Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 1/5/2006 12:07:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 12:10:12 PM EDT by ixy]
executive order?
attorney general?
congress?
SCOTUS?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:11:43 PM EDT
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:13:05 PM EDT
agreed.

now, how would the ATFs rules be changed to be more 2am friendly?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:13:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



Why?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:13:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 12:14:07 PM EDT by myitinaw]
Chuck Norris
or
Ted Nugent

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:15:42 PM EDT
AR15.COM!!!!!

Or maybe congress.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:16:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 12:18:56 PM EDT by geerhed]
Primarily Congress; they would have to pass a bill to disolve the agency, which the President would then sign. Most federal agencies are created by Congress, so would have to be removed by Congress.
Alternately, Congress could eliminate all funding for an agency but leave it in existance.
SCOTUS has no real standing with respect to creation/dissolusion of federal agencies.

ETA Since you've changed your question from "eliminate" to "restructure", that would fall entirely to Congress.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:16:32 PM EDT
I'll take the job.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:16:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



IMO alcohol and tabacco should be the DEA and firearms and explosives should be the FBI. There is no need for an entire agency.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:16:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 12:18:58 PM EDT by Admiral_Crunch]

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



Why?



+1. I don't see anything about it in the Constitution.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:18:13 PM EDT
I say we let Randy Weaver have a shot at it.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:18:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



Why?


Here's the short answer.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is a tax-collecting, enforcement and regulatory arm of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In common with all other members of the executive branch, ATF's responsibility is established by congressional action. ATF cannot enact a law, nor can it amend the law. Charged as it is with fiscal oversight of some of the most controversial topics in Western civilization, ATF strives to maintain professional neutrality while giving a 35-to-1 return on every dollar it spends. ATF has the best cost-to-collection ratio in the federal family.

ATF is the youngest tax-collecting Treasury agency, separated from the Internal Revenue Service by Treasury Department Order No. 120-1 (former No. 221), effective 1 July 1972. Notwithstanding, ATF traces its roots across two hundred years of American history.

In 1789 under the new Constitution, the first Congress imposed a tax on imported spirits to offset a portion of the Revolutionary War debt assumed from the states. Administration of duties fell to the Department of the Treasury, whose Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, had suggested them. Congressional lawmakers were favorably impressed by the results. The imports tax was augmented by one on domestic production in 1791. Taxpayers had grumbled over import duties. Some of them greeted the domestic levy --- as they do today --- with political resistance, escalating in that early case to the short-lived Whisky Rebellion of 1794. Both revenue sources survived rebellion --- as they do today. Although these particular taxes were eventually abolished, similar devices for revenue came and went as needed until 1862. By Act of 1 July 1862, Congress created an Office of Internal Revenue within the Treasury Department, charging the commissioner with collection, among others, of taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco products that continue, with amendments, today. Because taxation so often does evoke resistance, including criminal evasion, during 1863 Congress authorized the hiring by Internal Revenue of "three detectives to aid in the prevention, detection and punishment of tax evaders." Tax collecting and enforcement were now under one roof. Before decade's end, the Office of Internal Revenue had its own counsel, another component descending in unbroken line to ATF today.

In 1875 federal investigators broke up the "Whisky Ring", an association of grain dealers, politicians and revenue agents that had defrauded the government of millions of dollars in distilled spirits taxes. Responding to the scandal, Congress undertook the first Civil Service reform acts, acknowledging formally that effectiveness of law depends on the quality of its administrators.

The commissioner's annual report for 1877 refers to his office as the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a title that it retained for the next seventy-five years. In 1886, a single employee from the Department of Agriculture came to the Bureau of Internal Revenue under authority of the Oleomargarine Act to establish a Revenue Laboratory. The first samples received in the laboratory that 29 December were of butter suspected of adulteration with oleomargarine. In its second century, ATF's laboratory staff includes --- but is not limited to --- chemists, document analysts, latent print specialists, and firearms and toolmark examiners, supported by its own highly sophisticated facilities at Rockville, Maryland, Atlanta, Georgia, and Walnut Creek, California. That first chemist would recognize some aspects of laboratory service today (analysis of alcohol and tobacco products, for instance) although tools such as chromatography and electrophoresis might seem magic. There was nothing in 1886 to foreshadow the Laboratory's sought-after forensic skills in arson, explosives, and criminal-evidence examination, a resource now available to law enforcement personnel worldwide.

Ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, in combination with the Volstead Prohibition Enforcement Act of that year, brought to prominence those officers --- 'revenoors' --- charged with investigating criminal violations of the Internal Revenue law, including illicit manufacture of liquors, who coalesced by 1920 into the Prohibition Unit. Evolution of this unit reflects the difficulty of enforcing a nation-wide ban on "manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes." Internal Revenue's orientation has been toward collection throughout its history. Enforcement efforts, albeit necessary, never came easily. On April Fool's Day, 1927, Treasury elevated the Prohibition Unit to bureau status within the department. Congress was impatient with the results. On 1 July 1930 Congress created certain confusion for later historians by transferring "the penal provisions of the national prohibition act" from Treasury's Bureau of Prohibition (which then ceased to exist) to the Department of Justice's new Bureau of Prohibition --- with an important exception: tax-related and regulatory activities, "the permissive provisions," remained at Treasury, under a new Bureau of Industrial Alcohol. The most illustrious enforcer during that tumultuous era was Eliot Ness, the "T-man" who toppled Chicago's organized-crime king Al Capone on tax-evasion charges.

The Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, repealing Prohibition, achieved ratification with unanticipated speed by 5 December 1933, catching Congress in recess. As an interim measure to manage a burgeoning legitimate alcohol industry, by executive order under the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin Roosevelt established the Federal Alcohol Control Administration (FACA). The FACA, in cooperation with the Departments of Agriculture and Treasury, endeavored to guide wineries and distilleries under a system based on brewers' voluntary codes of fair competition. The FACA was relieved of its burden --- and effectively vanished from history --- after just twenty months, when President Roosevelt in August 1935 signed the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act. The new FAA received a firm departmental assignment: Treasury once more found itself regulating the alcohol industry.

Although Prohibition was officially over, the era's side effects continued for decades to mold the shape of ATF. On 10 March 1934 Justice's Prohibition enforcement duties folded into the infant Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU), Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury. At the same time, the FAA, functioning independently within Treasury, was carrying forward its mandate to collect data, to establish license and permit requirements, and define the regulations that ensure an open, fair marketplace for the alcohol industry and the consumer. In 1940 the FAA as an Administration merged with the ATU. The FAA Act continues today as one foundation of ATF's enabling legislation.

National dismay over the weaponry wielded so conspicuously by organized crime during Prohibition led to passage in 1934 of the National Firearms Act, followed in four years by the Federal Firearms Act. The newly regulated articles might be firearms, but taxes were involved as ever. The Miscellaneous Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, collected the fees. In 1942 enforcement duties for the "Firearms Program" fell to the ATU, which was accustomed to managing controversial industries. In a major Internal Revenue reorganization of 1952, the nearly-century-old Miscellaneous Tax Unit was dismantled. Its firearms and tobacco tax responsibilities went to the ATU. The Bureau of Internal Revenue became the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) we know today. Acknowledging a portion of ATU's new burden, IRS renamed it the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. This incarnation lasted until 1968 passage of the Gun Control Act, which gave to the laboratory, among other things, responsibility for explosives. The division title shifted to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Division. Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act in 1970 (Title XI) formalized ATF Division explosives expertise. In the same year, moved by a growing perception that the IRS's revenue-collecting bias did not reflect ATF Division's enforcement skills, overtures began toward ATF independence.

Treasury Department Order No. 120-1 (originally No. 221), effective 1 July 1972, transferred to ATF from IRS those functions, powers and duties related to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. (During the mid-1970s at Treasury's direction ATF briefly assumed responsibility for wagering laws; that task returned to the IRS in less than 3 years.) Throughout the 1970s, based on determination that accelerants used in arson, when explosions might occur, meet Title XI's definition of explosives, ATF began demonstrating in court its ability to prove arson. In the Anti-Arson Act of 1982, Congress amended Title XI to make it clear that arson is a federal crime, giving ATF responsibility for investigating commercial arson nationwide.

ATF continues a mutually beneficial interface with its legitimate industries, while refining unique enforcement skills. With developments such as the state-of-the-art Integrated Ballistic Identification System (a computerized matching program for weapons and the ammunition fired from them), accelerant- and explosives/weapons-detection canines, and the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program (which gives children the tools to resist membership in violent gangs), ATF leads and supports law enforcement internationally.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:22:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tripledouble:

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



Why?


SNIP



No offense. I know you mean well, and that was highly informative.

But that was an excuse. Not an answer.

It still does not tell me why I need any agency to regulate those things.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:26:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



IMO alcohol and tabacco should be the DEA and firearms and explosives should be the FBI. There is no need for an entire agency.



Alcohol and tobacco are legal, everything the DEA deals with is not. The AT part of BATFE deals with taxes and regulations on sale, importation, and distribution, put simply tax money collected from a "Sin or vice tax". The BATFE was and if it must exists should be again a dep. of treasury like the IRS, the BATFE is in the Gov revenue collection business. These vice taxes need to go though. Folding the BATFE into the D.O.J just makes it cozier with other agencies like the FBI. When the police state comes as a result of the next terrorists attack the BATFE will play a huge role in mainly combating us the patriots willing to fight.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:26:44 PM EDT
why do we need a FEDERAL agency to regulate firearms?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:27:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 12:29:10 PM EDT by SkyCatII]
Theoretically, couldn't the President fire the entire staff of the BATFE without hiring anyone new?

Second question: Wasn't the 1986 MG ban really just congress ordering the ATF not to register any new machine guns after May 19, 1986?

If that is the case, couldn't the guy in charge (with the help of a sympathetic President) ignore the congressional order and register new MGs?

If this was only an order given to the ATF, no civilians who had registered new machine guns could get into legal trouble right?

Get where I'm going with this?

edited for spelling.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:30:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



IMO alcohol and tabacco should be the DEA and firearms and explosives should be the FBI. There is no need for an entire agency.



Agreed, except I think the FDA would be a better choice for alcohol and tobacco.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:32:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:
Theoretically, couldn't the President fire the entire staff of the BATFE without hiring anyone new?I would, GWB will not read my above post.

Second question: Wasn't the 1986 MG ban really just congress ordering the ATF not to register any new machine guns after May 19, 1986? No, possesion or manufacture of a post-date weapon is grounds for felony

If that is the case, couldn't the guy in charge (with the help of a simpathetic President) ignore the congressional order and register new MGs? No, only SCOTUS or Congress could both are as likely as hell freezing.

If this was only an order given to the ATF, no civilians who had registered new machine guns could get into legal trouble right? Amnesty must be granted by congress, the President could grant pardons post-conviction individually

Get where I'm going with this?

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:35:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:36:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:
why do we need a FEDERAL agency to regulate firearms?



Because you civilians are not to be trusted with such dangerous items...
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:37:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



Why?


SNIP



No offense. I know you mean well, and that was highly informative.

But that was an excuse. Not an answer.

It still does not tell me why I need any agency to regulate those things.



Think about it this way. Marajuana is legalized but taxed, it is no longer the DEAs venue, it is a "vice tax" thus a Dep. of Treasury jurisdiction. What he is trying to say is no matter how loosened it gets someone will still control it. Guns or Marajuana will never be completely unfettered. Putting it in someone elses jurisdiction is not an answer it saves no time, money, or manpower it just shifts who is responsible.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:37:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:
Theoretically, couldn't the President fire the entire staff of the BATFE without hiring anyone new?I would, GWB will not read my above post.

Second question: Wasn't the 1986 MG ban really just congress ordering the ATF not to register any new machine guns after May 19, 1986? No, possesion or manufacture of a post-date weapon is grounds for felony

If that is the case, couldn't the guy in charge (with the help of a simpathetic President) ignore the congressional order and register new MGs? No, only SCOTUS or Congress could both are as likely as hell freezing.

If this was only an order given to the ATF, no civilians who had registered new machine guns could get into legal trouble right? Amnesty must be granted by congress, the President could grant pardons post-conviction individually

Get where I'm going with this?




I thought that it was simply posession or manufacture of an unregistered weapon that was the felony, but because the ATF is no longer able to register those weapons, posession of a post-date weapon becomes a felony by nature of the fact that it cannot be registered.

I could be wrong (and probably am, that's what happens when you frequent too many gun boards).
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:38:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
Chuck Norris



My very first thought when I saw the question... I've been here too much the past few days.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:41:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Do you complainers even pay attention. The ATF just went through an entire re-organization. They are no longer a dept. of treasury, the report to the Dept. of Justice.

It hasn't even been a year yet.



Thought I clarified that in an above post. Here you go.

The BATFE was and if it must exists should be again a dep. of treasury like the IRS, the BATFE is in the Gov revenue collection business. These vice taxes need to go though. Folding the BATFE into the D.O.J just makes it cozier with other agencies like the FBI.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:45:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:
Theoretically, couldn't the President fire the entire staff of the BATFE without hiring anyone new?I would, GWB will not read my above post.

Second question: Wasn't the 1986 MG ban really just congress ordering the ATF not to register any new machine guns after May 19, 1986? No, possesion or manufacture of a post-date weapon is grounds for felony

If that is the case, couldn't the guy in charge (with the help of a simpathetic President) ignore the congressional order and register new MGs? No, only SCOTUS or Congress could both are as likely as hell freezing.

If this was only an order given to the ATF, no civilians who had registered new machine guns could get into legal trouble right? Amnesty must be granted by congress, the President could grant pardons post-conviction individually

Get where I'm going with this?




I thought that it was simply posession or manufacture of an unregistered weapon that was the felony, but because the ATF is no longer able to register those weapons, posession of a post-date weapon becomes a felony by nature of the fact that it cannot be registered.

I could be wrong (and probably am, that's what happens when you frequent too many gun boards).



If you are eluding to SEAR guns or additive "devices" those are covered in other rulings. Google "Alito" "Machine Guns" and "gun rights or Control" and you will find all the relevant precedents.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:48:05 PM EDT
I think congressional action would be required for any major restructuring of the legal process.

But I believe the President is "in charge" of the agency and who runs it. If I was in charge, I'd make them focus on prosecuting criminals who use NFA and other illegal weapons, and leave alone normal citizens with no criminal intent. And then I'd get rid of their "tactical squads" and fire everyone involved in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:48:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



And most alphabet agencies are fully capable of assaulting churches upon request of the Overlords!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:50:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:54:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:
Theoretically, couldn't the President fire the entire staff of the BATFE without hiring anyone new?I would, GWB will not read my above post.

Second question: Wasn't the 1986 MG ban really just congress ordering the ATF not to register any new machine guns after May 19, 1986? No, possesion or manufacture of a post-date weapon is grounds for felony

If that is the case, couldn't the guy in charge (with the help of a simpathetic President) ignore the congressional order and register new MGs? No, only SCOTUS or Congress could both are as likely as hell freezing.

If this was only an order given to the ATF, no civilians who had registered new machine guns could get into legal trouble right? Amnesty must be granted by congress, the President could grant pardons post-conviction individually

Get where I'm going with this?




I thought that it was simply posession or manufacture of an unregistered weapon that was the felony, but because the ATF is no longer able to register those weapons, posession of a post-date weapon becomes a felony by nature of the fact that it cannot be registered.

I could be wrong (and probably am, that's what happens when you frequent too many gun boards).



If you are eluding to SEAR guns or additive "devices" those are covered in other rulings. Google "Alito" "Machine Guns" and "gun rights or Control" and you will find all the relevant precedents.



The way that your response is worded implies that it is simply judicial precedent rather than the actual wording of the law that has made it a crime to posess a post-1986 machine gun. Is it judges' interpretation of the law that we are talking about, or is the law actually written that posession of those weapons is illegal?

Is the actual wording of the law a prohibition, or simply a prohibition of registering these weapons and therefore posession/manufacture is illegal by default?

If it is judicial interpretation, how would they respond to newly registered post-1986 weapons?

If it is simply a congressional prohibition that keeps the ATF from registering new weapons, could it be ignored? paraphrase of a famous quote: "Congress has made their law, now let them enforce it"

Again, you're probably right, but I'm asking these questions out of genuine curiosity.

(I know, google is my friend, and I'm typing up a search as we speak)
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:54:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have some thoughts about how to restructure them.



I just say fire them and the FCC and most any agency established by FDR and perverted by LBJ.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:58:11 PM EDT
You are hereby disbanded, Good bye!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:59:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:
Theoretically, couldn't the President fire the entire staff of the BATFE without hiring anyone new?I would, GWB will not read my above post.

Second question: Wasn't the 1986 MG ban really just congress ordering the ATF not to register any new machine guns after May 19, 1986? No, possesion or manufacture of a post-date weapon is grounds for felony

If that is the case, couldn't the guy in charge (with the help of a simpathetic President) ignore the congressional order and register new MGs? No, only SCOTUS or Congress could both are as likely as hell freezing.

If this was only an order given to the ATF, no civilians who had registered new machine guns could get into legal trouble right? Amnesty must be granted by congress, the President could grant pardons post-conviction individually

Get where I'm going with this?




I thought that it was simply posession or manufacture of an unregistered weapon that was the felony, but because the ATF is no longer able to register those weapons, posession of a post-date weapon becomes a felony by nature of the fact that it cannot be registered.

I could be wrong (and probably am, that's what happens when you frequent too many gun boards).



If you are eluding to SEAR guns or additive "devices" those are covered in other rulings. Google "Alito" "Machine Guns" and "gun rights or Control" and you will find all the relevant precedents.



The way that your response is worded implies that it is simply judicial precedent rather than the actual wording of the law that has made it a crime to posess a post-1986 machine gun. Is it judges' interpretation of the law that we are talking about, or is the law actually written that posession of those weapons is illegal? Collectivists view is dominant, not likely to change unless SCOTUS smacks down 20+ rulings on commerce Clause at once

Is the actual wording of the law a prohibition, or simply a prohibition of registering these weapons and therefore posession/manufacture is illegal by default? Prohibition of manufacture for civilian sale.

If it is judicial interpretation, how would they respond to newly registered post-1986 weapons?No knock warrant

If it is simply a congressional prohibition that keeps the ATF from registering new weapons, could it be ignored? paraphrase of a famous quote: "Congress has made their law, now let them enforce it"Your confidence in LE and National Guard is sorely misplaced

Again, you're probably right, but I'm asking these questions out of genuine curiosity.

(I know, google is my friend, and I'm typing up a search as we speak)

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:01:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have some thoughts about how to restructure them.



I just say fire them and the FCC and most any agency established by FDR and perverted by LBJ.



Basically any alphabet agency founded by FDR was perverted from its inception (as in an unconstitutional purpose, or no constitutional authority for its existence).
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:04:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 1:06:38 PM EDT by SkyCatII]

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:
snip




I thought that it was simply posession or manufacture of an unregistered weapon that was the felony, but because the ATF is no longer able to register those weapons, posession of a post-date weapon becomes a felony by nature of the fact that it cannot be registered.

I could be wrong (and probably am, that's what happens when you frequent too many gun boards).



If you are eluding to SEAR guns or additive "devices" those are covered in other rulings. Google "Alito" "Machine Guns" and "gun rights or Control" and you will find all the relevant precedents.



The way that your response is worded implies that it is simply judicial precedent rather than the actual wording of the law that has made it a crime to posess a post-1986 machine gun. Is it judges' interpretation of the law that we are talking about, or is the law actually written that posession of those weapons is illegal? Collectivists view is dominant, not likely to change unless SCOTUS smacks down 20+ rulings on commerce Clause at once

Is the actual wording of the law a prohibition, or simply a prohibition of registering these weapons and therefore posession/manufacture is illegal by default? Prohibition of manufacture for civilian sale.

If it is judicial interpretation, how would they respond to newly registered post-1986 weapons?No knock warrant

If it is simply a congressional prohibition that keeps the ATF from registering new weapons, could it be ignored? paraphrase of a famous quote: "Congress has made their law, now let them enforce it"Your confidence in LE and National Guard is sorely misplaced No confidence, this is simply a theoretical best-case scenario.

Again, you're probably right, but I'm asking these questions out of genuine curiosity.

(I know, google is my friend, and I'm typing up a search as we speak)




ETA: Dang it! Where can you actually find the complete text of the law?! The only page that I found that was supposed to have it was 404.

BTW: The ACLU's page regarding the FOPA was removed. Not surprising at all.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:13:11 PM EDT
From Wikipedia:

The Firearm Owners Protection Act is a United States federal law that, among other provisions, prohibits the BATF from accepting the federal tax mandated by the BATF paperwork form necessary for the civillian registration of a fully-automatic firearm (machine gun), automatic sear, drop-in sear, or similar device which provides fully automatic fire, the date of manufacture for which was after May 19, 1986. This effectively banned their manufacture except for law enforcement, military, or export, which require different registration forms.

Of course this is Wikipedia, but its the best thing I've found thus far.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:14:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:
snip




I thought that it was simply posession or manufacture of an unregistered weapon that was the felony, but because the ATF is no longer able to register those weapons, posession of a post-date weapon becomes a felony by nature of the fact that it cannot be registered.

I could be wrong (and probably am, that's what happens when you frequent too many gun boards).



If you are eluding to SEAR guns or additive "devices" those are covered in other rulings. Google "Alito" "Machine Guns" and "gun rights or Control" and you will find all the relevant precedents.



The way that your response is worded implies that it is simply judicial precedent rather than the actual wording of the law that has made it a crime to posess a post-1986 machine gun. Is it judges' interpretation of the law that we are talking about, or is the law actually written that posession of those weapons is illegal? Collectivists view is dominant, not likely to change unless SCOTUS smacks down 20+ rulings on commerce Clause at once

Is the actual wording of the law a prohibition, or simply a prohibition of registering these weapons and therefore posession/manufacture is illegal by default? Prohibition of manufacture for civilian sale.

If it is judicial interpretation, how would they respond to newly registered post-1986 weapons?No knock warrant

If it is simply a congressional prohibition that keeps the ATF from registering new weapons, could it be ignored? paraphrase of a famous quote: "Congress has made their law, now let them enforce it"Your confidence in LE and National Guard is sorely misplaced No confidence, this is simply a theoretical best-case scenario.

Again, you're probably right, but I'm asking these questions out of genuine curiosity.

(I know, google is my friend, and I'm typing up a search as we speak)




ETA: Dang it! Where can you actually find the complete text of the law?! The only page that I found that was supposed to have it was 404.

BTW: The ACLU's page regarding the FOPA was removed. Not surprising at all.



Ammended to the Gun Control Act of 1968. 922 Clauses 922o specificlly I think
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:23:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:

. . .firearms and explosives should be the FBI. There is no need for an entire agency.



I agree. The problem is that the AFT doesn't have anything real important to do, so they focus on these de minimus malum prohibitum laws. Give it to the FBI where enforcement will promptly be put on the bottom of the priority list (right next to the pr0n task force) and ignored while the FBI goes after terrorists.

And then re-assign all the extra AFT agent to border patrol. Just tell them that Mexican's are religious fanatics.

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:33:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 1:50:17 PM EDT by SkyCatII]
922 (o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful
for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to -
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the
authority of, the United States or any department or agency

thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political
subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun
that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes
effect.

In a best-case scenario, that clause would allow a person who had a machine gun manufactured/posessed after May 19, 1986, provided that the ATF permitted it's registration. (Not holding my breath or anything). It would be a stretch, but again I'm only talking best-case scenarios.

ETA: If it was interpreted by the AG that BATF registration constituded posession "under the authority of, the United States, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof" would it be possible for the ATF to begin registering Post '86 weapons? Or is there another law somewhere that I can't find that would preclude this?

If all it took was an AG's opinion (like in MI where it was found that registration was equivalent to a "lisence" so MGs and silencers are now permitted), I will do everything in my power to get the job of AG in the future.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:49:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:
why do we need a FEDERAL agency to regulate firearms?



Can't have us peons thinking we have Rights or something. "Shall not be infringed" is jsut an illusion to keep us in line.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:19:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:

. . .firearms and explosives should be the FBI. There is no need for an entire agency.



I agree. The problem is that the AFT doesn't have anything real important to do, so they focus on these de minimus malum prohibitum laws. Give it to the FBI where enforcement will promptly be put on the bottom of the priority list (right next to the pr0n task force) and ignored while the FBI goes after terrorists.

And then re-assign all the extra AFT agent to border patrol. Just tell them that Mexican's are religious fanatics.




or believe in the BOR
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:23:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



Why?


Because those are things that is misused have an extremely detrimental effect on societal order.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:28:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.



Why?


Because those are things that is misused have an extremely detrimental effect on societal order.



then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:30:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:
then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?


It was a different world then. Government does not live and die by what the FF thought was needed to run a government. They didn't conceive of NASA either. Should we just scrap THAT operation?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:32:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 3:33:42 PM EDT by lippo]

You all have to read between the lines...


The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is a tax-collecting, enforcement and regulatory arm of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In common with all other members of the executive branch, ATF's responsibility is established by congressional action.

ATF cannot enact a law, nor can it amend the law. (But they sure do try to ennact their own laws and rules)

Charged as it is with fiscal oversight of some of the most controversial topics in Western civilization, ATF strives to maintain professional neutrality (Yeah Right! ) while giving a 35-to-1 return on every dollar it spends. (There's the REAL reason they exist. And "how" do you think they gain that return?)


ATF has the best cost-to-collection ratio in the federal family. (This is why the BATFE will never go away)

ATF is the youngest tax-collecting Treasury agency, separated from the Internal Revenue Service by Treasury Department Order No. 120-1 (former No. 221), effective 1 July 1972. Notwithstanding, ATF traces its roots across two hundred years of American history.




They are a MONEY making machine for the federal government. And as long as they steal collect money from the American public, they won't be going away.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:37:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By ixy:
then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?


It was a different world then. Government does not live and die by what the FF thought was needed to run a government. They didn't conceive of NASA either. Should we just scrap THAT operation?



they did have firearms then
and they did write and ratify the 2nd am
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:39:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 3:39:58 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By ixy:
then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?


It was a different world then. Government does not live and die by what the FF thought was needed to run a government. They didn't conceive of NASA either. Should we just scrap THAT operation?








Those items existed back then and well as now. The reason we, now, have laws on them is for control and for MONEY making opportunities. I call bullshit on you, our government is mostly about control and money. Back then, it was the same way, but they didn't have the infracture to control as much as we do now. However, back then they (people 200 years ago) didn't "want" to control as much as long as it didn't affect their own way of making money and becoming rich. They only wanted to control what would actually hurt their own money production. End of story.


You don't know very much about history do you?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:40:47 PM EDT
Ronald Reagan was doing pretty good there for awhile.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:41:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By ixy:
then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?


It was a different world then. Government does not live and die by what the FF thought was needed to run a government. They didn't conceive of NASA either. Should we just scrap THAT operation?



they did have firearms then
and they did write and ratify the 2nd am



that sounds like "the constitution is a living breathing document" to me
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:45:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:

Originally Posted By ixy:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By ixy:
then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?


It was a different world then. Government does not live and die by what the FF thought was needed to run a government. They didn't conceive of NASA either. Should we just scrap THAT operation?



they did have firearms then
and they did write and ratify the 2nd am



that sounds like "the constitution is a living breathing document" to me




Let's just say...someone is a socialist with a badge, that doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Because it was written along time ago by a bunch of guys who don't matter at all and in fact were stupid. And someone took their law enforcement education at the "Edward Kennedy police academy". Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy would be proud.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:46:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By ixy:
then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?


It was a different world then. Government does not live and die by what the FF thought was needed to run a government. They didn't conceive of NASA either. Should we just scrap THAT operation?



That whole "it was a different world then" argument is the same one that is used by the gun grabbers. If the government wasn't explicitly given the right to regulate arms, tobacco, and alcohol in the constitution, it should get its overgrown @$$ out of the business. The constitution states very clearly that all of those rights not explicitly given to the government were reserved for the people and the states, meaning that the ATF in its current form is an unconstitutional agency by the very nature of its existence.

Yes, we should. At the very least we should scale back their funding? NASA is a money hole that hasn't really done anything truly significant since landing on the moon. I'd be willing to bet that the commercial market would get things done better, and cheaper than NASA.

You're right Government does not live and die by what the FFs thought. They did think that the smaller the government was, and the weaker it was, the people would be better off.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:50:13 PM EDT
Ahh, right on schedule
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top