U.S. judge backs ATF multiple rifle sales reporting

[Powerman620]

Just the tip of iceburg for the future.
http://www.kfor.com/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-courttre80c2g9-20120113,0,79253.story
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday, in a victory for the Obama administration, upheld new federal rules requiring gun dealers in four states bordering Mexico to report the sales of multiple semi-automatic rifles, despite a challenge by the gun industry.

The administration issued the reporting requirements last year despite opposition from the gun industry as part of a stepped-up effort to clamp down on the weapons flowing across the border to violent drug cartels in Mexico.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ordered more than 8,000 gun dealers in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California to report the sale within five business days of two or more semiautomatic rifles to the same person.

That includes rifles with a caliber greater than .22 and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Mexican officials have complained bitterly about guns coming illegally from the United States. Tens of thousands of Mexicans have been killed in the drug wars since 2006 when Mexico's government decided to take on the cartels.

Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, found that the ATF's requirement was sufficiently narrowly tailored and that it was rational by focusing on the states that border Mexico.

"Congress has effected a delicate balance between ATF's regulation of firearms and the right to privacy held by lawful firearms owners," Collyer wrote in a 21-page ruling. The ATF's reporting requirement "did not disturb that balance."

Gun dealers backed by the National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying organization, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, challenged the requirements, arguing they would effectively require national registration of firearms sales, which they said the ATF was not authorized to do.

The gun industry has also said the rules will have no impact on the cartels but rather burden law-abiding retailers and that the reporting requirement was overly burdensome.

"If President (Barack) Obama gets a second term, I think law-abiding gun owners are going to see a lot more of it," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, told Reuters.

"These drug cartels ... rape, they rob, they murder they throw people into lions' pits, they're not going to be deterred by a form. That must be some form," he said. The groups plan to appeal the ruling.

One gun shop manager in Douglas, Arizona, a city a mile from the Mexico border, said it would not make much difference to him because he had already become very selective about such sales.

"I'm very selective of who I will sell even one paramilitary-type rifle to anymore, because of the hassle," said Lynn Kartchner. "If it ends up in Mexico, I have to go and testify."

Some 36,000 reports of multiple handgun sales were made from the four border states in fiscal 2010, according to the ATF.

The decision came as the ATF has been under scrutiny in recent months after a sting operation to track guns being smuggled to Mexican cartels went awry. The weapons were not tracked beyond the initial purchase.

The ATF welcomed the court decision, saying in a statement that it was "an effort to increase ATF's ability to detect and disrupt the illegal firearms trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce into the hands of criminal gangs that threaten law abiding citizens."

 

[LightningCrash]

How long before the cartels just kidnap machinists and make their own guns?

 

[Super Dave]

Oh CRAP!!! I'd just like to go on record saying I am not a machinist. I am a professional dancer. The naked kind.

Hope that does the trick.

 

[neginfluence04]

damn cartels

 

[dutchwrangler]

damn cartels

Damn US drug laws...

 

[sanjuro893]

Damn....... something.

 

[neginfluence04]

damn everything

 

[Shadowrider]

Another fine ruling by the same "judge" that ruled in this case. Seems she wishy-washy at best or more likely bucking for a higher appointment?

As recently as the fall of 2009, Judge Collyer provided support for the plaintiffs. She rejected the Obama Administration's argument that the plaintiffs were lucky to get Medicare and therefore had suffered no "injury" and lacked standing. She noted the Clinton POMS are simply part of a government handbook and never went through a formal rule-making. She also refused the Administration's request to dismiss the suit, noting that "neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare."

Yet in a stunning reversal, Judge Collyer last week revisited her decision and dismissed the case. In direct contravention to her prior ruling, the judge said the Medicare statute does—with a little creative reading—contain a requirement that Social Security recipients take government health care. The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are "entitled" to Social Security are "entitled" to Medicare. Therefore, argues the judge, "The only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare Part A at age 65 is to forego the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security Retirement benefits."

This is convoluted enough, but Judge Collyer's truly novel finding comes with her implicit argument that to be "entitled" to a government benefit is to be obligated to accept it. This is a startling break with existing legal understandings and raises profound questions as to whether Americans have a duty to accept other "entitlements," say, food stamps or public housing. Or, as the plaintiffs attorney, Kent Masterson Brown, warns: "Anyone concerned with what will happen when the bureaucrats start writing the thousands of pages of rules that will govern" ObamaCare need only look at this ruling. "Nothing will be optional."

That might explain why the Obama Administration fought this suit so vehemently. The government fisc—and taxpayers—would benefit if some seniors pay for their own health care. But for many liberals, the goal isn't saving money or providing choices. The goal is to force all Americans into the same programs to fulfill their egalitarian dreams. The plaintiffs appealed this week to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and we hope for freedom's sake they prevail.

Full article here