GUNS/RLTD Administration preps new gun regulations

kittyluvr

Veteran Member
By Tim Devaney - 05/30/15 03:10 PM EDT

The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.

But the gun lobby contends that such a sweeping ban would unfairly root out a number of prospective gun owners who are not a danger to society.

“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” said Luke O’Dell, vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights.

The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.

Some of the rules come in response to President Obama’s call to reduce gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook. He issued 23 executive actions shortly after the shooting aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous people, and some of those items remain incomplete.

“If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown,” Obama said at the time.

“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale,” he added.

Gun control groups have rallied around Obama’s call to action, zeroing in on polices that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and domestic abusers.

Congressional efforts to expand background checks and keep guns away from dangerous people have failed in recent years, but the legislative defeats won’t stop the Justice Department from regulating.

The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is looking to revive a rule proposed way back in 1998 that would block domestic abusers from owning guns.

As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.

The ATF plans to finalize the rule by November
, according to the Unified Agenda.
But gun rights advocates are concerned the Obama administration will use this rule to unfairly target certain gun owners.

“That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” warned Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Americans for Responsible Solutions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

But Everytown, a group financially backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has argued that keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers can be a matter of life or death.

“American women are 11 times more likely to be shot and killed than women in other developed countries,” the group argues. “The high rate of domestic violence deaths in America is directly related to our weak gun laws. But we know that smart gun laws can—and do—stop domestic abuse from turning into murder."

The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms, which is attracting even more criticism from gun rights groups.

“The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist
,” Hammond argued.

The NRA contends that many people who are mentally ill may not necessarily pose a danger to society — or as the gun lobby puts it, the policy “snares masses of mostly harmless individuals.”

Gun rights advocates argue it would be more effective to ban people on an individual basis, as opposed to banning all people who are mentally ill.

“A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA wrote.

"Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” it added.

Aside from these issues, some gun rights advocates have also raised concerns about upcoming ATF rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts, provide gun storage and safety devices, and place restrictions on high-powered pistols, among other things.

“The Obama administration hates the Second Amendment, and it’s clear that every place where it can push, it will,” said Hammond. “This is an indication of an anti-gun administration trying to annoy us in any way it can."

http://thehill.com/regulation/243520-administration-preps-new-gun-regulations
 

kittyluvr

Veteran Member
So this is what I found on the proposed rules:

DOJ/ATF RIN: 1140-AA23 Publication ID: Spring 2015
Title: Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms--Amended Definition of "Pistol"
Abstract:

This rule would propose to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term "pistol" and to define more clearly exceptions to the "pistol" definition.

http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA23

From the Federal Register: 70 FR 17624

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is
proposing to amend the regulations
relating to machine guns, destructive
devices, and certain other firearms
regulated under the National Firearms
Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(ATF) to clarify the definition of the
term ‘‘pistol’’ and to define more clearly
exceptions to the ‘‘pistol’’ definition.
The added language is necessary to
clarify that certain weapons, including
any weapon disguised to look like an
item other than a firearm or any gun that
fires more than one shot without
manual reloading by a single function of
the trigger, are not pistols and are
classified as ‘‘any other weapon’’ under
the NFA.

DOJ/ATF RIN: 1140-AA10 Publication ID: Spring 2015
Title: Implementation of Public Law 105-277 Relating to Secure Gun Storage
Abstract:

The Department of Justice is planning to propose to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to implement certain provisions of Public Law 105-277, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999. The amendments are with regard to: (1) certification by applicants for dealers' licenses that secure gun storage or safety devices will be available at any place where firearms are sold to nonlicensed individuals, and (2) amended definitions of certain terms, including an amended definition of "antique firearm," to include certain muzzle loading firearms.

http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA10

Here is the link to where I am finding the proposed rules:

http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgend...ctive&agencyCd=1100&Image58.x=38&Image58.y=22

In the Agency columns look for DOJ/ATF
 

shoddy61

Inactive
Notice, it's a Cintonista' Law, DOJ pre 2000! Bam it, noooooooo', where's savior Biden, "just get a Shotgun and shoot it off the balcony", our guy to back us up. Literally 76% of the idiots in this nation have at least a misdemeanor charge on their record, 87% pleaded to dismiss/adjudicated or , I know the Gubv'ner..........such a pile of sub-servant laws that we receiving/encountering!
Hang on, it's just started Boys!
sonny
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
To take someones rights from them they must try each and every one of them in a court of law, they cannot make or enforce any laws in the manner they say their wanting to do. To take a past minor offense and pass a law/act to take your constitutional right from based on the minor past offense is Post Facto law and forbidden to do.
 
Looks like the Spring Offensive has started after a brief respite. First the EPA lets loose. And now the ATF. Obummer is the Destroyer, (of what's left of the Constitution). May he rot in Hell.

And, tell me, just how will they do quick background checks without all of this private health data immediately available? There is more to this assault on the constitution than meets the eye. ObummerCare looks to be linking up with the new pogrom. And it appears to be also a means of delaying gun sales to everybody. It could be both simultaneously.
 

tiger13

Veteran Member
You have your guns, pretty soon, your going to have to decide what your going to do with them. If you want any more, your going to have to take theirs...... it IS that plain and simple.
 

Illini Warrior

Illini Warrior
it's been wayyyyyyyyyyyy to quiet since last fall's election disaster for Obammy & the DemoCraps .... I thought the election was the only thing holding back Obammy's dictator pen .... being the lame duck two years, I expected a freaking avalanche of crap - about 50% being anti 2A dictates .... also very surprised he didn't send in the Fed shock troops, to enforce the ant-gun laws, already on the books in some states ....

if this is the Big Push entirety for the remainder of Obammy's reign - consider it lucky
 

TeapotTempest

Turbulent Teakettle
Looks like the "definition" rule is mostly aimed at extremely concealable firearms - NAA Mini Revolver would definitely fall under this category (belt buckle guns, guns that are difficult to identify). It would probably also extend to any gun that can be carried in a pocket holster. All those would be reclassified as NFA items, which becomes a real pain in the rear.

From there I could maybe see it moving to "well, if you can hide it under a heavy coat, it's hard to identify, innit?"
 
Looks like the Spring Offensive has started after a brief respite. First the EPA lets loose. And now the ATF. Obummer is the Destroyer, (of what's left of the Constitution). May he rot in Hell.

And, tell me, just how will they do quick background checks without all of this private health data immediately available? There is more to this assault on the constitution than meets the eye. ObummerCare looks to be linking up with the new pogrom. And it appears to be also a means of delaying gun sales to everybody. It could be both simultaneously.

Thinking further, this could be their way of forcing more people into ObummerCare. If they don't have medical files on you that they can retrieve, they won't give you an all clear on your background check. In other words, this would be another case of you are guilty (of being mentally ill) until you are proven innocent. Your physician will have to be on record (that they can retrieve) as having never had any qualms about your mental health.
 

Dosadi

Brown Coat
I could be ugly about it

I could point out that illegitimate scribbles signed by a fake illegitimate executive are meaningless

I could just say: NO

but I think I"ll say

Molon Labe
 

tech

Veteran Member
To take someones rights from them they must try each and every one of them in a court of law, they cannot make or enforce any laws in the manner they say their wanting to do. To take a past minor offense and pass a law/act to take your constitutional right from based on the minor past offense is Post Facto law and forbidden to do.

And when has this administration given a rat's backside about following the law or observing the Constitution?
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
All they're going to end up doing IMHO between this and the very likely "hot summer" we're going to have is make sure that those with something to loose are going to look at themselves and the inability of the police to protect them and say "hell no" at the ballot box in more places than "oh yeah give me more of that".
 

Garryowen

Deceased
To take someones rights from them they must try each and every one of them in a court of law, they cannot make or enforce any laws in the manner they say their wanting to do. To take a past minor offense and pass a law/act to take your constitutional right from based on the minor past offense is Post Facto law and forbidden to do.
Agreed, but when has the rule of law ever been followed by the present criminal enterprise?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
I think there is one legislator who introduced a bill requiring gun owners to have special liability insurance. Don't know if that was national or just CA. Don't think they are going to get a lot of compliance on that one.
 

Be Well

may all be well
Looks like the Spring Offensive has started after a brief respite. First the EPA lets loose. And now the ATF. Obummer is the Destroyer, (of what's left of the Constitution). May he rot in Hell.

And, tell me, just how will they do quick background checks without all of this private health data immediately available? There is more to this assault on the constitution than meets the eye. ObummerCare looks to be linking up with the new pogrom. And it appears to be also a means of delaying gun sales to everybody. It could be both simultaneously.

Enough traitor Rs voted for 0bunghole's Lynch-pin to give us these attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights. We are now ruled by federal agencies run by progressives/commies/socialists and moslems, who write whatever garbage they want, and call it "law" and Congress doesn't even vote on it.

This will not succeed, imho.

There are way too many pi**ed off people in the US.
 

Be Well

may all be well
I think there is one legislator who introduced a bill requiring gun owners to have special liability insurance. Don't know if that was national or just CA. Don't think they are going to get a lot of compliance on that one.

I saw the B.O.D. who proposed that, IIRC she is a US congresscritter.
 

Be Well

may all be well
All they're going to end up doing IMHO between this and the very likely "hot summer" we're going to have is make sure that those with something to loose are going to look at themselves and the inability of the police to protect them and say "hell no" at the ballot box in more places than "oh yeah give me more of that".

I love how you talk.
 

Dio

Veteran Member
You have your guns, pretty soon, your going to have to decide what your going to do with them. If you want any more, your going to have to take theirs...... it IS that plain and simple.

Agreed! We are under no compulsion to follow an unjust law.
 

Thomas Paine

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Looks like they are moving forward on all the crap they asked for input on around the first of last years through summer.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Agreed, but when has the rule of law ever been followed by the present criminal enterprise?



Just need to argue the point before the proper court of law and not make a gun issue out of it, but its is a rights issue and there is only one correct way to end around it and thats with a constitutional amendment and anything else is null and void of law and cannot be enforced.
 
Last edited:

Kook

A 'maker', not a 'taker'!
Last summer the local ham radio club raffled off a shotgun (Mossberg 590 tactical, nice) for fundraising. I did a lot of the ticket sales, spending many days in front of WalMart and the local farm & feed supply, mainly 'cause I didn't have anything better to do, being retired and all.

What really surprised me was how many people, mostly men, who waved my sales efforts off saying they were not eligible because of felony convictions. I mean it was, on some days, almost every other person I talked to. I was floored.

Now, if this was expanded to misdemeanors, well, I wonder how much the pool of gun owners would be cut? I'm sure the anti 2A libtards are salivating over that possibility. This regulatory structure has to be defeated now, not later. Once in place, it will never be taken down.
 

kittyluvr

Veteran Member
Last summer the local ham radio club raffled off a shotgun (Mossberg 590 tactical, nice) for fundraising. I did a lot of the ticket sales, spending many days in front of WalMart and the local farm & feed supply, mainly 'cause I didn't have anything better to do, being retired and all.

What really surprised me was how many people, mostly men, who waved my sales efforts off saying they were not eligible because of felony convictions. I mean it was, on some days, almost every other person I talked to. I was floored.

Now, if this was expanded to misdemeanors, well, I wonder how much the pool of gun owners would be cut? I'm sure the anti 2A libtards are salivating over that possibility. This regulatory structure has to be defeated now, not later. Once in place, it will never be taken down.

Kook,

California has a been adding misdemeanors to the list of "prohibited persons" for years. Each year more and more are added, "for the children" of course.
 
Top