Is the ATF Working to Expand the Border State Multiple Rifle Reporting Requirement?


Remember the border state long gun registry? That was the shiny fig leaf the Obama administration slapped over the at-the-time worsening Fast and Furious controversy that required the reporting and de facto registration of purchases of multiple long guns in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. When put in place, the administration said it was just temporary, an emergency measure to combat the “iron river of guns” flowing south to arm Mexico’s drug cartels, fueling murder and mayhem. Somehow, though, they left out the fact that the Justice Department itself was generating most of that effluence, but the fierce moral urgency to take action took precedence. Still, it was only for 180 days, so no biggie. Except now, two years later, based on a David Codrea report, it looks like the ATF may want to take the program national . . .

And to the surprise of virtually no one in an election year, the ATF has kept the process very much on the down low:

Titled “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles,” and assigned OMB Number 1140–0100, the 60-day notice abstract declares “The purpose of this information collection is to require Federal Firearms Licensees to report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (a) Semi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

“Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 16, 2014,” the notice advises. That means much of the comment period has already passed with most unaware it ever began. And the ATF website offers no additional information other than links to the notice and to various forms.

Somehow the ATF neglected to even crank out a press release about the public comment period. Probably just a bureaucratic oversight.

“It looks to me as if they are planning a new rule, haven’t proposed it yet, but are trying to get advance clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (which you have to comply with separate from the proposed rule,” another adviser speculated to explain the absence. “The agency predicts how many hours it will take to fill out each new form, and OMB gives its approval.”

So the idea now seems to be to shove the rest of the camel under the tent and spread the success that is the border state long gun registration program to the rest of the 57 states. Not that anyone in the mainstream media will raise so much as a peep at the administrative overreach. Why would they, since it so closely comports with their general world view?

As Codrea posits,

Perhaps congressional representatives should be contacted and asked what they know about this, if anything, and if the administration bypassing the elected representatives of the people to enact “gun control” via executive diktat is something that sits OK with them. That might be especially relevant in an election year, as the move seemingly allows the president’s party to keep a low profile on guns until after the elections, while he does their lifting for them.

If you believe the polls, the Democrats already have plenty of electoral challenges on their plate with six months left until the mid-term elections. You wouldn’t think further riling up America’s gun owners at this point would be a good strategy for retaining control of the Senate. But maybe the administration just can’t help themselves.


  1. avatar JAS says:

    47 states?

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      57 states. A reference to Mr Obama’s grasp of geography and American history, as demonstrated in one of his campaign speeches.

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      Obama is quoted once when running the first time that he knew there were 57 states.

      1. avatar Delbert Grady says:

        He was tired. Being a super genius saviour of mankind wears him out.

      2. avatar IdahoPete says:

        He was misquoted by the vast, right-wing conspiracy. It’s George Bush’s fault. Besides, Obama came from a poor, struggling organic-farming free-range leftist family, so HE didn’t get to go to Sidwell Friends School (you know, the place where we taxpayers are coughing up $36,000/year for each of his kids? [Hot lunch included])

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Come on, tell me that is BS, please? The taxpayer is not paying for that, Barry can pay for that himself.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          Obama’s $400k salary comes from our pockets, so regardless of who’s paying, we’re paying.

          We’re also probably paying millions to send a team of secret service (SS) agents to that school.

      3. avatar Duke says:

        I really think that whatever supposed benefit is gained by making fun of Obama for his 57 states goof, is pretty well outweighed by how ridiculously childish it makes us look.

        Just sayin’.

  2. avatar Delbert Grady says:

    Does that mean all those rifles bought out of the back of trunks in the 80s will have to be registered? Or just the ones bought out of trunks in the 70s? Want to be in compliance and all.

  3. avatar Jim R says:

    Of course they want to make it nationwide and permanent. They’re going to get their nationwide registration one way or another, one piece at a time.

  4. avatar JAS says:

    All border states have Constitution free zones already. In Florida it’s the whole state. This gun thing is just the latest extension of the idea:

  5. avatar Cubby123 says:

    We the Obama administration respect the 2nd Amendment but…………
    Hey we are not hurting sportsman or hunters,What’s the big deal?See… We respect the 2nd Amendment and there’s no gov’t Tyranny,Come on,sheesh!?

  6. avatar Nighthawk says:

    I think we should track and register the ATF near the border since THEY are the ones selling MACHINE GUNS to the cartels. The audacity of those pieces of shit.

  7. avatar Pascal says:

    The most transparent administration ever!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Obama does not know the difference between transparency and The Emperor’s New Clothes.

    2. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

      Yup. They have no substance with which to reflect or absorb the visible spectrum of light.

  8. I think this is just an extension of the existing rule, the entry states “1.Type of Information Collection:Extension without change of an existing collection.”

    I agree it IS less than clear, but the courts only upheld the current program because it is a small subset of dealers. They might not be so lucky if they spread it to all dealers.

  9. avatar Gene says:

    With the Fed Gov’t, nothing is ever temporary. Whatever is done requires an organization and budget – two things that are not relinquished, but rather are grown and cultivated.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      With the Fed Gov’t, nothing is ever temporary — except, perhaps, the Dem majority in the Senate.

  10. avatar TommyinKY says:

    There is already a multi handgun purchase report. Where’s the outrage for that.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      That’s news to me. Do you have a link for more info?

      1. avatar TommyinKY says:

        It’s from GCA 1968. Look up ATF form 3310.4.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:


  11. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Did everybody miss it? I assume this was a press release, so dunno if the actual item reads the same, but there was zero mention of

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      (well, I don’t know why it cut me off, but I’ll continue!) zero mention of “TO A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL”, meaning the dealer sells multiple rifles during the period, each one to a different individual, all still have to be reported, registered, etc. Probably just an accident, huh? That would be quite an expansion!

  12. avatar Accur81 says:

    We as taxpayers could save a lot of $$$ and gain freedom by eliminating the ATF. I just don’t have anything good to say about that organization.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      People who work at the ATF don’t have a lot of good things to say about the ATF.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

  13. avatar JasonM says:

    You wouldn’t think further riling up America’s gun owners [by pushing gun control] at this point would be a good strategy for retaining control of the Senate.

    If they push through enough gun control, retaining the Senate, House, and White House will be much easier.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If they push through ENOUGH gun control they won’t NEED to retain the Senate, etc, there won’t be any more of those pesky elections.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        That was the point…
        Was I too subtle?

  14. avatar Dave says:

    of course, if your sole purpose in writing a headline is to drive traffic to your website, you ask if they are trying to expand the rifle registration.

    but it only takes a superficial reading

    to see that it says :

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension without change of an existing collection.

    edit to add: So this should be entitled “we’re the only ones making up rumors enough” 😛

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Yeah, sure, to expand an existing collection that was initially to last for only 180 days but somehow managed to become permanent. And is probably illegal in and of itself anyway.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        the federal court upheld it, like it or not. it’s just a plain reauthorization, not expanding to other states.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    it only takes a superficial reading

    And you’re the perfect person to do it.

  16. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Has anyone found the web form to comment on this travesty?

    I think I’ve come up with two humans to write to:

    Natisha Taylor at [email protected],
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
    Firearms Industry Programs Branch,
    Washington, DC 20226.

    Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer,
    United States Department of Justice,
    Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff,
    Two Constitution Square,
    145 N Street NE., 3E.405B,
    Washington, DC 20530.


  17. avatar Andy says:

    I thought that this would have to debated in Congress before put into effect . This looks like a legislation type situation this seems to totally change what the law is about not just a rule change . Or is this just Boobama trying to usurp the Constitution , and further his communistic agenda ? Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  18. avatar William Burke says:

    “Just temporary”. In the long run, I suppose everything is.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email