Friday, April 29, 2011

The Corruption is Stunning - Part II

This time, add in-your-face arrogance.  The BATF, embroiled in the Gunwalker (aka Fast and Furious) scandal, is trying to push through silly restrictions on the purchase of long guns.
Under the proposed rule, gun dealers would have to report sales of two or more rifles to an individual at one time or during a period of five business days if the rifles are semi-automatic, with a caliber greater than .22 and detachable magazines...  (emphasis added - GB)
This proposal was out for comment in December, and I wrote them asking what "caliber greater than .22" meant.  Do they mean .22 long rifle or .22 short?  Is a .22 magnum larger than a .22?  Is .22 Hornet larger?  .22 WRF?  What about .22-250, .22 Swift, .22 Cheetah, .22 BR Remington, .22 PPC...?  I see a big future for .204 Ruger if this idiocy is passed.  It's smaller than .22 any way you measure it, but can go around 3500 fps.  Business opportunity: .204 Ruger uppers for your AR lower.

This idea that Mexican drug gangs come into the US, spend hundreds of dollars for a semi-automatic AK-47 in American gun stores, when they can get fully automatic versions in Guatemala for $25, is insane.  Cables released by Wikileaks verify that the majority of the arms the cartels use come from Central America, not the US.
Yet one of the cables maintains that 90 percent of the heavy armament Mexican security forces seize from cartel gunmen comes from Central America.
Heck they probably get guns given to them by corrupt Mexican Army members, or steal the AKs from the Guatemalans.  Which makes more sense?  Come across the border into the US, and bring back a few expensive semi-automatics, or buy a cargo container and pick it up at the port?  I know that rifles do go across the border from the US - they're all being shipped by the BATF!  Whistleblowers say thousands of guns were involved in Gunwalker, making the US Government the largest known runner of guns into Mexico.

According to Mike at Sipsey Street:
It was first published in December and had a 60-day comment period that garnered almost 13,000 responses. About 30 percent opposed the reporting requirement and 70 percent favored it, ATF said.
Looks like a concerted effort by the antis - Codrea says it was Mayor Bloomberg; also looks it's time to comment to BATFE again.  Care to join me?
Excuse me, ma'am, but where did you get that AK?

Hmm.  Maybe I should try to lobby them for my version of common sense gun laws.

7 comments:

Reg T said...

SG, I was going to put this on your old post about "reasonable gun laws", but I'll put it here instead. The part most pertinent to this post is the last line.

SG

I understand it isn't what you are trying to say, but for the cheap seats, ATF doesn't do this to enrich the FFL holders. They have whittled down the numbers of FFL holders over the past twenty years to the point that there are probably only about 25% of the FFLs that there used to be in business. They would like to drive each and every one of those remaining FFL holders out of business.

The point is merely to make it more difficult and expensive to buy guns. To inconvenience citizens who wish to order from businesses that would sell much larger numbers of rifles if it weren't for the added cost and paperwork.

When I lived in Far Northern Californica (Yreka) back in the late 80's, early 90's, a CCW holder from CA could cross the border into Oregon and buy a rifle without an NCIC check and without a waiting period.

Even though the law was never changed in CA, Oregon or federally, ATF visited all of the gunshops in Southern Oregon and told them to stop selling to Californians. No lie. They didn't have any legal grounds to do so, but told each of them they would be subjected to intense scrutiny, multiple (if not daily) checks of their books and inventory, and basically harassed to the point that they would no longer be able to conduct business.

I was working for the California Highway Patrol at the time (in Communications, not as a traffic officer), and was a Reserve Police officer with the Yreka Police Dept. at the time. The owners of three different Southern Oregon gun shops in Medford and Klamath Falls all told me the same story.

ATF is a disease. As the old joke goes, it _should_ be the name of a convenience store . . .

LeverAction said...

The anti's (the names change, the motives stay the same) will seize upon every opportunity, use any excuse, and exploit every conceivable angle to push their "gun free utopia" on everybody. The ATF reform bill has been introduced in how many sessions of congress now? Nobody wants to pick up that football. Compromise only goes one way for these turkeys - its the Hegelian dialectic process in action. They propose something ridiculous and draconian, we fight for a while and arrive at something slightly less ridiculous, and its called "compromise". But its not really a compromise for them because it never was "their way" to begin with - the only side giving up ground is ours. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary until you've moved things far enough to their side that the original ideas are in place anyway. And that's "common sense" to the anti's...

Bah, no "lawmaker" has the authority to bargain away my rights. They need to be reminded of that fact - vote them all out!

Graybeard said...

These are both fantastic comments, guys. I don't think I can add anything worthwhile to either one.

Just when I had written off Peggy Noonan, she had a column with a good observation in it. When people think of compromise, they picture something like a yardstick, with both sides quibbling over whether the deal is at the 16 or 20" mark instead of right at 18". Instead, after almost a century of dealing with the progressives, we find ourselves fighting over the 5" line, getting them to agree to the 6 or 7" line and calling that a victory. It's not. It's not even a particularly good example of minimizing damages.

That's where we are in gun control. We have won some great decisions in the Supreme Court lately, but we're still playing defense. Congresswoman McCarthy - of "assault magazine" fame - is trying to make it illegal to conduct private sales of guns at all, under the guise of shutting the "gun show loophole". Tell me why I can't sell a gun to my neighbor or my brother or anyone? That's so far to the left, it's the 1 inch line. Not. One. More. Law.

BS Footprint said...

@Graybeard: You mean Noonan's Why It's Time for the Tea Party editorial in the WSJ? It was an inspiring read.

I agree with @LeverAction. Boot 'em out!

Graybeard said...

BS Footprint, that's the one! I notice I got the ends backwards from her. I just mentally oriented the yardstick with small numbers on the left...

Reg T said...

That _was_a good article. Thanks for posting the link, BSF.

Recently here, Ryan was trying to move the Dems to 20, and Boner declared victory at 35 (when all is said and done, around 135 _million_ was "saved" from the 14 trillion being spent. Like spending $100,000 and getting excited about saving one dollar.)

SG, I think you were confusing the scale with a measurement of IQ, that's why you got the numbers swapped.

Question: Did gold and silver drop because Bin Laden was whacked? Cause to celebrate, if true, but can't see the economic situation improving or supporting a drop in the value of precious metals.

Graybeard said...

Reg, I don't know for sure, but my impression is that this was trading-related. I heard that one of the rules on margin trading changed, requiring more actual cash involvement, and expected some bumps in the market. Watching it drop by $5/oz last night when the market opened sure was spooky, though!

If silver were to drop to even $20/oz, I think I'd hock my car and fill as many buckets as I could.