Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possibility that it actually may be kosher for me to order 5,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and upon taking delivery, "give" them to a charitable organization which will distribute them as they see fit in accordance with their charitable purposes, to whomever they may choose, according to a random, anonymous list of numbered donees.
Click to expand...

I think there are many vaguaries in the laws and ATF regulations regarding firearm sales such as this. I think a lot of it does involve intent. I suspect you would get a visit from the ATF if you did the 5000 Kalashnikov rifle gift, but I doubt you would get a visit for 1 rifle.

But who knows what the trigger point is? I doubt even ATF agents would agree. C&R holders can buy 5 surplus rifles, pick the best, sell the rest (even at a profit) and still be within the ATF guidlines. But could you do it with 100? At some vague point the ATF will come looking for you.
 
Duke,

How about some of the quality enhancement going to the other side? You know, those folks who answer their 4473 truthfully, but for some reason or another the voice on the phone says denied.

How about some stimulus money going towards improving the NICS appeal process. That would create jobs for FBI contract workers!

Oh wait. . . dealing with the anti-2A crowd in D.C. nevermind. . . .


JDD
 
Last edited:
Pelosi Used an NRA Talking Point...

...Pelosi doesn't want to do guns right now, so she threw back what is essentially an NRA/Gun Lobby talking point. This is language that the NRA and other gun rights lobbyists and pols use all the time (enforce the laws we have).

You may not like her or trust her, but she knows what words to use. I'm surprised no one else caught this.
 
pelosi

I am sorry time won't allow me to read all of the posts and if this has been stated, I appoligize. Nancy Pelosi has an ego unmatched by anyone else in Washington and I believe this is her bloated ego showing. She resents that she hasn't been consulted about this, as she considers herself the most powerful person in the government. She has shown this in the time that Obama has been in office. This is a power struggle between her and Obama and ironically the pro gun people may come out ahead. Also Pelosi is aware that there if a power struggle going on in Orange County, California which is showing that the antigun movement in her home state may not be as strong as she thought. Just my .02 worth( or maybe the way things are I should raise that to .04 lol) stay safe
 
Lone Gunman: "Duke, I guess I am getting in on this late ..."

Kinda, but all that means is your week was busier than mine.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possibility that it actually may be kosher for me to order 5,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and upon taking delivery, "give" them to a charitable organization which will distribute them as they see fit in accordance with their charitable purposes, to whomever they may choose, according to a random, anonymous list of numbered donees.

Creepy, huh?
Click to expand...

Nope, that's as it should be.

Freedom's kinda risky, but it's better than the alternative.

Creepy is trusting the government for your safety and to do the right thing.

If you've got the money for that many Kalshnikovs, don't gift them to a charitable organization. Adopt me and let me have them. I'll try and wear them all out. :D

As for Pelosi? Meh, it's just political expediency. Clearly, SHE wants to be the one with a big hand in introducing a new AWB. I think she's tired of all of the focus that Obama and his admin are getting. She's as anti-gun and freedom as she always was.
 
Harry Reid turned against Holder, also saying 'I voted against it in 1994, I voted against reinstating it in 2004, and I'll vote against it every time it's proposed.'


Believe them or not, it's certainly a sign of weakness. A sign that they fear gun owners as voters.

The NRA, GOA, etc. ALL need to go for the jugular now.
 
JN01:Over your head. The ORIGINAL PURCHASE of 5000 rifles would be a MULTIPLE SALE which the dealer would be obligated to report to the ATF. The rest is admittedly conjecture on my part, but I would find it hard to believe that if ATF was informed of the purchase of a large quantity of weapons by someone who is not a firearms dealer, that they would not make inquiries about the transaction and subsequent gift, even if there was no LEGAL requirement to do so at the time of the sale.
Click to expand...

I don't believe so........as far as I know, the multiple purchase report is for HANDGUNS only.........but 5000 rifles would require a LOT of 4473s and NICS checks as, last time I checked, you can only list 3 firearms on one 4473............

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but please include documentation to back up the correction.........
 
LOT of 4473s and NICS checks as, last time I checked, you can only list 3 firearms on one 4473............
Click to expand...

I don't have the documentation to post (you can look at any 4473 and it will tell you), but currently there 5 spaces on each 4473, and additional firearms may be listed on a separate sheet of paper and attached to the 4473. It says so in the Instructions for Section D. Guys fighting in Iraq often send a bunch of guns my way and pick them all up at once when they get back into the states. I think the record here so far is 14 guns on one 4473.

You could, in theory, sell 5,000 guns on one 4473 and one background check. Most dealers would probably deny the sale for other reasons, but as far as the 4473 goes it would only take one form.
 
Pelosi may be a twit but she's smart enough to know that with an election coming up taking up gun control is political suicide. There are enough rural and Southern Democrats whose vote she knows that she won't get because their constituents will turn on them in a heartbeat, especially with elections next year. Obama can make all of the noise that he wants because he has no way of implementing an AWB. He'll claim that he did all that he could, but the bottom line is that his efforts during his first term will be limited to a lot of rhetoric, his speciality. Look for him to take up the effort in earnest during his second term when he is a lame duck with nothing to lose and will be willing to throw fellow Democrats under the bus for his legacy. Implementing an AWB could very well cost him a second term. Taking away guns at a time when the government is, to a degree, nationalizing large parts of our economy, is not going to fly. Right now he needs his political capital to push more urgent agendas upon which his polital future and viability are dependant. For now he is a lapdog for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, both of whom are savvy enough to know that this is not the time for an AWB. Congress is too busy covering their own behinds to take up a political hot potato like an AWB.

Further, while Heller isn't the strong statement that many American believe it to be, and only deals with the issue indirectly, it is strong enough that most Americans believe it to be the law of the land and an absolute ban will be seen as contrary to that holding. Heller is not dispositive of the issue, but it makes absolute bans, or laws that amount to constructive bans, very problematic. You will note that an amendment to the DC Voting bill overturning the DC gun bans (which have continued) passed.

That's not to say that gun control effort will cease. We will probably see a stepping up of backdoor efforts such as taxing ammo and micro-stamping. We'll have to be more vigilent than ever as these stealth laws get boot-strapped onto voluminous legislation, or are dictated administratively through BATFE interpretation and enforcement. It's here that my only concern for Obama using Executive Order lies.

Of course, politicians are opportunistic creatures, so one miscreant at a mall with an AK could give them the window of opportunity, and the temporary knee-jerk shift in public opinion, necessary to re-impose the ban. A little blood on the sidewalk will have the vultures circling. Barring that, you will see no AWB enacted before the 2012 election. Even HB 45 languises without even a co-sponsor, sponsored by a liberal southside of Chicago Democrat.

Just my take on it all.
 
Lone Gunman: "I suspect you would get a visit from the ATF if you did the 5000 Kalashnikov rifle gift, but I doubt you would get a visit for 1 rifle."

UPDATE

Gifts are legal -- as I suspected. But as I did NOT suspect, purchases for the express purpose of gifting officially aren't considered suspicious at all.

In the immortal words of Vizini?

"Inconceivable!"

Forget criminal defense law; I've found a whole new calling.
 
Thanks for the update Waterhouse, it has been awhile since I did a multiple purchase and, at that time, my dealer said 3 per 4473 was the maximum.......they have probably changed the 4473 half a dozen times since then!
 
Pelosi may be a twit but she's smart enough to know that with an election coming up taking up gun control is political suicide.
Click to expand...

Bingo, someone on Arfcom said it is because she loves power. So at this point I will give her kudos for going against it,
 
They've already PO-ed over half the country with TRILLIONS in new spending.

If they survive 2010---LOOK OUT---a new ban will coming faster than you can blink an eye.
 
I hope no one is even thinking of buying the notion that Pelosi, Reid, or any other in the majority leadership or the admin. is a gun lover.
Rom Emanuels quote is certainly worth remembering as it will likely prove out.
Americans are arming themselves at unpresidented numbers. I have talked to some who were dancing in the streets when BHO was elected and they are stockpiling. Do not doubt the resolve of these anti's.
 
Anyone else want to make a tax-deductible contribution to the Society for Relief by Kalashnikov of All that Ails Kids in Sochi?
 
Quote:
Pelosi may be a twit but she's smart enough to know that with an election coming up taking up gun control is political suicide.

Bingo, someone on Arfcom said it is because she loves power. So at this point I will give her kudos for going against it,
Click to expand...

Exactly. Politicans may be idealogues, but protecting their own skin and covering their own behinds comes first. None of them are going to fall on their sword for just one plank in their platform. Yeah, they want the AWB back so bad that they can taste it, but like them you need to look at the big picture to understand the viability of doing so.

Yeah, considering that anything can happen we have been wise in stocking up with arms and ammo, and it's been a good bit of business for arms manufacturers, who we support, but as of right now the panic has been just that. At the very least we have acquired some great weapons and new shooters have entered our number in droves.

BTW, the biggest joke of all of this is Holder's justification in violating our 2nd Amendment rights based upon keeping arms out of the hands of Mexican criminals. What a complete and utter fool. Who does he think that will play well to? Bloody amateur.
 
Today its politicaly astute to rebut Holder for his statement but tommorow in the wake of some national tragedy the tide my change. The point is don't put your fate in the hands of one who chooses their ideology by the way the political wind blows.
 
Duke of Doubt:
"As an attorney, I imagine those scenarios by habit, but in reality they would be rare and quiet, if they happen at all. My conversations on these matters have been with federal and state lawyers and judges, who are used to thinking and talking that way. Most here read the straw purchase regs and imagine the wholesome picture of Little Johnnie getting a .22 Cricket for his birthday. I read them and imagine organized crime driving truckloads of gift-wrapped AKs to Kansas City."
Click to expand...

It seems to me that your type of "imagining" pretty well defines the reason for ALL of the flap about gun ownership in this country. It's what the gun haters imagine, what the media imagines, what the legislators imagine, and now what the administration imagines.

But it just ain't true. The 4473 and the regulations which generate that form and it's questions are very clear and on point. "Are you the actual PURCHASER of the firearm" Answer: YES. If the actual purchaser, who entreated you to proceed using HIS or HER money to buy such and such firearm is waiting around the corner for you to deliver his/her firearm after you leave the store with it then you just commited a straw purchase.

That's all there is to that crime.

But oh how that simple question can be construed by a willfull fairy tale teller or by a paranoic sky is falling expectant! Why, that person sees loopholes at gunshows and automatic weapons and hand grenades being sold over the counter to Mexican nationals to take home.

Duke of Doubt, why do you want to give them ideas that they can claim as fact because they saw a lawyer write it down? You're feeding the beast with your fallacy.
 
krs: "It seems to me that your type of "imagining" pretty well defines the reason for ALL of the flap about gun ownership in this country. It's what the gun haters imagine, what the media imagines, what the legislators imagine, and now what the administration imagines."

My limited powers of imagination do not encompass such flaps.

krs: But oh how that simple question can be construed by a willfull fairy tale teller or by a paranoic sky is falling expectant! Why, that person sees loopholes at gunshows and automatic weapons and hand grenades being sold over the counter to Mexican nationals to take home."

Now listen; I'm a bigger gun nut than you could ever hope possibly imagine to crap. Still, the last thing I'm talking about here is Mexican hand grenades. Makes me want to invent a drink.

krs: "Duke of Doubt, why do you want to give them ideas that they can claim as fact because they saw a lawyer write it down? You're feeding the beast with your fallacy."

All I do these days is keep racketeers out of prison. What you all do with them afterwards is your own business.
 
I'm not sure how a discussion of Pelosi's comments about an AWB turned into a multipage discussion on straw purchases, but perhaps we could focus on the original topic?
 
but perhaps we could focus on the original topic?
Click to expand...

At this point there doesn't actually appear to be one.

Holder ran his mouth off and Pelosi spanked him for it.

No new legislation is pending. All this did was confirm what many have suspected all along about Holder and possibly his boss.

Personally I think it's over for now, always keeping an eye out for more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3
  • Locked
Nancy Pelosi Throws COLD WATER on AWB Renewal
Replies
2
Views
777
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
H
  • Locked
I'm floored. Just flippin' floored....
Replies
2
Views
630
Justin
Justin
R
  • Locked
Now Harry Reid!
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
W.E.G.
  • Locked
Contact your Representative - assault weapons ban
Replies
0
Views
390
W.E.G.
W.E.G.
M
  • Locked
Air Pelosi
Replies
19
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top