TexasCHLforum.com

It is official, beginning on August 14th FFL's in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas must report multiple rifle sales. We were notified today by certified mail. They even came up with a new form for this, so much for the Paperwork Reduction Act and I find it very nice of them to tell me that each form will take 12 minutes to complete........... Wonder when we will see this as part of a political speech.....

what is the definition of multiple rifle sales and over what time frame?
Oh and if a buyer knows this, he / she will just go to various stores to buy multiples, right? so realistically, what will this really solve?

Teamless wrote:what is the definition of multiple rifle sales and over what time frame?
Oh and if a buyer knows this, he / she will just go to various stores to buy multiples, right? so realistically, what will this really solve?

If it's like handguns, it'll be more than one in a 5 day period. And yeah, it's perfectly legal to go to multiple FFLs to buy the rifles you may want, and might end up being encouraged... the gun store I frequented in Boulder, Colorado many years ago told us to go down the highway to Longmont and visit his buddy's store if we wanted to get a second pistol so he could cut down on his paperwork.

Even if it were illegal to do so, people would still do it. It'd be a logistical impossibility to cross-reference every FFL's buyers. It'll solve nothing other than gun stores apparently not having enough paperwork to do and ATF agents not having enough charges to file against people trying to comply with regulations in good faith.

I thought I read somewhere that once the dealers got the letters in hand the NRA was going to start the lawsuit.

Very possibly, the NRA may be waiting for a valid copy of the letter..just my opinion. They also may be waiting for the legal eagles to write the suit.

Join the lawsuit - I did. This is from an NSSF e-mail I received today:
NSSF Looking For Retailers to Join Lawsuit
As you may know, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has announced that it will begin requiring the approximately 8,500 firearms retailers in the Southwest border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) to keep records of and report to ATF sales made to the same individual -- within a five (5) business day period -- of more than one semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine greater than .22 caliber (Multiple Sales Reporting of Certain Semi-automatic Rifles). ATF has stated it is imposing this requirement pursuant to its “demand letter” authority under the Gun Control Act. This week, ATF began sending “demand letters” to border state firearms retailers implementing this new multiple sales record-keeping and reporting requirement effective August 14, 2011.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for America’s firearms industry -- will be filing a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and ATF under the Gun Control Act to impose this new multiple sales reporting requirement. When Congress authorized the reporting of multiple sales of handguns it could have required the same for the sale of long guns, but it did not. ATF is clearly exceeding its lawful authority under the Gun Control Act. Current ATF Acting Director Ken Melson himself has previously questioned ATF’s legal authority to impose this new requirement.
NSSF is looking for individual firearms retailers who have received an ATF demand letter to join NSSF in its lawsuit against the DOJ and ATF.
NSSF continues to encourage all retailers, not just those along the Southwest border, to continue to cooperate with ATF and report any suspicious activity. However, our primary legal concern is that this is the proverbial “slippery slope. If ATF is allowed to require this record-keeping and reporting requirement of law-abiding retailers in these four states simply by sending a letter demanding the information, than there is no record or report ATF cannot require of any licensee (manufacturer, distributor or retailer), anywhere in the country. ATF would simply need to send a “demand letter” to the licensee for the information it wishes. Congress has not given ATF this much discretion, otherwise the protections afforded licensees by Congress under the Gun Control Act, as amended, would be rendered meaningless.
NSSF will be funding all legal fees and expenses associated with its lawsuit. Retailers who choose to participate in the case will have no financial obligation. We believe that having a cross-section of retailers (e.g., dealers from different states, dealers located far from the border – like northern California, dealers that sell modern sporting rifles, dealers that do not sell modern sporting rifles, dealers that have multiple locations, and mom-n-pop dealers) will strengthen the case.
NSSF continues to urge all retailers to report any suspicious activity to law enforcement. As a representative of Guns Galore, LLC of Killeen, Texas, whose actions helped prevent an attempted terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, noted an “obligation to ensure the safety of our community.”
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you are interested in being part of this precedent setting lawsuit, please contact me at 203-426-1320 or lkeane@nssf.org
Sincerely,

Lawrence G. Keane
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
National Shooting Sports Foundation

Is this supposed to create a paper-trail to the bad-guys in Mexico? And then what? Do they really think this will stop bad-buys from buying, or possibly violently obtaining guns they want? *I* don't think so.

I tell my guys at work when they want propose and implement large, unwieldy changes... Start with tiny steps to chip away at the problem, gain influence and momentum...

This just feels like another "tiny step" chipping away at Lady Liberty...

So if you buy 4 AR-15 on sale to resell them and make few bucks, you are classified as what?

Beiruty wrote:So if you buy 4 AR-15 on sale to resell them and make few bucks, you are classified as what?

What it means is that the ATF and your local chief law enforcement officer will know you bought those guns, the serial numbers and your personal info.

So, I'll drive to Oklahoma and avoid their reporting. I don't think it will ever start though. The President has no legal authority to do this and it should be an easy thing to defeat.

When Obama was trying to sell this he also mentioned the electronic system he was going to use to store every purchase so the feds could call it up on a moments notice. That isn't going to happen either. Overall I think this is all about shaping our laws for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty he will sign and then claim we must follow. That will turn gun rights into a fight between us and both international and domestic gun control groups. Remember, we are the last "first world" country with any real gun related rights left. Imagine fighting the Democrat party, IANSA, the U.N., the media and American anti-gun groups. Obama doesn't have to even get the treaty ratified. All he has to do it give the tyrants at the U.N. anything that they can use to manipulate our system further. We have no choice but to take the Senate and throw the bum out of office or we risk a major fight!

AndyC wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So if you buy 4 AR-15 on sale to resell them and make few bucks

Then ATF could make the case that you're "engaging in the business of dealing in firearms" - be very careful here as they could really make your life a misery.

Spot on. That has been true since the Clinton era (and probably a lot longer, but that's before my time.)

shootthesheet wrote:So, I'll drive to Oklahoma and avoid their reporting. I don't think it will ever start though. The President has no legal authority to do this and it should be an easy thing to defeat.

When Obama was trying to sell this he also mentioned the electronic system he was going to use to store every purchase so the feds could call it up on a moments notice. That isn't going to happen either. Overall I think this is all about shaping our laws for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty he will sign and then claim we must follow. That will turn gun rights into a fight between us and both international and domestic gun control groups. Remember, we are the last "first world" country with any real gun related rights left. Imagine fighting the Democrat party, IANSA, the U.N., the media and American anti-gun groups. Obama doesn't have to even get the treaty ratified. All he has to do it give the tyrants at the U.N. anything that they can use to manipulate our system further. We have no choice but to take the Senate and throw the bum out of office or we risk a major fight!

Democrats have proven time and time again just becuase the president doesn't have the legal authority to do something does not mean they arebnot going to do it, and bury it in litigationton to take it even longer to be repealed
Because then president doesn't

shootthesheet wrote:So, I'll drive to Oklahoma and avoid their reporting. I don't think it will ever start though. The President has no legal authority to do this and it should be an easy thing to defeat.

When Obama was trying to sell this he also mentioned the electronic system he was going to use to store every purchase so the feds could call it up on a moments notice. That isn't going to happen either. Overall I think this is all about shaping our laws for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty he will sign and then claim we must follow. That will turn gun rights into a fight between us and both international and domestic gun control groups. Remember, we are the last "first world" country with any real gun related rights left. Imagine fighting the Democrat party, IANSA, the U.N., the media and American anti-gun groups. Obama doesn't have to even get the treaty ratified. All he has to do it give the tyrants at the U.N. anything that they can use to manipulate our system further. We have no choice but to take the Senate and throw the bum out of office or we risk a major fight!

Can you buy in Oklahoma.....on a Texas ID? Last I checked, even in Oklahoma you have to fill out a 4473, and it was my understanding that you cannot buy in a given state unless that is your state of residence.