The Hill is reporting on a raft of new regulations the BATF is preparing to impose this fall. This is the same strategy as using executive action. Who needs a legislature when you have an unaccountable bureaucracy that will do your bidding for you?

 

Despite all the problems we have in NJ, we can't take our eye off the federal ball. Those of us preparing or planning to leave this state for others will not find refuge from federal constraints.

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/243520-administration-preps-new-gun-regulations

 

Notice also the 'domestic violence' card is also being played nationally. Anyone smell some coordination?

 

shocking.  -shit, why not take advantage of the so-called Republicans since they have no backbone to stick up for anything we voted them in for, such cowards!

Any actual content. That article has none.

Typical attempt at misinformation.

And, even if We the People prevail, it will be at what cost?

Our Government makes the actual list impossible to link too by making the address change everytime a new person looks at the list.  Wonder why?

 

But in you got here, and choose "Department of Justice" from the list, you can see the AFT Unified Agenda items.

I'm so glad the 10 Republicans voted to confirm Loretta Lynch so her department could follow through on this.

 

And I see that here they're going to reguire background checks, fingerprints etc. for 'responsible persons' in gun trusts, and not bypass the local LE approval for acquisition.

 

Lot's of good stuff there, eh?

I recently changed my party affiliation to "undeclared" and within a week I received a letter from the RNC wanting to confirm my party affiliation and of course donate money.   I was just about to add it to the recycling can when I started to get really pissed off at their arrogance so I sat down and wrote them a long letter about them confirming Loretta lynch and not stopping Obama. I'm so sick of these scumbag politicians using us for votes.

 

 

 

To whom it may concern at RNC

I have recently received your letter requesting confirmation on my voting status and I can confirm as your records indicate that on November 4, 2014 I was indeed registered as a Republican. At that time I voted Republican right down the line doing my part in an effort to defeat Obama and his unconstitutional practices, However since our sweeping victory this past November the GOP has forgotten what the definition of "victory" is and the recent actions by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner by allowing the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Obamas Attorney General and now Obama's trade agreement was the last straw. When we won in November WE WON tell me why we are acting as if we lost!

I have been a registered republican my entire life and have recently changed my affiliation to undeclared as a direct result of the actions and inactions of the current republican party.

In New Jersey we voted in a republican governor, Chris Christie, to try and change things around here and what did we get . Christie’s first major appointment was that of Attorney General of New Jersey and he appointed the radical left wing democrat Paula Dow. As I like to say “ Chris Christie, the liberal democrats best kept secret” with republicans like Christie why even have two parties. New Jersey still has the most unconstitutional gun laws in the nation and Christie hasn’t lifted a finger to correct that and thanks to his actions over the last 5 years NJ will never see a republican elected to any office in NJ for the foreseeable future.

My vote now will go to whoever I think is best for the U.S. and not to a party and the GOP can no longer take my vote for granted and you should know that these are the feelings of many of my friends and acquaintances.

If the GOP continues on it's current path we should all start preparing ourselves to hear "President Hillary Clinton" for the next eight years and you will only have yourself to blame!

Sincerely

I don't recommend that.  Here is why.  WE need a constitutional conservative.  The Republican Party leadership (Rove, Bush, Boehner, McConnell) will NEVER willingly let one win.  They would rather have a statist Democrat than that.  If you get rid of your party affiliation, you most likely cannot vote in the primaries for the MOST conservative candidate and then the Republican party leadership will surely choose the next candidate which will not help save our country.   You will ensure that a progressive statist wins. WE HAVE RUN a CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE.  The Republican talking heads would rather throw the election than usher in conservative policies.  The coming up primaries are crucial.   We should certainly show our displeasure to the RNC with letters, etc. and making donations to specific candidates we support, instead. 

I will not comply.

One thing I'd like to ask these 2016 candidates is what they plan to do about the Executive orders Obama issued. My understanding is they die when he leaves office. But these bureaucratic actions live on.

 

How is it the case that the EPA, BATFE, and other bureaucracies have free reign and the people are powerless to fight them?

 

Do we need to start a violent revolution to undo what the bureaucrats inflict on us? There seems to be few other options.

I'm so glad the 10 Republicans voted to confirm Loretta Lynch so her department could follow through on this.

 

And I see that here they're going to reguire background checks, fingerprints etc. for 'responsible persons' in gun trusts, and not bypass the local LE approval for acquisition.

 

Lot's of good stuff there, eh?

That was proposed over 2 years ago, and the public comment period ended December 2013. This is not news.

 

Of course, ever since, dumbasses on this forum have insisted it would do away with LEO signature when everybody else in the universe could actually read and knew what the proposed rule was. It's like people live in caves around here.

 

BTW, don't thank Obama. Thank the American Silencer Association (now "Suppressor"). Who thought it would be a good idea to go to the ATF and say, "Hey guys. We're all exploiting a loophole here. To put an end to this, why don't you just drop all those silly requirements we are avoiding?"

is there a list somewhere of all the gun control stuff he's done to us?

is there a list somewhere of all the gun control stuff he's done to us?

He required Mexican border states to report multiple purchases of rifles like other states do with handguns.

 

Hillary refused to allow import of lend lease rifles from Korea. I guess you can give that to Obama.

 

He proposed a keystone study contracted by the CDC to promote gun control. #1 on his list after the Sandy Hook murders. The study concluded guns are good LOL.

 

He banned import of arms from a Russian arms company that makes AKs as a sanction over Ukraine.

He required Mexican border states to report multiple purchases of rifles like other states do with handguns.i don't like it, but i get it.

 

Hillary refused to allow import of lend lease rifles from Korea. I guess you can give that to Obama.didn't bush actually do the eo for this one?

 

He proposed a keystone study contracted by the CDC to promote gun control. #1 on his list after the Sandy Hook murders. The study concluded guns are good LOL.well this one actually helped us i think.

 

He banned import of arms from a Russian arms company that makes AKs as a sanction over Ukraine.this one wasn't even aimed at us. the fact that it banned the imports was just an added bonus. but it wasn't done to prevent us from getting our ak's and saigas.

 so essentially, although he's tried like a mofo, he's not really hurt us that much. he is in fact, as i've said before, the #1 salesman of firearms and firearm accessories of all time, as every time he opens his mouth, people respond like pavlovian dogs, and run out buying everything on the shelves.

 

 well....that;'s one way he's hurt us. the demand has driven prices up.

 

 i fucking hate it when i hafta actually kinda defend a douchebag that i can't stand, and wouldn't remain in the same room with.

i fucking hate it when i hafta actually kinda defend a douchebag that i can't stand, and wouldn't remain in the same room with.

So he tried to stick it to you but failed and you feel the need to defend him?

 

Hillary of head of State Dept. under Obama stopped the import of those rifles. Not sure what Bush did or did not do, but she made the decision in this case (or Obama did).

So he tried to stick it to you but failed and you feel the need to defend him?

 

Hillary of head of State Dept. under Obama stopped the import of those rifles. Not sure what Bush did or did not do, but she made the decision in this case (or Obama did).

well, maybe i phrased it incorrectly. not so much defending, as correcting those that think he's put so much gun control on us?

 

 there was another thread i think in here somewhere about the m1's not coming back. i thought it was a bush thing, then there supposedly was something came up that they could've been again.....and these schmucks put the kabosh on it.

He required Mexican border states to report multiple purchases of rifles like other states do with handguns.

 

Hillary refused to allow import of lend lease rifles from Korea. I guess you can give that to Obama.

 

He proposed a keystone study contracted by the CDC to promote gun control. #1 on his list after the Sandy Hook murders. The study concluded guns are good LOL.

 

He banned import of arms from a Russian arms company that makes AKs as a sanction over Ukraine.

 

His appointed attorney general, Eric Holder, stonewalled a congressional subpoena for communications and documentation regarding the ATF-enabled smuggling of firearms from the U.S. into Mexico; one of those firearms was later used to kill a Border Patrol agent.  For his non-cooperation, Holder earned the distinction of being the first US Attorney General held in contempt of Congress.

 

His appointed attorney general, Eric Holder, stonewalled a congressional subpoena for communications and documentation regarding the ATF-enabled smuggling of firearms from the U.S. into Mexico; one of those firearms was later used to kill a Border Patrol agent.  For his non-cooperation, Holder earned the distinction of being the first US Attorney General held in contempt of Congress.

 

 

Not "gun control stuff he's done to us."

 

More attempted gun control and law breaking, sure.

   

 

Not "gun control stuff he's done to us."

 

More attempted gun control and law breaking, sure.

 

I count "failed attempts" as strongly as successes.

http://www.rsrgroup.com/dealer/clsdindnews.php

 

 

I don't recommend that.  Here is why.  WE need a constitutional conservative.  The Republican Party leadership (Rove, Bush, Boehner, McConnell) will NEVER willingly let one win.  They would rather have a statist Democrat than that.  If you get rid of your party affiliation, you most likely cannot vote in the primaries for the MOST conservative candidate and then the Republican party leadership will surely choose the next candidate which will not help save our country.   You will ensure that a progressive statist wins. WE HAVE RUN a CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE.  The Republican talking heads would rather throw the election than usher in conservative policies.  The coming up primaries are crucial.   We should certainly show our displeasure to the RNC with letters, etc. and making donations to specific candidates we support, instead.

 

Only reason I registered as a Republican here in FL. Unlike NJ, you have to declare a party before you can vote in a primary. At least in NJ you can be undeclared and vote in either primary, then switch back to undeclared.

Only reason I registered as a Republican here in FL. Unlike NJ, you have to declare a party before you can vote in a primary. At least in NJ you can be undeclared and vote in either primary, then switch back to undeclared.

I showed up to vote in a primary and was told I couldn't because I'm not a registered party member.

To be safe, it is better to register. 

I showed up to vote in a primary and was told I couldn't because I'm not a registered party member.

Either they didn't know what they were talking about or they lied to you Chris.

 

I was registered as undeclared for years. After voting in a primary, you would automatically be registered to the party whose primary you voted in, then you can file the form to switch back. 

 

Some states, like FL require you to be registered to a party, others, including NJ, don't. Unless they changed it in the last year.

 

If I were you, I'd go to the County Elections office and question them and tell them of your experience. They shouldn't have unknowledgeable nor corrupt people working the poles.

If  you are a registered voter and never declared a party affiliation then you can do it at a primary election and vote in the party you declared (Republican or Democrat only).  Once declared you stay with that party until you file a party affiliation form again changing your affiliation.  If you want to vote in a primary in a different party the form must be filed 55 days before the next primary.  Something to think about.  You could change to Democrat and vote in the 2016 Primary as a democrat for any Democrap but Hillary.  Then change again.  Of course that means keeping Hillary off the ballot is more important than who the Republican candidate is.  That maybe the only way to keep Hillary out of the White House.

Our Government makes the actual list impossible to link too by making the address change everytime a new person looks at the list.  Wonder why?

 

But in you got here, and choose "Department of Justice" from the list, you can see the AFT Unified Agenda items.

 

Appreciate your attempt, but have and numbers to look for, I'm pretty far in and seeing nothing BATFE related. 

 

OK, I take it back. I was having some rendering issues. 

Our Government makes the actual list impossible to link too by making the address change everytime a new person looks at the list.  Wonder why?

 

But in you got here, and choose "Department of Justice" from the list, you can see the AFT Unified Agenda items.

 

 

All the stuff is linkable once you get below that menu. There's no reason the concerned lobbying entities could not publish meaningful info, and plowing through it, I'm not finding much to be concerned about. There's stuff about standardizing a location to serialize silencers, Some stuff that appears to actually expand the exepmtions that can be given to blanket disqualifications for ownership of non immigrant aliens and parolees. There's one regarding domestic violence stuff, but as far as I can tell it doesn't put down in the regs anything that isn't in the statute as passed by the legislature. There's a switch form specifically to specially in the verbiage of 922 regs, but that doesn't look like it would be meaningful to anything. There's a change to the definition of a pistol in one document, but that appears to simply move the verbiage form an amendment to the document into the definition proper. There's a number of explosives reg changes that don't seem to be RKBA issues. A change to the definition of the DV disqualification that doesn't look like it really alters the practical upshot much. One requiring that you actively affirm your state of residence on the 4473, big whoop. Something regarding cigarettes. One on loss or theft in transit that clarifies that the existing reporting requirements for theft out of inventory apply to the sender and not the recipient while it is in transit. One on changing the banned import list, which seems to actually ADD things to the unregulated list. 

 

Ones that look like they might be of concern are 

===================

RIN 1140-AA43

 

http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA43

 

This means even if you go the trust route for an NFA,and  you don't need CLEO approval per se, you do need new idntifying docs, and the CLEO have to sign off on them as legit and the reported use as lawful in their jurisdiction. So.... possible peril of CLEO not signing off on trust paperwork? It's not clear what recourse if any exists to that. 

=======================

RIN 1140-AA47

 

http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA47

 

This appears to add military courts as one of the entities that can legally declare you mentally defective. It's unclear if being declared so by a military  court under military law can be undone by the prescribed method of having one's rights restored by a court or being declared mentally fit to stand trial. Can a civilian court undo the military court ruling? Dunno. 

========================

RIN 1140-AA10

 

http://reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA10

 

This one talks about safe storage and availablity of secure storage or safety devices being available at any place where FFLs sell to non licensed individuals. Looking at the linked docs, I find nothing in reference to this, and the summary lacks any details. So I'd flag this as dangerous as it could be used to harass or shut down smaller FFLs without the capital to require required inventory, or facilities for storing and or presenting such since there's no documentation of what they are. It also hasn't had a comment period. So.... biggest red flag. 

 

 

Even so, I find it questionable that nobody is citing specifics. 

If  you are a registered voter and never declared a party affiliation then you can do it at a primary election and vote in the party you declared (Republican or Democrat only).  Once declared you stay with that party until you file a party affiliation form again changing your affiliation.  If you want to vote in a primary in a different party the form must be filed 55 days before the next primary.  Something to think about.  You could change to Democrat and vote in the 2016 Primary as a democrat for any Democrap but Hillary.  Then change again.  Of course that means keeping Hillary off the ballot is more important than who the Republican candidate is.  That maybe the only way to keep Hillary out of the White House.

 

I completely agree with this logic. 

Hopefully the spineless Republicans stick to their guns on this instead of folding like a cheap suit.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/03/gop-reps-to-block-dojs-backdoor-gun-control/