The only rationale for this is to make so much stuff illegal that when they want you all they have to do is search and can find anything or something illegal.
ATF classifies Chore Boy pot scrubber pads NFA firearms
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearms Technology Branch has deemed “Chore Boy copper cleaning pads, along with fiberglass insulation,” a firearm, subject to registration and a $200 transfer tax, an official letter obtained recently by Gun Rights Examiner reveals. The response to an attorney inquiry by John R. Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch, offers one of the more creatively restrictive assessments since ATF declared a shoestring to be a machinegun.
The rationale Spencer uses:
A silencer is a firearm per U.S. Code, subject to National Firearms Act registration and transfer tax requirements.
“[S]ound/gas absorbing materials manufactured from Chore Boy copper cleaning pads, along with fiberglass insulation, constitute a silencer…”
Therefore, it is illegal for an individual to replace deteriorated material within an already- registered suppressor without an approved ATF Form 1, ‘Application to Make and Register a Firearm,’” along with a “$200.00 making tax” and “a ‘no-marking’ variance…since there is no viable area in which to apply a serial number to the sound-absorbing material.”
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/atf-classifies-chore-boy-pot-scrubber-pads-nfa-firearms
Editorial: Gun reciprocity shoots holes in states' rights
This seems perfectly logical. But to the National Rifle Association, these differing state regulations represent a "nightmare" for interstate travelers. And thanks to the gun lobby's political clout, the House is poised to vote today on a dangerous measure that would require all states to accept each other's carry permits, no questions asked.
If the NRA gets its way, states with stricter laws would have to bow to those with the loosest regulations, even if a visitor didn't meet the stricter state's minimum requirements for age, history of mental illness, criminal record, training and so on. For example, Nevada and New Mexico— which have quit honoring carry permits from Utah, where concealed carry permits are relatively easy to get, even by mail order — would be forced to start accepting Utah permits.
So much for states' rights.
Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff.
Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.
The irony here is that politicians who usually howl about the arrogance of one-size-fits-all federal laws are abandoning those principles just because the subject is guns. Imagine the same law, but instead of guns, every state would have to honor any other state's law on same-sex marriage. A gay marriage in Massachusetts would have to be recognized in Arizona. Think the Republican-led House would be clamoring to put that bill on the floor?
Backers of the reciprocity measure liken carry permits to driver's licenses, which are honored nationwide no matter where they're issued. But unlike the right to own a gun or carry it concealed, driving is regulated in relatively uniform fashion. Drivers have to pass written exams and road tests and abide by traffic laws. A driver's license can be suspended or revoked by authorities for bad behavior. Something tells us that supporters of this bill wouldn't want the same strict regulations and frequent police supervision for gun owners.
Proponents of concealed carry reciprocity also like to cite the Supreme Court decision that overturned Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership, claiming the court also asserted a right to carry weapons. Actually, the court said almost exactly the opposite. Backers of the reciprocity measure should read the opinion: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment."
The court likewise upheld the right of state and local governments to set reasonable restrictions on guns that do not undo the basic right to own a weapon, and that's precisely what's at stake here. It would be a dramatic overreach for Congress to strip states of their authority to set those reasonable rules.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-11-14/concealed-carry-reciprocity-states/51204146/1?loc=interstitialskip
No comments:
Post a Comment