Dave D Posted May 31, 2015 at 03:27 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 03:27 PM http://thehill.com/regulation/243520-administration-preps-new-gun-regulations The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance. But the gun lobby contends that such a sweeping ban would unfairly root out a number of prospective gun owners who are not a danger to society.“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” said Luke O’Dell, vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights.The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.Some of the rules come in response to President Obama’s call to reduce gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook. He issued 23 executive actions shortly after the shooting aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous people, and some of those items remain incomplete.“If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown,” Obama said at the time.“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale,” he added.Gun control groups have rallied around Obama’s call to action, zeroing in on polices that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and domestic abusers.Congressional efforts to expand background checks and keep guns away from dangerous people have failed in recent years, but the legislative defeats won’t stop the Justice Department from regulating.The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is looking to revive a rule proposed way back in 1998 that would block domestic abusers from owning guns.As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.The ATF plans to finalize the rule by November, according to the Unified Agenda.But gun rights advocates are concerned the Obama administration will use this rule to unfairly target certain gun owners.“That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” warned Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America.The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Americans for Responsible Solutions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.But Everytown, a group financially backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has argued that keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers can be a matter of life or death.“American women are 11 times more likely to be shot and killed than women in other developed countries,” the group argues. “The high rate of domestic violence deaths in America is directly related to our weak gun laws. But we know that smart gun laws can—and do—stop domestic abuse from turning into murder."The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms, which is attracting even more criticism from gun rights groups.“The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist,” Hammond argued.The NRA contends that many people who are mentally ill may not necessarily pose a danger to society — or as the gun lobby puts it, the policy “snares masses of mostly harmless individuals.”Gun rights advocates argue it would be more effective to ban people on an individual basis, as opposed to banning all people who are mentally ill.“A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA wrote. "Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” it added.Aside from these issues, some gun rights advocates have also raised concerns about upcoming ATF rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts, provide gun storage and safety devices, and place restrictions on high-powered pistols, among other things.“The Obama administration hates the Second Amendment, and it’s clear that every place where it can push, it will,” said Hammond. “This is an indication of an anti-gun administration trying to annoy us in any way it can."
rubicon Posted May 31, 2015 at 03:49 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 03:49 PM The Obama Administration has put more Illegally Obtained "Assault Rifles" in the hands of Criminals, than all of the Straw Purchasers in the USA in the last 50 years!. (Operation Fast and Furious). These were Fully Automatic Assault Rifles, that are now in the hands of Mexican Drug Cartel Killers. The Obama Administration has done more to incite Riots and Civil Unrest, with its policies in Ferguson, Baltimore and Chicago. The Obama's are from Chicago and invited Hidiya Pendelton to the White House... then sent her back home to the Blood Bucket, known as the SW Side of Chicago. Murdered by a three time Arrested and recently Paroled Felon, that had been Arrested again for Illegal Weapons Charges. These policies are from the Obama's DOJ Directives and are allowing hundreds of innocent lives to be killed by those who Obama wants to protect. Obama wants to protect the Michael Williams and Tryvon Martins of this nation and we are supposed to just let them get through their criminal wildings time, as a Right of Passage in the slums and Illegal Drug infested Cesspools that they live in...because somehow, that is going to work out. If you want more of that and worse, then DO NOT VOTE, in the next Election and let Hillary Clinton Win!
Capt_Destro Posted May 31, 2015 at 04:21 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 04:21 PM Goodluck passing this garbage. Also Im curious about their definition of "highpowered pistols" Dont they know most criminals use 22lr, 380, 9mm, 40sw and 45? Part of me thinks the wh wants to ban rifle caliber pistols
WtJen Posted May 31, 2015 at 05:31 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 05:31 PM The won't need to pass legislation if they go the BATF route. A few definition changes/interpretations can make a lot of difference. Remember the M855 fiasco? Course Congress can simply defund the BATFE if the new rules are not to their liking. That would require the Republicans to man-up though.
domin8 Posted May 31, 2015 at 05:35 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 05:35 PM The Justice Department would include the Attorney General, right? Oh, boy, do I have a whopper of an email from Senator Hatch (Utah-R) concerning his supporting vote of Loretta Lynch. So much for his (and her) support for the 2A.
gLockedandLoaded Posted May 31, 2015 at 06:25 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 06:25 PM I'll say the same thing I said about the NY Congresswoman trying to mandate liability insurance to gun owners: "Lol good luck."
Hap Posted May 31, 2015 at 07:10 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 07:10 PM The devil, as usual, is in the details, essentially all of which are missing from this article. When you boil it down all it really says is that Obama is running out of time to do something about guns, and that he's probably going to try to do something before the buzzer. Like we didn't know that already.
WtJen Posted May 31, 2015 at 07:23 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 07:23 PM It will be important, if the BATFE comes up with some weirdness like they did with the M855 ammo, that we hit our Congress critters with calls and letters again. The gun grabbers will never quit and neither can we. I don't see any significant legislation getting through the House or Senate restricting gun rights. The direction of most state legislatures is more freedom with gun rights. With some exceptions like California, New York, etc. The approach from Obama will be through regulation from the BATFE.
Capt_Destro Posted May 31, 2015 at 08:46 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 08:46 PM What I'm worried about is some kind of EO that would ban rifle caliber pistols. That could be done without congressional approval correct?I'm predicting they might hop on the whole "Protect our police officers" approach like they did during the M855 ban attempt. Since that is one of the loopholes certain manufactures use to avoid non sporting, import restrictions.
lockman Posted May 31, 2015 at 09:15 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 09:15 PM We must eviscerate the BATFE legislatively and through litigation. The whole sporting use premise the GCA 68 is based on in inconsistent with the fundamental status of bearing arms.
WtJen Posted May 31, 2015 at 09:43 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 09:43 PM We must eviscerate the BATFE legislatively and through litigation. The whole sporting use premise the GCA 68 is based on in inconsistent with the fundamental status of bearing arms. Agreed. The sporting clause is very dangerous and completely not what the Second Amendment is all about.
DocFaberliss Posted May 31, 2015 at 11:55 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 11:55 PM What I'm worried about is some kind of EO that would ban rifle caliber pistols. That could be done without congressional approval correct?I don't see how it could be done. The M855 'ban' was merely a revocation of an exemption given by ATF 20 years ago, not an EO ban.
Capt_Destro Posted May 31, 2015 at 11:57 PM Posted May 31, 2015 at 11:57 PM What I'm worried about is some kind of EO that would ban rifle caliber pistols. That could be done without congressional approval correct?I don't see how it could be done. The M855 'ban' was merely a revocation of an exemption given by ATF 20 years ago, not an EO ban. I forgot to add the word import. I meant import bans, sorry. Not sure if that totally awesome sporting clause can mess things up. CZ Evos, MP5 Copies from POF, AK Pistols, Etc.
Scotty425 Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:20 AM Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:20 AM My guess is that "high powered pistols" means AR15 and AK style pistols, especially if they can accept the Sig brace.
BobPistol Posted June 1, 2015 at 10:49 AM Posted June 1, 2015 at 10:49 AM That would require the Republicans to man-up though. lol....won't happen. That would require us to have an actual two party system, instead of two halves of the one party system as we have now.
Neumann Posted June 1, 2015 at 02:52 PM Posted June 1, 2015 at 02:52 PM There's a line in the movie, "Act of Valor" where the protagonist is writing a letter to the son of a colleague killed in action. In part he says, "The hardest part of getting old is that others no longer consider you dangerous." It's okay to be dangerous, but in the face of criminal intent, not out of spite nor to settle arguments.
GTX63 Posted June 1, 2015 at 03:13 PM Posted June 1, 2015 at 03:13 PM As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.The ATF plans to finalize the rule by November, according to the Unified Agenda.But gun rights advocates are concerned the Obama administration will use this rule to unfairly target certain gun owners. “That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” warned Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America. “A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA wrote. So now gun laws will begin to sink into misdemeanor offenses as a means to prevent gun violence much in the same way as white collar felonies do. Gun permits are already being contested based on arrests rather than convictions, on need rather than the right, on non violent records ptsd and any previous trace of emotional duress or treated anxiety Yell at Junior for pushing the grocery cart into another car at the Kroger and you might want to think about buying a duffle bag and a shovel for your collection.
agalloch07 Posted June 1, 2015 at 04:30 PM Posted June 1, 2015 at 04:30 PM I never wanted an AR pistol but now i kinda do. Think it would be worth it to buy a few $50 lowers and register them as pistols?
Neumann Posted June 3, 2015 at 03:22 AM Posted June 3, 2015 at 03:22 AM Ask yourself, why has BATF been so passive in approving AR pistols, to the extent of allowing arm braces with them? It's possible they see it as a ploy to ban 5.56/.223 ammunition capable of penetrating soft armor, which is effectively all of that ammunition.
domin8 Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:33 AM Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:33 AM I was able to grab the text of the letter Senator Hatch sent me after I emailed him in regards to my disappointment about his vote confirming Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Maybe this will enrage you guys as much as it does me. Dear Mr. Domin8: Thank you for writing to share your views regarding the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.As you know, President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch to be the 83rd Attorney General of the United States. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint certain public officials with the âadvice and consentâ of the Senate. My responsibility as a Senator is to determine whether a nominee is qualified for the position to which she has been nominated and whether anything in her record disqualifies her from serving. I voted to confirm Ms. Lynchâs nomination because I believe that she meets this standard.In your letter, you expressed concerns about Ms. Lynchâs position on the Second Amendment. Please know I strongly support the right to keep and bear arms. I have long opposed any encroachment upon the Second Amendment, and I will continue to oppose attempts to erode the rights of law-abiding gun owners.I have reviewed Ms. Lynchâs record and participated in her confirmation hearing and am unaware of any evidence to suggest her personal views are âanti-gun.â In fact, at her nomination hearing, Ms. Lynch confirmed that she recognized the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. Furthermore, Ms. Lynch has pledged to defend the Constitution and the statutes passed by Congress, regardless of her personal and philosophical views. As always, I will follow the ongoing work of the Justice Department and evaluate whether these assurances are put into practice.Ms. Lynchâs impressive legal career spans 30 years, including more than two decades as a prosecutor and two unanimous confirmations by the Senate. I am not aware of anyone, including Senators opposed to her nomination, who argues that she is unqualified to serve as Attorney General. Instead, opponents appear to ignore her professional career entirely and focus only on the six hours that she appeared before the Judiciary Committee. And her critics emphasize most not what she said during that January 28 hearing, but what she did not say. This is far from enough to outweigh everything else in her record as a prosecutor.The Justice Department needed new leadership. I am deeply concerned by the way the Department has facilitated the Obama administration in exceeding its lawful authority. I have raised these concerns with Ms. Lynch, and she has pledged to be independent and to place first priority on the rule of law and impartially carrying out her duties. For example, she committed to me that, as Attorney General, she would abide by the injunction issued by a federal district court to halt the Presidentâs recent executive actions on immigration.Since I believe that confirmation decisions must be based on a nomineeâs record and merits, I could not support those who sought to use Ms. Lynchâs nomination as a proxy for opposing various Obama administration policies. No Senator has opposed the Presidentâs series of lawless and overreaching actions more than I have in the Judiciary Committee, in the Finance Committee, on the Senate floor, in the courts, in the media, and any other venue I could find. But, I also believe that Ms. Lynch is qualified to serve as Attorney General.I appreciate this opportunity to explain further why I voted to confirm Ms. Lynch as the Attorney General. I respect that people wonât always agree with me, but I hope you know that I work hard every day to do the things I believe will help our state and our country. I do not forget that the Utah voters sent me to Washington, and that I have been entrusted to adhere to Utahâs values in carrying out my duties as a Senator. Please know I will do everything I can to help ensure that Ms. Lynch upholds her commitments to defend our Constitution, enforce the law, and restore the integrity of the Justice Department.Thank you, again, for contacting me with your comments. If you would like to have regular updates on my work in the U.S. Senate, I encourage you to subscribe to my E-newsletter, visit my Facebook page, and follow me on Twitter.Your Senator,Orrin G. Hatch United States Senator
VVelox Posted June 5, 2015 at 03:07 PM Posted June 5, 2015 at 03:07 PM A big more info for any one curious... http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA23
patriot1776 Posted June 5, 2015 at 03:21 PM Posted June 5, 2015 at 03:21 PM They want to also go after the 5.7 X 28 pistols FN . Maybe just the standard 20 round magazine ? Acording to my fed ex brother in law . My ex brother in law works for the feds and when he found out i owned one before the great flood he went bat nuts on me and i ask him why he owned a shot gun as he has never purchased a hunting license or hunted ?
defaultdotxbe Posted June 5, 2015 at 07:49 PM Posted June 5, 2015 at 07:49 PM About a year ago I was reading something from one of the anti groups saying they wanted to change the definition of armor piercing handgun ammo, so that rather than defining it based on it having a steel, tungsten, or some other hard penetrator it would be based on a test of shooting a piece of kevlar body armor and seeing if it defeats the armor. Any handgun that does would would be summarily banned
BradS Posted June 5, 2015 at 08:05 PM Posted June 5, 2015 at 08:05 PM There's a line in the movie, "Act of Valor" where the protagonist is writing a letter to the son of a colleague killed in action. In part he says, "The hardest part of getting old is that others no longer consider you dangerous." It's okay to be dangerous, but in the face of criminal intent, not out of spite nor to settle arguments.Have you ever heard of the gray man concept? Sometimes I think my gray hair makes me invisible in public. And I am way fine with that. It is probably based off the Waylon Jennings song, but "youth and skill are no match for old age and treachery".
gLockedandLoaded Posted June 8, 2015 at 02:19 AM Posted June 8, 2015 at 02:19 AM http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.