Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What do you classify as a bureacrat? Your ISP has office staff who know your email address.

If you don't trust them, is there someone you might trust to create and enforce laws against misuse of your contact details?

AustonT wrote:or restrict the ownership of weapons my spider sense is in overdrive.

Has the latter actually happened in any actual, discernible way?

That's not a trick question, it's an honest one. The only movement that I'm aware of over the last 3 years by the Obama administration was to walk back his support of re-implementing the lapsed Federal Assault Assault Weapon Ban.

Registration requirements for more than one firearm purchase within several hundred miles of the border (I don't really care)

For a period of time before the NRA threatened to start suing, people here were being visited if they bought certain names of firearms by the local ATF jackboots. This was scary as falls right into the more paronoid beliefs of government as potential oppressor that floats in some of the more militant areas.

Laws were being floated to put taxes on a per bullet basis or track bullets per bullet. This one is a very big deal as it effectively stomps on the actual use of firearms by law abiding citizens for completely "harmless" purposes (target shooting and sports gaming).

Other laws being floated would have required each firearm be shot once with the bullet going to central database. This is already in place in California (I believe)

Birthers are those people who are still deluded that Obama wasn't born in the US.

Politicians have gotten in to trouble over their beliefs on this, because most sane people know it's a stupid ploy to attack Obama which has long since been disproven, not a serious issue.

Self-deluded might be a better way to describe their state of mind.

Frazzled wrote:Registration requirements for more than one firearm purchase within several hundred miles of the border (I don't really care)

For a period of time before the NRA threatened to start suing, people here were being visited if they bought certain names of firearms by the local ATF jackboots. This was scary as falls right into the more paronoid beliefs of government as potential oppressor that floats in some of the more militant areas.

Dealer-end reporting rules were indeed changed in 2009, so you're right; I was not aware of the new reporting requirements. Certainly they fit the definition of "pushed by the Obama administration", so well done.

So far as the scary ATF visits, I'm sure this would have been a really big story that the NRA would have gotten out there in a big way. I can't find any evidence this actually happened. The only source for the home visits from the ATF angle of it was a single article on Infowars, and it's an anonymously sourced story, at that. I don't feel I can give it very much credence. But maybe there is more I missed?

Frazzled wrote:Laws were being floated to put taxes on a per bullet basis or track bullets per bullet. This one is a very big deal as it effectively stomps on the actual use of firearms by law abiding citizens for completely "harmless" purposes (target shooting and sports gaming).

This is true, b-b-b-ut. This proposed legislation you are described was actually proposed in 2007-2008, and never got any traction, anywhere, largely because it was proposed and shopped around by a group who also had the technology to sell to implement it. It's Ovaltine trying to get laws passed to get people to drink more ovaltine. Putting all that to the side, this is not federal legislation.

Frazzled wrote:Other laws being floated would have required each firearm be shot once with the bullet going to central database. This is already in place in California (I believe)

I can't find any references to this legislation, although California did introduce some new firearms restrictions in 2009, under a Republican administration. They also have proposed, but never passed, a law in California to add serial numbers to bullets and casings, but again, that's not federal.

With the exception of the reporting rules change (which really affects dealers, not end-users - right?) have there been any efforts to restrict gun rights by the Obama administration? Granted, since Frazzled found at least one example, I'm guilty of the worst sort of goalpost moving, but I'm genuinely curious what's true and what's fever swamp.

Dealer-end reporting rules were indeed changed in 2009, so you're right; I was not aware of the new reporting requirements. Certainly they fit the definition of "pushed by the Obama administration", so well done.

***Its not a bother to me personally, actually, but it coincided with Gunrunner and the nonsense about the majority of weapons in Mexico being from legal US sales.

So far as the scary ATF visits, I'm sure this would have been a really big story that the NRA would have gotten out there in a big way.

***They did. You’re on the wrong message boards. This was a local border state phenomenon. I know a person they tried to “interview.” A father of two and retiree who happened to buy two of “guns on the list” one for him and one as a present for his son to shoot.

This is true, b-b-b-ut. This proposed legislation you are described was actually proposed in 2007-2008, and never got any traction, anywhere, largely because it was proposed and shopped around by a group who also had the technology to sell to implement it. It's Ovaltine trying to get laws passed to get people to drink more ovaltine. Putting all that to the side, this is not federal legislation.

**Actually there were multiple forms of potential legislation being floating by representatives from the usual suspects. Some of them would have effectively banned bullet sales due to the charges to be implemented. Some were for tagging, some were just fees per bullet, some were both.

I can't find any references to this legislation, although California did introduce some new firearms restrictions in 2009, under a Republican administration.

***Its my understanding its law. Browning now complies with such regulation and in states where its no required they include the spent cartridge in the box. That was a scratch my head moment when I opened the box two weeks ago…
Again, I’m not nearly as concerned on this one.

Frazzled wrote:***They did. You’re on the wrong message boards. This was a local border state phenomenon. I know a person they tried to “interview.” A father of two and retiree who happened to buy two of “guns on the list” one for him and one as a present for his son to shoot.

Frazzled, you know anecdotal evidence doesn't count on the interwebz.

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:***They did. You’re on the wrong message boards. This was a local border state phenomenon. I know a person they tried to “interview.” A father of two and retiree who happened to buy two of “guns on the list” one for him and one as a present for his son to shoot.

Frazzled, you know anecdotal evidence doesn't count on the interwebz.

WHAT PART OF A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE HAD THIS HAPPEN TO THEM THAT YOU DO NOT GET????

Kilkrazy wrote:What do you classify as a bureacrat? Your ISP has office staff who know your email address.

If you don't trust them, is there someone you might trust to create and enforce laws against misuse of your contact details?

I tend to qualify Bureacrats as those that work in the government, especially in regulatory agencies. I may have mislead you, I don't particularly trust ANYONE. But I like to put my faith in the IDEA that my elected representative is capable of protecting me...from him...its a catch 22 that makes my head hurt. BUt regulatory bodies like the FCC that make unilateral policy decisions independant of legislation bother me (although often they are at least challenged in the Judicial), or the ATF sending letters to MT firearms dealers after passing the Firearms Freedom Act, effectively overriding the legitimate state law. DEA raids on marijuana dispensaries that are legal in CA...Im not being 100% coherent but I hope you catch my drift.

Ouze wrote:

AustonT wrote:or restrict the ownership of weapons my spider sense is in overdrive.

Has the latter actually happened in any actual, discernible way?

That's not a trick question, it's an honest one. The only movement that I'm aware of over the last 3 years by the Obama administration was to walk back his support of re-implementing the lapsed Federal Assault Assault Weapon Ban.

this is a good start. The assault weapons ban was never legal in the first place.
Chicago, DC, and New York's exclusionary "restrictions", now overturned by Heller, but I've heard little about actual loosening of restrictions in those cities. California's ridiculous requirements, to LEGALLY go to a skeet competition in CA I have to mail my gun from a dealer, through CA-DOJ, and to a CA dealer and transfer it to myself...none of which is free.
Need I go on?

Frazzled wrote:Registration requirements for more than one firearm purchase within several hundred miles of the border (I don't really care)

I DO!

Ouze wrote:

For a period of time before the NRA threatened to start suing, people here were being visited if they bought certain names of firearms by the local ATF jackboots. This was scary as falls right into the more paronoid beliefs of government as potential oppressor that floats in some of the more militant areas.

Dealer-end reporting rules were indeed changed in 2009, so you're right; I was not aware of the new reporting requirements. Certainly they fit the definition of "pushed by the Obama administration", so well done.

So far as the scary ATF visits, I'm sure this would have been a really big story that the NRA would have gotten out there in a big way. I can't find any evidence this actually happened. The only source for the home visits from the ATF angle of it was a single article on Infowars, and it's an anonymously sourced story, at that. I don't feel I can give it very much credence. But maybe there is more I missed?

Those policies were really driven by the ATF management already in place, and dealer end reporting is generally what leads to those ATF visits. They are not as dramatic as jackbooted thugs breaking down your door and threatening you. I've had three visits by my local ATF field office, the guys who have come over have been polite to the point of apologetic. They had a list of fire arms they wanted to see, saw them or bills of sale in their place, bullshitted for about a half hour or left...if they raided my house likely id be too dead to object so...

Frazzled wrote:Laws were being floated to put taxes on a per bullet basis or track bullets per bullet. This one is a very big deal as it effectively stomps on the actual use of firearms by law abiding citizens for completely "harmless" purposes (target shooting and sports gaming).

That was always a pipe dream that would have been murdered by even the most activist SCOTUS.

Frazzled wrote:Other laws being floated would have required each firearm be shot once with the bullet going to central database. This is already in place in California (I believe)

Already federal for all new handguns to the best of my knowledge, I'm actually pretty OK with that one ( suprsingly) as it's not restrictive but increases the chance for enforcement or at least a trail of custody to follow.

With the exception of the reporting rules change (which really affects dealers, not end-users - right?) have there been any efforts to restrict gun rights by the Obama administration? Granted, since Frazzled found at least one example, I'm guilty of the worst sort of goalpost moving, but I'm genuinely curious what's true and what's fever swamp.

Like above, where do you thing those reports go? most people won't get past a simple paper investigation, a much smaller number are personally inspected, I'm pretty sure some are at random.

I'm not particularly nonplussed by several of those. I was nonplussed by the per bullet stuff, and the "hey lets go interrogate Joe Schmo who bought two AR-15s" for no particular reason.

There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Harassing and/or scaring the of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Yes, the same Agency charged with overseeing the publics safety in regards to fire arms took an active role in putting them into the hands of narco-terrorists, then "reacted" to the situation THEY created. /golfclap.
It's been one year, Holder is still in office and no one is in prison. WTF.



Sorry. Sore spot.

AustonT wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Yes, the same Agency charged with overseeing the publics safety in regards to fire arms took an active role in putting them into the hands of narco-terrorists, then "reacted" to the situation THEY created. /golfclap.
It's been one year, Holder is still in office and no one is in prison. WTF.



Sorry. Sore spot.

Agreed. People are dead, lots of people, and nothing has occurred. One could argue this whole thing constitutes and act of war against Mexico.

Brain Terry came from the right area to be a distant relative (who keeps track past 2nd cousins...other than the Royal Family). When I first heard it I missed the B and though it WAS one of my cousins. So it's been yet another case I follow with great interest.

AustonT wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Yes, the same Agency charged with overseeing the publics safety in regards to fire arms took an active role in putting them into the hands of narco-terrorists, then "reacted" to the situation THEY created. /golfclap.
It's been one year, Holder is still in office and no one is in prison. WTF.



Sorry. Sore spot.

I understand, and I'd like to point out I never defended the ATF in general and Holder in particular. I don't think the ATF should even exist: there is no aspect of their job that doesn't really already belong to the FBI. I also have no special love for Holder, who has been mediocre in most respects since taking office.

That was just aimed into space Ouze not you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although between Holder and Obama niether one of them should continue pursuing careers in law. I'm Actually happy Obama is President, it makes it unlikely he'll ever teach law again.

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Harassing and/or scaring the of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.

It does when you think their liberal or dislike their cause. You've shown that one time and time again.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Harassing and/or scaring the of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.

It does when you think their liberal or dislike their cause. You've shown that one time and time again.

Indeed, Frazzled, if I remember correctly, was perfectly fine with brutalizing or even killing OWS protesters.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Harassing and/or scaring the of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.

It does when you think their liberal or dislike their cause. You've shown that one time and time again.

Indeed, Frazzled, if I remember correctly, was perfectly fine with brutalizing or even killing OWS protesters.

yea but they're not real people.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Harassing and/or scaring the of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.

It does when you think their liberal or dislike their cause. You've shown that one time and time again.

Indeed, Frazzled, if I remember correctly, was perfectly fine with brutalizing or even killing OWS protesters.

yea but they're not real people.

Neither are gun owners.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Harassing and/or scaring the of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.

It does when you think their liberal or dislike their cause. You've shown that one time and time again.

Indeed, Frazzled, if I remember correctly, was perfectly fine with brutalizing or even killing OWS protesters.

yea but they're not real people.

Neither are gun owners.

You're right. We're supernormal manly Men of Manliness!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it

Harassing and/or scaring the of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.

It does when you think their liberal or dislike their cause. You've shown that one time and time again.

Indeed, Frazzled, if I remember correctly, was perfectly fine with brutalizing or even killing OWS protesters.

yea but they're not real people.

Neither are gun owners.

I feel like you missed the "Might makes right״ class.

Indeed, Frazzled, if I remember correctly, was perfectly fine with brutalizing or even killing OWS protesters.

when did we start killing protesters or brutalizing them?

Besides Holdr was grilled over the ATF trying to forward the long gon policy. In fact the Senators were using how the weapon sellers were coerce into it and the fact there's still quite a bit of weapons missing. Like 371 weapons recovered

I still have no idea what you two are going on about.

Just Frazz embarrassing a tin foil liberal nut case. I could even pass the popcorn, it´s a fun read.

buttered white chedder popcorn? If so....Frazzy weiners are getting some treats! Then he has to deal with their addiction afterwards

Pyriel- wrote:

I still have no idea what you two are going on about.

Just Frazz embarrassing a tin foil liberal nut case. I could even pass the popcorn, it´s a fun read.

wo wo whats wrong with tinfoil???



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:buttered white chedder popcorn? If so....Frazzy weiners are getting some treats! Then he has to deal with their addiction afterwards

You've not lived until you've had a wiener dog literally take a swan dive into your bowl of popcorn that you just sat down with ...

Frazz...wtf...