Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/10/2010 8:39:42 PM EDT
Senate Judiciary Committee to Hold Hearing on S. 941 - the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act"

Friday, September 10, 2010


This Tuesday, September 14, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on reforming current regulation of commerce in firearms –– especially in the area of dealer licensing and oversight –– by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

The hearing will focus on S. 941, the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act" sponsored by Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Congressmen Steve King (R-IA) and Zack Space (D-OH) have introduced a companion bill –– H.R. 2296 –– in the U.S. House and it has 240 cosponsors. The bills would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena. These bipartisan bills are a vital step to modernize and improve BATFE operations.

Of highest importance, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 totally rewrite the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Currently, for most violations, BATFE can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or revoke his license.

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while still allowing license revocation for the kind of serious violations that would block an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals. This will help prevent the all-too-common situations where BATFE has revoked licenses for insignificant technical violations –– such as improper use of abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order.

Among its other provisions, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would:

* Clarify the standard for "willful" violations –– allowing penalties for intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork mistakes.
* Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.
* Allow a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of business. During this period, all firearms sold would be subject to a background check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
* Allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business to correct problems in the business's records –– so if a person inherited a family gun store (for example), the new owner couldn't be punished for the previous owner's recordkeeping violations.
* Reform the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications. Under S. 941, denial of an application would require notification to the applicant, complete with reasons for the denial. Additionally, an applicant would be allowed to provide supplemental information and to have a hearing on the application.
* Require BATFE to establish clear investigative guidelines.
* Clarify the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm. This would stop BATFE from arguing that minor gunsmithing or refinishing activities require a manufacturers' license.
* Eliminate a provision of the Youth Handgun Safety Act that requires those under 18 to have written permission to use a handgun for lawful purposes (such as competitive shooting or safety training) –– even when the parent or guardian is present.
* Permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of out of business dealers' records –– a threat to gun owners' privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for more than a decade.
* Allow importation and transfer of new machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or testing firearms and ammunition, and training customers. In particular, ammunition manufacturers fulfilling government contracts need to ensure that their ammunition works reliably. S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.
* Repeal the Brady Act's "interim" waiting period provisions, which expired in 1998.
* Give BATFE sole responsibility for receiving reports of multiple handgun sales. (Currently, dealers also have to report multiple sales to state or local agencies, a requirement that has shown little or no law enforcement value.) State and local agencies could receive these reports upon request to BATFE, but would have to comply strictly with current requirements to destroy these records after 20 days, unless the person buying the guns turns out to be prohibited from receiving firearms.
* Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts.

S. 941 represents the first time such BATFE reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate. However, the House passed similar legislation (H.R. 5092) in the 109th Congress by a 277-131 vote. A majority of the House––224 congressmen––cosponsored H.R. 4900 in the 110th Congress.

A fact sheet on S. 941/H.R. 2296 can be found here.

As of this writing, S. 941 has 36 cosponsors, and H.R. 2296 has 240 cosponsors.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative, and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 941 and H.R. 2296! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 225-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 225-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 225-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting.



Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 800-392-8683 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 800-392-8683 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 8:58:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 9:00:40 PM EDT by Ermac]
" Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts. " Does that mean no more neutered features also? It kind of doesn't make any sense. The receiver is a firearm by law so it says that it will allow the import of a firearm for a firearm?
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 9:53:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ermac:
" Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts. " Does that mean no more neutered features also? It kind of doesn't make any sense. The receiver is a firearm by law so it says that it will allow the import of a firearm for a firearm?


I doubt they would be intact receivers. They would more than likely be torch cut.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 10:36:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Scout198575:

Originally Posted By Ermac:
" Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts. " Does that mean no more neutered features also? It kind of doesn't make any sense. The receiver is a firearm by law so it says that it will allow the import of a firearm for a firearm?


I doubt they would be intact receivers. They would more than likely be torch cut.

They already can import torch torch cut AK recievers. Look at apex.

Link Posted: 9/11/2010 1:18:54 AM EDT
A receiver is a receiver.
A torch cut receiver is three paperweights.


I didn't read anything about importing paperweights in there.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 4:15:35 AM EDT
Not all receivers are considered the gun.
Repair and replacement of an existing gun is different than registering a new gun to someone who doesn't have one.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 9:46:43 AM EDT
It would be nice, but considering that the libtard democrats have a strong majority in this committee and that 2nd Amendment despisers such as Feinstein and Schumer are on it and the rest are morons such as Franken, I do not expect much.

Vote the democrats into a tiny minority. Then we can get America and freedom back on track.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 10:03:11 AM EDT

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.



It should be defeated for this alone. This is a republic. The law is supposed to apply to every one equally. We do not have royalty here. It has become so common place to make exceptions for this group or that that we have forgotten that the law must protect and apply to all.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 10:12:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possessionof new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.



It should be defeated for this alone. This is a republic. The law is supposed to apply to every one equally. We do not have royalty here. It has become so common place to make exceptions for this group or that that we have forgotten that the law must protect and apply to all.


I absolutely agree with your statement. From another view, this could 'open' the door to future legislation to allow new machineguns to be built by others.... like law abiding citizens who are willing to pay a tax and meet all of the requirements.

Link Posted: 9/11/2010 12:12:02 PM EDT
Hot Damn...

Tag...
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 12:52:05 PM EDT
Guess i'll add that to my nightly prayers list.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 5:47:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possessionof new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.



It should be defeated for this alone. This is a republic. The law is supposed to apply to every one equally. We do not have royalty here. It has become so common place to make exceptions for this group or that that we have forgotten that the law must protect and apply to all.


I see your point, but I'm for anything that allows more MG's. Maybe this could be the camel's nose.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:33:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 12:38:49 PM EDT by C-S]
Im really surprised this isn't getting more press...

This is a pretty big deal.

It would affect the Fire Arms Industry ALOT.

Think of all the manufacturers who deal with reassembling parts kits and the Such.

They'd have to completely re-tool and find another way of making a profit.

We'd be able to buy Complete Fire Arms imported for less then a parts kit.
At that rate they could send all the completed components and rebuild them here with 922R compliance.
It'd be much less work then is currently done. Complete receiver, parts and Barrels. At that Rate they might as well ship the entire Rifle here...

Importers are already buying the complete fire arm. consumers pay for De-milling and excessive paper work on the parts kits. Without that the Fire arm itself would be cheaper then the parts kit. And better quality then a Century Build at half the price.

I wonder how this is going to affect things.

This is REALLY big in my opinion.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:05:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fury_58:
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possessionof new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.



It should be defeated for this alone. This is a republic. The law is supposed to apply to every one equally. We do not have royalty here. It has become so common place to make exceptions for this group or that that we have forgotten that the law must protect and apply to all.


I see your point, but I'm for anything that allows more MG's. Maybe this could be the camel's nose.
Does that include crapping on your neighbors rights? You have the wrong mind set partner. You are not a dog begging for scraps from your master. You are a citizen being robbed by your servant.

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:37:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fury_58:
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possessionof new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.



It should be defeated for this alone. This is a republic. The law is supposed to apply to every one equally. We do not have royalty here. It has become so common place to make exceptions for this group or that that we have forgotten that the law must protect and apply to all.


I see your point, but I'm for anything that allows more MG's. Maybe this could be the camel's nose.


That isn't going to be anything productive for gun owners. It's just Californias way of making sure their massive film industry can get whatever it needs to make money.

The same people that want to take all of our guns want certain groups to be able to have them because it is profitable for their state and will help get them re-elected. Fuck that noise.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:40:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By C-S:
Im really surprised this isn't getting more press...

This is a pretty big deal.

It would affect the Fire Arms Industry ALOT.

Think of all the manufacturers who deal with reassembling parts kits and the Such.

They'd have to completely re-tool and find another way of making a profit.

We'd be able to buy Complete Fire Arms imported for less then a parts kit.
At that rate they could send all the completed components and rebuild them here with 922R compliance.
It'd be much less work then is currently done. Complete receiver, parts and Barrels. At that Rate they might as well ship the entire Rifle here...

Importers are already buying the complete fire arm. consumers pay for De-milling and excessive paper work on the parts kits. Without that the Fire arm itself would be cheaper then the parts kit. And better quality then a Century Build at half the price.

I wonder how this is going to affect things.

This is REALLY big in my opinion.

I really hope this passes. Could allow us citizens to have our machinegun rights BACK, and to import firearms, maybe get rid of some pesky laws too.

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:57:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stizout:
Originally Posted By C-S:
Im really surprised this isn't getting more press...

This is a pretty big deal.

It would affect the Fire Arms Industry ALOT.

Think of all the manufacturers who deal with reassembling parts kits and the Such.

They'd have to completely re-tool and find another way of making a profit.

We'd be able to buy Complete Fire Arms imported for less then a parts kit.
At that rate they could send all the completed components and rebuild them here with 922R compliance.
It'd be much less work then is currently done. Complete receiver, parts and Barrels. At that Rate they might as well ship the entire Rifle here...

Importers are already buying the complete fire arm. consumers pay for De-milling and excessive paper work on the parts kits. Without that the Fire arm itself would be cheaper then the parts kit. And better quality then a Century Build at half the price.

I wonder how this is going to affect things.

This is REALLY big in my opinion.

I really hope this passes. Could allow us citizens to have our machinegun rights BACK, and to import firearms, maybe get rid of some pesky laws too.



I'm waiting to see how it pans out...

It could be Good or Bad (depending on how they spin it once it's in affect)

But I am really curious to say the least.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:41:42 PM EDT
How many people REALLY used parts kits for "replacement parts", not to use one to build a new gun?
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:07:42 PM EDT
AK receivers were imported previously. SLR100H and FEG receivers are two examples. They were not torch cut.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:09:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 3:10:01 PM EDT by Mak]
Originally Posted By Stizout:
I really hope this passes. Could allow us citizens to have our machinegun rights BACK, and to import firearms, maybe get rid of some pesky laws too.




Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:20:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possessionof new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.



It should be defeated for this alone. This is a republic. The law is supposed to apply to every one equally. We do not have royalty here. It has become so common place to make exceptions for this group or that that we have forgotten that the law must protect and apply to all.


Looks like I might start up a Professional film and theatrical Organization You guys are looking at it all wrong
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:38:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ELPerdido:
How many people REALLY used parts kits for "replacement parts", not to use one to build a new gun?


Hey now Nodak Spud ships out AKs so busted all the damn time that they are nothing left but the bare receiver! Their products constantly need rebarrelling
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 9:49:48 PM EDT
I can't find any more Info on this beyond the articles Posted on line about it...

This seems like a pretty big deal to me... I can't believe this isn't getting more attention.

This could drastically change the entire fire arms industry in America!

IDK about the rest of you...

I'm really eager to see what changes... this could be huge for Fire Arms in America on a whole.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 2:28:13 PM EDT
It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 2:47:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHONUFF:
It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.


Very True...

I just can't believe there is not more information about this.

Seems like a pretty big deal, and no one seems to care...

I wonder how soon before we'll know anything. I can't get this off my mind.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 3:45:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By C-S:
Originally Posted By SHONUFF:
It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.


Very True...

I just can't believe there is not more information about this.

Seems like a pretty big deal, and no one seems to care...

I wonder how soon before we'll know anything. I can't get this off my mind.


Ahh, it's the end of this congress, they will be going on recess and then the elections take place. Any bill not passed in the lame duck session in November is dead unless the new congress takes it up.

Link Posted: 9/14/2010 4:04:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:

Originally Posted By Fury_58:
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possessionof new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.



It should be defeated for this alone. This is a republic. The law is supposed to apply to every one equally. We do not have royalty here. It has become so common place to make exceptions for this group or that that we have forgotten that the law must protect and apply to all.


I see your point, but I'm for anything that allows more MG's. Maybe this could be the camel's nose.
Does that include crapping on your neighbors rights? You have the wrong mind set partner. You are not a dog begging for scraps from your master. You are a citizen being robbed by your servant.



This is absolutely true. I especially like the last two sentences, nicely done.
Top Top