A gun cause worth supporting.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A gun cause worth supporting.

Posted: 12/10/2003 7:18:35 PM EDT

Supporting this venture falls under the "Working within the system instead of calling for an armed revolution category." This may have already been posted. If so, I appologize for the repeat (but not really).

Friends and fellow NFA community, I would like to give you all an advance notice on some upcoming NFA news, and also ask you a related
favor.

As it hits the news stands and mailboxes, the March issue of Small Arms Review will announce the rollout of a lawsuit which attempts to remove the Certified Law Enforcement Official (CLEO) signoff requirement for the BATF Forms 1, 4 and 5. The CLEO signoff requirement is the most abused and discouraging section of these forms, and I would hope that every CL2 manufacturer and CL3 dealer, regardless of whether their current CLEOs are friendly for now, will understand that this suit translates into more sales. Every purchaser should understand that their purchases and the ability to leave them to an heir should not involve have their privacy infringed upon by often-predjudiced local law enforcement.

We as NFA enthusiasts are often confounded by local officials conspiring amongst themselves to not sign these forms. (Dade County, FL and Houston, TX for examples.) We are flummoxed when we see proof of ATF staff advising local officials not to sign off on their own requirement on their own forms.

Often dealers find it in their interest to bribe or search out friendly chiefs and sheriffs in order to provide signoffs for their clients. Sometimes it works out the opposite way. In some areas, if you don't buy the item from a store that made a significant contribution to the sheriff's re-election fund, you don't get a signoff.

We waste our anger on locals who have no business viewing our private tax documents in the first place, yet "required" to by an illegal BATF form. We waste time and money issuing writs of mandamus to local officials, attempting to get them to "do their job", when it clearly isn't.

Is it not obvious that this federal requirement lends itself to local corruption? Is it not obvious that a federal form should not require a
local signoff? As the ATF looks at the Forms 1, 4 and 5 as federal tax documents, is it also not obvious that you should not need to submit
your private tax information to scrutiny and ambiguity of some local official's prejudices and preferences?

This requirement that asks a State or City-level official to do a Federal task is a violation of the Appointments clause of the
Constitution (what brought the Brady laws down), as well as an affront to the 14th Amendment (Which ensures due process and equal protection no matter where you live).

The lawsuit will most probably be filed in the D.C. courts, with the ATF/Dept. of Treasury being sued directly. This is a for-real suit, not someone's pie in the sky dreams: The attorneys are no lightweights and whom I hope need no introduction to the firearms community: Jim Jeffries and Stephen Halbrook, who have agreed to co-counsel this, provided of course, that the funding is demonstrated. We will be
fundraising to meet the initial $20,000 mark, which will begin the retaining process and start the suit. The ability to raise an additional $20,000 has been requested by the legal team to take it to its completion. At this time, there is already a private core of donors that have contributed generously to start this. We do not see any problem with finishing the goals if there is participation of even the smallest amount from people like yourself.

It boils down to something just this simple: If you don't act, this will not get done. You have been waiting for years for someone to not just fight back, but rather to go on the offensive: That time is now, that someone is you.

Regards,

D. Kel Whelan

Chairman, 1934 Group

For more information on this legal challenge and the 1934 Group please find us at our temporary internet home:

www.teleport.com/~dkw/1934WWW.htm

Your funds to help support the current legal actions can be sent to:
1934 Group
12701 NE 9th PL #D312
Bellevue, WA 98005

Posted: 12/10/2003 7:47:10 PM EDT

[#1]

Are you sure that this isn't old? I'm pretty sure that they lost the case.

Posted: 12/10/2003 8:08:13 PM EDT

[#2]

It could very well be. I was unable to find anything re: dates, so...

Like I said, sorry if this has already been posted. I'm even more sorry if it's been done and we lost.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A gun cause worth supporting.

General » General Discussion

Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us