"Obama Administration's New Proposed Gun Regulation for Border States Met With Bipartisan Dissent."

Here is an excerpt from Stephen Clark's article on FOX News.com:

"The Obama administration's plan to force new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border is under fire from members of his own party. At least three Democrats in the Senate and several more in the House are voicing opposition to a proposed regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that would require about 8,500 gun dealers in four states – California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas – to report gun sales of two or more high-powered rifles sold within five consecutive business days... The new regulation would cover semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, has asked the ATF to withdraw its request to the White House for emergency authority to enact the regulation. While I understand the importance of cracking down on violence and gun trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border, this wide-reaching regulation would punish law-abiding American gun owners and impede their Second Amendment rights," Begich wrote in a letter last week to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson. "Instead, we must secure our border and target Mexican drug cartels, as well as participating offenders in the United States." The ATF has rejected the notion that its regulation will violate Second Amendment rights or impose burdensome paperwork on gun dealers... Scott Thomasson, the chief spokesman for ATF, told FoxNews.com that the agency is pushing for this new regulation now because since 2004, there's been a 100 percent increase by Mexican drug cartels using rifles, which are not covered by any reporting requirements." Link to Full Article

Analysis: My best friend always tells me I shouldn't write blog posts - or anything else for that matter - when I'm mad. I totally understand the reasoning; I'm an analyst after all, and work pretty hard to maintain a level head and examine all sides of an issue. But when I read articles like this, it's really hard for me to keep my blood from boiling, and I'll explain why.

My regular readers know I'm not anti-gun; quite the opposite. I was a military law enforcement agent for over eight years, and got pretty attached to both my Beretta 9mm, and later my SigSauer P228 after my agency switched over. I currently have a SigSauer P250 that converts from a 9mm to a .40-caliber, as well as a Mossberg 10-gauge shotgun with a breacher tip on the barrel that I'm completely in love with. When I bought these guns, I almost wished the salesman at the store had asked for more information from me. I know I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I know that I plan to use these firearms for home defense. But what about the guy next to me? Or the guy next to him? Is asking for a driver's license and a filled-out ATF form enough? This is my VERY pro-law enforcement side coming out.

Some people would say even that's too intrusive, and the ATF is imposing too many measures that "impede their Second Amendment rights." This is where we take a look at the new proposed regulation that requires the reporting of two or more rifles being sold to the same person within five days. This requirement is already in place for handguns, folks. And yes, I imagine that die-hard NRA members HATE this requirement, and I'm hearing the "It's a slippery slope to having the government come seize all our guns" argument in my head. So, knowing that Mexican DTOs love their high-powered rifles that they so easily buy in the US through straw purchases, why is there so much drama surrounding the extension of an existing requirement to cover rifles?

I know why there's so much drama, and I can't wait (I say this sarcastically) for the deluge of gun fanatics who will comment on this post, saying it's too much government, Obama wants to take our guns away, etc. etc. I'd like to posit this question, in response to Senator Begich's statement. How does this proposed requirement "punish" law-abiding citizens? And furthermore, how does it impede Second Amendment rights? If you want to buy ten rifles over the course of three days, guess what? You can still do it! You won't get fined, sent to jail, get spoken to harshly, or tarred and feathered - just some examples of what I consider punishment. And you still get to buy your guns, which - from what I recall, anyway - is right in line with the Second Amendment. Many people tend to forget that the role guns play in the lives of Americans have less to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with federal and state laws, as well as case law determined by hundreds of court decisions over the last 234 years. I challenge Senator Begich to show me, from a legal perspective, how the proposed regulation impedes upon anyone's right to ultimately purchase or own as many firearms as they want.

Here's my bottom line. We need to figure out SOMETHING to more effectively investigate criminals who are trafficking guns from the US into Mexico. I think the proposed ATF requirement is a step in the right direction. I also think the NRA doesn't give a rat's behind about southbound weapons trafficking. The group gives the impression that it doesn't care what goes on south of the border as long as all Americans can buy guns whenever and wherever they want. That may not be the case, but perception is reality, and I think it's totally irresponsible to think we can just wash our hands of any association whatsoever with US-origin guns being used in the drug war. I wonder what the NRA will say when one of those guns is used to kill an American law enforcement officer.

I'm just tired of lobby groups and other people throwing around our Second Amendment rights like it spells out exactly what were entitled to when it comes to gun ownership. I think it gives us more mellow gun owners a bad name; kind of like people who burn flags or make a painting of the Virgin Mary with dog crap smeared on it, then invoke the First Amendment. The courts have been debating this forever, so who is Senator Begich to make the determination that the proposed regulation punishes Americans and steps all over the Second Amendment? Our law enforcement agencies have a HUGE job to do, and I'm just sick of politics and petty arguments getting in the way of that.

So, as they say, bring on the pain...I know it's coming.

Comments

[Bill]

Sylvia,
Muchas gracias por su valor! Taking the bull by the horns on this issue, and it's about time somebody in law enforcement stood up, I applaud your courage!

[daskro]

Even if the law stands, which I doubt, it's hard for me to see it as effective. Hypothetically it would reduce straw purchases of multiple gun sales in those four states but what it doesn't do is stop the inevitable increase in straw purchases of multiple gun sales in states not covered by the law, such as Nevada, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Is it so hard to imagine the same traffickers who ferry drugs well into the interior of the US could do the same with gun purchases in states a few hundred additional miles into the US?

[Fred Hiker]

Silvia I’m not entirely sure why you have chosen this argument ( guns going into Mexico) for your electronic soap box here? All of your preaching on the subject seems to be more directed toward supporting one of the more corrupted governments of the world, while at the same time directing insults to your fellow countrymen who apparently view our second amendment differently than you, and Mexico do? Silvia you make a weak argument supporting such an infringement , and at the same time inadvertently lay bare the reasoning WHY the NRA so staunchly stands against such seemingly benign infringements. I’ll simply thank you for that, because I doubt if much I would say could change your view.

Fred

[J.D.]

In my old age, I have come to support gun control. I don't mind some guns, a shotgun at home for protection, for instance. I see no reason a young person in this country should have a pistol with an extended clip. There is no argument for it. Drugs are more of a problem than guns. Drugs take a tremendous toll on the United States: deaths, money, health, lack of productivity. If you want the United States to the be the flagship of the world that it once was, eliminate drugs and senseless violence. I commend you for this website and for you efforts toward at least one of those goals. I fully support your stance here on at least some regulation of guns at the border.

[Bill]

Fred, Fred, Fred;

Sylvia is alert and responsive to the times in which we live. Do you seriously not think we live in much different times than Americans did in 1791? Are you and your "neighborhood militia" going to present any defense when the traffickers come rolling across the border in numbers? The NRA stands firmly against reasonable control of firearms and only in defense of the billion dollar industry they represent and cares little for your "rights" or "Right".
It is time to wake up to reality!

[Ike]

1. By it's own admission, ATF has overstated the "trafficking" problem and deliberately mislead Congress and the American People. Between 2008 and 2010, ATF quoted 90% of guns seized in Mexico came from the United States. In September 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a draft report critical of Project Gunrunner, followed by a final version in November, 2010. The OIG analysis of ATF data shows, of the guns submitted for tracing, a much lower percentage of guns (about 27 percent) traced to the United States. These percentages significantly differ from those in ATF testimony before Congress

When confronted with the OIG analysis, ATF then admitted to the OIG that the 90% figure cited to Congress is misleading. During this 2010 review by the OIG, ATF could not provide updated information on the percentage of traced Mexican crime guns that originated in or imported through the United States.

2. ATF's proposed reporting is overly broad and vague. Rather than "a very narrow group of long guns" as ATF stated, the proposed rule includes a huge number of guns unlikely to be trafficked. Instead of specifying the guns ATF keeps saying are the problem (AK47, AR15, .50 caliber, etc.), they have included a huge number of curio and relic rifles up to 100 years old of interest mainly by collectors, many ordinary hunting rifles, and many rifles chambered for obsolete ammunition no longer manufactured.

3. ATF's proposed reporting violates the Firearm Owners Protection Act:

a. By requiring these records be transferred to the United States Government, and

b. Creating an additional system of registration of firearms and firearm owners.

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

4. Once reported to ATF, these proposed registration records never go away, but will permanently remain in ATF databases at the National Tracing Center, and if traced, will be reported to corrupt Mexican police.

If a trace links to any of these records, even in error, many innocent American gun owners personal information (including name and address, height, weight, drivers license number, possibly Social Security Number, date of birth, place of birth, and all other guns linked to that last name and date of birth) will be reported with a trace. If your name is Smith (or Garcia in the Southwest), there are many people with the same date of birth!

5. ATF is attempting to exceed it’s authority to require reporting of rifles. 18 USC Section 923(g) explicitly gives ATF authority to gather information on multiple handgun sales, but not rifles.

6. ATF is violating 18 USC §926(b) which provides "The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations." This is stricter than the Admin Procedure Act’s general provision for a "reasonable" comment period, and it has no emergency exceptions. ATF is only giving 30 days’ notice.

7. ATF will use violations of the multiple rifle sale reporting requirement to punish dealers. The proposed rule is vague (by not defining "greater than .22, etc.) and deliberately misleading. As a result, many law-abiding dealers will misunderstand and inadvertently fail to report some sales. These unintentional violations will be used by ATF in attempts to revoke dealers licenses.

8. ATF is attempting an "end run" around Congress. As expressed in a letter from Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg to the President, implementing ATF’s proposal will subject firearms dealers and their customers to:

a. New, onerous reporting requirements that will inevitably track and register the purchases of innocent law-abiding gun owners.

b. Congress authorized multiple sales reporting for handguns, but have never extended this authority to other types of firearms.

c. Expanding multiple sales reporting for rifles by executive decree would be an end run around Congress.

[Ike]

Sylvia:

ATF has overstated the Mexican gun problem - and deliberately tried to mislead Congress and the American people. They got caught at it by the DOJ Inspector General - and admitted it. It's fully documented.

ATF is now overreaching to gather registration records - not for so-called "assault rifles", but for ALL semi-auto rifles detachable magazine rifles, including 60-100 year old obsolete collectors items and normal hunting rifles NOT used by DTOs. ATF even wants sales info on guns that use obsolete ammunition no longer manufactured! Had ATF specifically asked for info on AR15, AK47, and AK74 rifle sales, then the proposal wouldn't be so objectionable.

The information gathered by the proposed multiple sales report will be used by ATF to report the buyer's personal information to corrupt Mexican police - even if the purchaser is completely innocent. This information will include Name & address, height, weight, date of birth, place of birth, driver's license number and possibly Social Security Number. All the info needed for identity theft. This is well documented.

If you have doubts, look at Wikipedia eTrace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETrace) for a full explanation and a copy of an ATF Firearm Trace Summary.

Further, since the Mexican legal system is based on "Guilty until proven innocent" principles, then a completely innocent American gun owner could land in a Mexican prison because he bought a couple of semi-auto rifles which were found in Mexico but were stolen from him (or he later sold - even to a dealer). This is a grave disservice to Americans by putting innocent Americans at risk.

[morgan]

"reasonable" is in the eyes of the beholder who would be either a politician or a bureaucrat. You may "trust" them but I sure don't.

[Ike]

Sylvia:

I've read your analysis again, and I fully agree with your statement: "We need to figure out SOMETHING to more effectively investigate criminals who are trafficking guns from the US into Mexico." The key word is "criminals" - not innocent gun buyers.

With the extent of your experience, I'm surprised you would advocate violating the law to investigate the issue. The proposed ATF reporting requirement is a violation of the law.

Before ATF implements something with far-reaching effects and unintended consequences, maybe the first step should be to step back and accurately analyze the issue - something which the ATF has been unable or unwilling to do. After getting caught reporting false statistics, ATF admitted it to the DOJ OIG. Is gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico as much a problem as ATF says it is? Or is it a pretext to increase ATF budget, staffing and prestige?

To use your words, I also think the ATF doesn't give a rat's behind about the consequences of reporting (as suspects) completely innocent American gun owners and dealers to corrupt Mexican cops, and calling the dealers who sold the guns "Criminal Friendly" dealers (ATF's words).

We have no sympathy with gun traffickers, and (contrary to media hype) gun dealers gladly work with ATF to identify actual traffickers. However, we also have no empathy with a federal agency which misleads Congress and the American People, and which violates the law to enhance their firearm tracing (registration) system.

[anonymous_coward]

"throwing around our Second Amendment rights like it spells out exactly what were entitled to when it comes to gun ownership."

The US Constitution does not spell out what we are entitled to. It spells out what the Federal Government is NOT entitled to. The federal government has NO authority to regulate any firearms. Our rights come from God and are defined by Natural Law, not some piece of paper or government.

Have you ever wondered why there were NO federal firearm regulations before 1934?