without them having to officially revoke them.

Still, the congresscritters seem to be trying to do something, bless their little hearts.

]]> By: Standard Mischief http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64056 Standard Mischief Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:55:04 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64056 Deep link: <a href="”http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c1090p9d6h”" rel="nofollow"> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c1090p9d6h </a> Sorry, no time right now to see how this proposed bill modifies existing law. Right now it's at a manageable 1500 or so words. You will note the last sections does include banning the importation of barrels used to finish domestic receivers. (blockquote> SEC. 10. BARREL AND RECEIVER IMPORTATION. (a) In General- Section 925(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking `, and' and inserting a period; (2) by adding at the end the following: `(3) All frames or receivers of rifles, or barrels for firearms other than handguns, if the importation is for repair or replacement purposes.'. (b) Governmental Imports- Section 925(a)(1) of such title is amended by inserting `, barrel,' after `or importation of any firearm'. (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. END Come on critters, if "free trade" is good for GM and Wal-Mart, it's good for everybody, even us serfs. I'm unsure if the demilled AKM will still flow after this. You likely still have to still have the proper number of "magic" domestic parts, only now the domestic barrel you will have to buy will be made in the USA. Protectionism for US barrel makers anyone? Deep link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c1090p9d6h

Sorry, no time right now to see how this proposed bill modifies existing law. Right now it’s at a manageable 1500 or so words. You will note the last sections does include banning the importation of barrels used to finish domestic receivers.

(blockquote>

SEC. 10. BARREL AND RECEIVER IMPORTATION.

(a) In General- Section 925(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `, and’ and inserting a period;

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) All frames or receivers of rifles, or barrels for firearms other than handguns, if the importation is for repair or replacement purposes.’.

(b) Governmental Imports- Section 925(a)(1) of such title is amended by inserting `, barrel,’ after `or importation of any firearm’.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

END

Come on critters, if “free trade” is good for GM and Wal-Mart, it’s good for everybody, even us serfs.

I’m unsure if the demilled AKM will still flow after this. You likely still have to still have the proper number of “magic” domestic parts, only now the domestic barrel you will have to buy will be made in the USA. Protectionism for US barrel makers anyone?

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/comment-page-1/#comment-64051 Xrlq Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:24:10 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/04/04/atf_reform_act/#comment-64051 What does the final "E" stand for? Is it now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Everything? What does the final “E” stand for? Is it now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Everything?

]]>