DOJ; ATF Seek To Implement New, More Restrictive Gun Control Regulations In November. Is It Legal? Is It Overreach?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:04:39 -0400

President Obama's Spring 2015 Unified Agenda released last week is loaded with a host of regulatory changes from the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that if implemented, will greatly impact the Second Amendment Rights of millions of American citizens. Most notably, one of the new restrictions would apply to anyone with a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. In most states, that could apply to anyone who was reported for spanking a child or yelling at a spouse. Another new change seeks to tighten restrictions on anyone who is now or has ever in the past sought treatment for mental or behavioral health concerns. For those of us who have served in combat over the past 14 years and during the Vietnam era, this is very disconcerting as the VA reports all of our patient information to these agencies.

What say you, RP? Is this prudent government action, or an illegal trampling of our Constitutional Rights?

Obama's 'Unified Agenda' Means More Gun Control Without Congressional Approval - Breitbart

The Obama administration's Spring 2015 "Unified Agenda" shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are pushing a number of new gun control rules for implementation by executive fiat.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 3 at 2015 1:07 PM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:07:44 -0400

Remember our right to bare arms!

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 3 at 2015 1:12 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:12:34 -0400

Have you looks at a 4473?
Have you looked at Section 11?
Have you looked at questions "f" and "i"?
ATF F 4473 (5300.9) PART I (10-2001) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

The current form is 2012 .. but Section 11 goes way back

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 3 at 2015 1:19 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:19:27 -0400

This administration had already tried to brand veterans as potential domestic terrorists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAygnB-xQCY

Department Of Homeland Security: Veterans Are Terrorists And Right Wing Extremists

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 3 at 2015 1:24 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:24:18 -0400

I don't see an issue with mentally or domestic abusers not having firearms.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 3 at 2015 1:37 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:37:13 -0400

If I understand this correctly, it requires the creation of a paper trail for all gun transactions (long guns, shotguns, pistols, etc) including inheriting a gun from a relative (registration by another means). It will also require that someone (ATF?, contractor?, healthcare professional?) conduct an initial medical records review prior to allowing the sale of a gun to proceed (that will take forever). It will also require healthcare professionals to notify the ATF (possibly through a contractor?) of any mental health issues that occur with current/known gun owners. Wow, I can just imagine the lawyers across America are salivating over the millions of dollars this will cost to adjudicate.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 5:11 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:11:46 -0400

I haven't read the cited Spring 2015 Unified Agenda, but those who have been convicted of a domestic violence charge (even a misdemeanor one) have been banned from possessing firearms for the last two decades under the Lautenberg Amendment; see 18 U.S. Code § 922, which can be found here, among other places: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922.

Generally stating, however, I am a FIRM believer in our 2nd Amendment rights, and I will fight with all I have in me, including my life's blood, to protect that right. "From my cold dead hands!"

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 3 at 2015 5:33 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:33:34 -0400

That will make 90% of the law enforcement folks ineligible. Time to stop reporting domestic violence altogether within their ranks. No longer can married folks seek counseling and work towards resolving their differences. No longer will children have the protection that is in place through support agencies if the abuser is the sole bread winner, etc, etc. This nonsense needs to end.

Response by COL Korey Jackson made Jun 3 at 2015 5:55 PM

COL Korey Jackson — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:55:01 -0400

Yes, this is legal, and it is prudent government action by our executive branch:

The rule related to conviction for domestic violence implements into the US Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) the Lautenberg Amendment (Domestic Violence Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968), passed back in 1996.
(As an aside, note that Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate (the 104th Congress) when that was passed.)
This particular proposed federal regulation had a 90 day public comment period more than 15 years ago, back in 1998. (ref http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA04).
The proposed federal regulation related to the definition of "Adjudicated as Mentally Defective" and "Committed to a Mental Institution" had a 90 day public comment period back in early 2014.
According to the Federal Register (ref http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-07/pdf/2014-00039.pdf#page=1) the Department of Defense (DOD) recommended to the Department of Justice/ATF that the definition of "Adjudicated as Mentally Defective", that the definition of ‘‘adjudicated as a mental defective’’ be amended to specifically include ‘‘those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b [sic] of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.’’

In other words, these federal rules implement Congressional actions AND have had appropriate public comment periods.

The Breitbart headline that these rules do not have Congressional approval is misleading.

View Rule