10th Circuit upholds multiple long-gun reporting requirement

T

Tom Servo

Staff
In 2011, the ATF began requiring dealers in Southwestern border states to report sales of multiple semiautomatic rifles to individual purchasers. The ATF doesn't have the authority to do this. As such, the requirement has been challenged in the DC and 5th Circuit courts, but it was upheld in both instances.

Today, the 10th Circuit issued a ruling [pdf] agreeing with the prior cases.

Among the lovely chestnuts of wisdom was this:

A review of Project Gunrunner conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) indicates that tracing guns seized in Mexico can provide “crucial” information in gun-trafficking investigations and generate intelligence regarding trends in gun smuggling. (...) [William Hoover] explained that trace information helps ATF“reconstruct the flow of weapons along the border, how and where they are being purchased, and who is purchasing them.”
Click to expand...

Yeah, because that worked so well when Project Gunrunner was active.
 
Sorry I never really followed this case . What is it they have to report exactly ? Is it that a person bought multiple long guns or is all the makes models and serial # passed on along with the persons buying the firearms info ?

I ask because I'm in one of those states and have bought multiple long guns at one time as well as multiple stripped lowers at once . Have I been reported ? These purchases have been in the last 3 years
 
What is it they have to report exactly ?
Click to expand...
If a customer buys two or more handguns within five business days, the FFL has to send a report to the ATF and the local sheriff's department. They get this authority from 18 U.S.C. § 923 (g)(3).

However, that code section is quite clear. The ATF has the power to require those reports for "pistols or revolvers." There is no provision for long guns. Simply put, they do not have the authority to require this of dealers.

Have I been reported ? These purchases have been in the last 3 years
Click to expand...
Most likely so. The requirement was implemented in 2011.
 
•: A caliber greater than .22; and•: The ability to accept a detachable magazine
Click to expand...

Well that would mean CA legal ARs are not reported . They are .22 caliber and use a bullet button that creates a fixed magazines

Why would they say ( A caliber greater than .22 ) That to me seems to exempt all 5.56 ARs or is it because the AR uses a .224 bullet and that's greater then .220
 
the latter, whenever you see the wording "greater than .22 caliber", that always includes 223/556

pretty silly to, kind of like the 7n6 ammo ban, it states in the law regarding armor piercing ammunition that anything geater than .22 cal, but isn't 7n6 exactly a .220 caliber? I could be wrong, but that's what I thought, which in my opinion makes the ban unlawful
 
"Yes, well, the opinion of the court is that the purpose of the law was to make gun owners' lives miserable, so yes, the statute does extend to .220 caliber projectiles, and probably those immediately below that threshold deemed sufficiently scary to warrant bending of laws"

I recall recently reading that the ATF was attempting to expand this reporting program to the rest of the nation. As though that wasn't the expectation all along. IIRC, the rule change estimated something like an extra 15 minutes per report, and that this was an acceptable burden to place on FFL's uncompensated the nation over.

TCB
 
skizzums said:
pretty silly to, kind of like the 7n6 ammo ban, it states in the law regarding armor piercing ammunition that anything geater than .22 cal, but isn't 7n6 exactly a .220 caliber? I could be wrong, but that's what I thought, which in my opinion makes the ban unlawful
Click to expand...

21.46, actually.

And the diameter of a .22 Long Rifle bullet is typically .223 to .224.
 
So lemme see if I got this correct...

It only applies if you buy multiples from the same FFL, right?

So I could hit every gun store in town and buy 1 gun at each of them with no report being filed?

So is there report with hard data in it that says how successful this program has been at slowing the rate of guns flowing into Mexico? At face value, I can see why it would be a bit more work for a shady person who's being paid by a cartel to drive all over town buying guns rather than just purchasing 10 AR's off the shelf at one place... but I guess if that's what you're getting paid for a bit more gas money is probably included in your fee.

As far as I can tell, the border is more violent than ever... could it be that the conspiracy theorists are correct by saying that certain gov't agencies are in fact encouraging the flow of guns into Mexico in order to increase violence in order to justify more militarization of the Border Patrol and to give the proverbial "ammo" to anti-gun organizations and lawmakers.
 
I recall recently reading that the ATF was attempting to expand this reporting program to the rest of the nation. As though that wasn't the expectation all along. IIRC, the rule change estimated something like an extra 15 minutes per report, and that this was an acceptable burden to place on FFL's uncompensated the nation over.
Click to expand...
I recall that rumor was dispelled. ATF made an application to the OMB for renewed approval of the form. Since the title of the original form didn't specify "border states," neither did the request for renewed approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top