Dianne Black's FIREARM legislation

[Just2Honor]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/23/why-am-reintroducing-firearm-act-no-citizen-should-have-play-20-questions-to/?intcmp=ob_homepage_opinion&intcmp=obnetwork

[jbrownch]

Nice post "RoadKill"... Good to know there are still some people in government that support us. Kind of a newbie to Tennessee, retired and moved here a couple of years ago. So, in your opinion, what the best way for us to help this lady out in her crusade?

[btq96r]

This one is a tad interesting.  I doubt it goes through the process as a stand-alone bill, but it can be merged into any BAFTE related legislation easy enough.  Whether or not Republican leadership will push it forward is a different question. 

 

I'm hoping the regulatory stuff can be rolled back in bits and pieces with ideas like Rep. Black has.  The President needs a budget passed, and Congress can attach checks to executive authority and agency overreach on "smaller items" such as this without giving the President an issue worth vetoing a budget he can live with otherwise. 

[Oh Shoot]

This one is a tad interesting.  I doubt it goes through the process as a stand-alone bill, but it can be merged into any BAFTE related legislation easy enough.  Whether or not Republican leadership will push it forward is a different question. 

 

I'm hoping the regulatory stuff can be rolled back in bits and pieces with ideas like Rep. Black has.  The President needs a budget passed, and Congress can attach checks to executive authority and agency overreach on "smaller items" such as this without giving the President an issue worth vetoing a budget he can live with otherwise. 

 

Yeah, the de facto claim of a database of any kind connected to the 4473 is the interesting part.

 

But further, ATF has made up rules for it that aren't in Brady Law or anywhere else. They whole "are you the actual buyer" field is based on ATF whim of definition, like so many other rulings they've made.

 

Hence the guy who got hammered for "lying" on the form. Two people who passed background checks through FFLs, yet one gets a felony because he was given the money upfront, while the same series of events would have been legal if he had simply taken the money after the fact. Ridiculous. As per federal law, a subsequent transaction is only illegal if you know or have reason to believe the tranferee is a prohibited person.

 

- OS

[btq96r]

But further, ATF has made up rules for it that aren't in Brady Law or anywhere else. They whole "are you the actual buyer" field is based on ATF whim of definition, like so many other rulings they've made.

 

Things like that are the inherent danger when an agency with a wide ranging mandate like ATF is stood up.  Since power is never relinquished, only compounded, it adds up fast.  I really think there is a chance with a Republican Congress to knock some of the power they took, by putting clarifications or definitions into the USC and CFR here and there, tucking it into legislation the President has to have. 

[K191145]

Things like that are the inherent danger when an agency with a wide ranging mandate like ATF is stood up.  Since power is never relinquished, only compounded, it adds up fast.  I really think there is a chance with a Republican Congress to knock some of the power they took, by putting clarifications or definitions into the USC and CFR here and there, tucking it into legislation the President has to have. 

 

Congress should have the power to reject or approve any decisions the ATF or really any other "FEDERAL" agency makes, not just the POTUS. As far as taking away some power, after living through this administration I would like to see some authority taken away from the President.