Leaked ATF White Paper on Pro-Gun Regulatory Options

Huh. I don't know what to think.

Part of me wonders if it's a hoax and we are all being trolled. Thing is, the content seems factual and mostly on target, so the point might be to provoke discussion on those points in hopes of getting the ball rolling.

If it's actually a leak, I still don't know what to think.

This represents a rather abrupt change of face from the Fast and Furious ATF of the previous administration.

I wonder if it's an attempt to get ahead of the curve and avoid defunding or worse from the current administration. The paper being dated January 20th may be of some significance.

Or, it's been supposed that it was deliberately leaked by Ronald Turk himself. Consider point #15.

Hmm.
 
Last edited:
kozak6 said:
Part of me wonders if it's a hoax and we are all being trolled. Thing is, the content seems factual and mostly on target, so the point might be to provoke discussion on those points in hopes of getting the ball rolling.
Click to expand...
I suspected the same due to the abundant grammatical idiosyncrasies in the document, such as the awkward and seemingly tongue-in-cheek reference to the ATF as "...overwhelmingly a fantastic group of hard working civil servants," and the non-sequitur section title "Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study": how does one reissue something that is new? :rolleyes:

However, the WaPo has picked up the story, which strongly suggests that the white paper is legit but simply had a lousy writer. :rolleyes: (FWIW the document has several abrupt transitions in writing style, suggesting that it was heavily cut-and-pasted.)
kozak6 said:
I wonder if it's an attempt to get ahead of the curve and avoid defunding or worse from the current administration. The paper being dated January 20th may be of some significance.
Click to expand...
The choice of the POTUS' inauguration date does seem symbolic, and this administration does tend to gauge proposals by kicking the ball and seeing who goes chasing after it. ;)
kozak6 said:
...it's been supposed that it was deliberately leaked by Ronald Turk himself. Consider point #15.
Click to expand...
It's telling that this is the only section heading that is underlined.
 
Having looked at the paper more closely, I have a few concerns if it is genuine (ETA: Just noticed the WaPo link has an ATF spokesman confirming its authenticity but saying it just represents the opinion of a single ATF staffer - albeit the second highest ranking person at ATF).

1) The paper basically says that the ATF will put forth the same definition of armor-piercing that they suggested during the Obama administration, they'll just continue to grant an exemption for M855. I would argue the ATF's interpretation of the word "core" is wrong. Allowing the flawed definition to go forward will just make it harder to get rid of when a later administration reinterprets it to something we hate.

2) Kitchen table FFLs sound great until the next administration shuts them all down a la Clinton and gathers up their paperwork. Allowing direct sales to qualifying CHLs would be a better approach here.

3) Defining "sporting purposes" needs to be done by Congress, not ATF. Otherwise it will just be undone as soon as this President leaves office. If the current President's dismantling of the last President's executive agenda isn't a clear warning on that, I don't know what is.

I see some suggestions in that white paper that are ultimately going to cause problems for us. It is like a baited hook. During this administration, we get to enjoy the tasty bait. During the next leftist administration, we get the hook.

Definitely some interesting ideas; but certainly some refinement needed.
 
Last edited:
From the article:

"9. Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows. Right now gun stores can only sell guns to residents of their own state from locations within that state’s borders. ...."

This isn't quite accurate. The in-state restriction only pertains to handguns. I've bought a couple rifles from gun shows in PA and a dealer in PA.

"....If they want to visit a gun show across state lines they can only take orders and ship to a local FFL, not directly sell. The ATF wants to make it so that FFLs can travel from state to state and sell guns as they see fit."

This part may be true, but what's the difference where long guns are concerned?
 
ATF

My main concern with ATF is that they write their own regulations to enforce the laws passed by Congress. This is unfortunately common in our government, for example the EPA.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The paper basically says that the ATF will put forth the same definition of armor-piercing that they suggested during the Obama administration, they'll just continue to grant an exemption for M855. I would argue the ATF's interpretation of the word "core" is wrong. Allowing the flawed definition to go forward will just make it harder to get rid of when a later administration reinterprets it to something we hate.
Click to expand...
I have the same concern, and IMHO it's important to point out that the underlying problem isn't just the attempted Obama reinterpretation; it was that the original M855 exemption was based on specious reasoning, but since it was an exemption, gun-rights advocates just declared "WIN!" and went on with their business. :rolleyes: The ATF needs to rewind the clock and undo the ENTIRE chain of flawed interpretations leading to the present situation. This will make it harder for a future, more hostile ATF to revisit the exemption.
2ndsojourn said:
"9. Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows. Right now gun stores can only sell guns to residents of their own state from locations within that state’s borders. ...."

This isn't quite accurate. The in-state restriction only pertains to handguns. I've bought a couple rifles from gun shows in PA and a dealer in PA... what's the difference where long guns are concerned?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. The in-state restriction the memo discusses applies to the DEALER, not the buyer.

IOW a PA dealer may lawfully set up a booth at a PA gun show and sell a long gun to a NJ resident such as you, but he or she may NOT lawfully set up a booth at a NJ gun show and do the same thing, unless he or she obtains a separate license with a NJ premises address.

From 27 CFR § 478.100, my emphasis in boldface:
(a)(1) A licensee may conduct business temporarily at a gun show or event as defined in paragraph (b) if the gun show or event is located in the same State specified on the license: Provided, That such business shall not be conducted from any motorized or towed vehicle. The premises of the gun show or event at which the licensee conducts business shall be considered part of the licensed premises. Accordingly, no separate fee or license is required for the gun show or event locations. However, licensees shall comply with the provisions of § 478.91 relating to posting of licenses (or a copy thereof) while conducting business at the gun show or event.

(2) A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may engage in the business of dealing in curio or relic firearms with another licensee at any location.
Click to expand...
 
I have the same concern, and IMHO it's important to point out that the underlying problem isn't just the attempted Obama reinterpretation; it was that the original M855 exemption was based on specious reasoning, but since it was an exemption, gun-rights advocates just declared "WIN!" and went on with their business.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
From carguy:
"You misunderstand. The in-state restriction the memo discusses applies to the DEALER, not the buyer.

IOW a PA dealer may lawfully set up a booth at a PA gun show and sell a long gun to a NJ resident such as you, but he or she may NOT lawfully set up a booth at a NJ gun show and do the same thing, unless he or she obtains a separate license with a NJ premises address."

Thanks for the clarification.
 
Looks to me as if the No. 2 man at BATFE is jockeying for a No. 1 box on the Org Chart.

Just bringing the bread to the butter, as it were.
 
Armorer at Law said:
carguychris said:
I have the same concern, and IMHO it's important to point out that the underlying problem isn't just the attempted Obama reinterpretation; it was that the original M855 exemption was based on specious reasoning, but since it was an exemption, gun-rights advocates just declared "WIN!" and went on with their business.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why we need to use the unique opportunity we have now to pass legislation instead of just quitting because ATF threw us a bone (for now.) Anything given by regulation can be taken away by regulation, and in some of those examples, we are setting ourselves up for future failure by not asking ATF "Exactly what authority do you have to even regulate this to begin with?"

Because before 2020 would be the time to have Congress act on that.
 
jcj54 said:
My main concern with ATF is that they write their own regulations to enforce the laws passed by Congress. This is unfortunately common in our government, for example the EPA.
Click to expand...

Bureaucracies have pretty much run this country for quite a while. Technically Congress can override an agency but it rarely happens especially when their regulations are usually favored by at least one of the political parties.
 
jcj54 said:
My main concern with ATF is that they write their own regulations to enforce the laws passed by Congress. This is unfortunately common in our government, for example the EPA.
Click to expand...
It's true for all federal agencies. For another example, the ADA is a federal law, but that ADA "stuff" theat everyone has to live by is contained in the accompanying regulations. The regs were updated in 2010, but the ADA itself wasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top