Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/7/2009 6:20:19 PM EDT
| anyone here of this through the vine? a really close friend of mine is an sot. said he got wind of a possible future amnesty period. kinda laughed at him but he said he got the news from some other sot`s. whats up? |
|
Quoted:
It cannot happen without an act of congress. ATF does not have the authority. No act of congress required, they already acted. The director of the treasury can authorize an amnesty. I would assume since NFA is a tax law, and the director of the treasure likes money, this would be a tax-payment amnesty, not necessarily the criminal kind. Although, I do not believe this amnesty would trump or eliminate 922(o) - aka the MG ban. And btw, it will never happen! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It cannot happen without an act of congress. ATF does not have the authority. No act of congress required, they already acted. The director of the treasury can authorize an amnesty. I would assume since NFA is a tax law, and the director of the treasure likes money, this would be a tax-payment amnesty, not necessarily the criminal kind. Although, I do not believe this amnesty would trump or eliminate 922(o) - aka the MG ban. And btw, it will never happen! Well, I'm not sure the director of the Treasury still has that power, since BATFE has been moved from Treasury to Justice. IMHO, it would have to be the Attorney General (as the head of DOJ) who would have to declare the amnesty. And yes, you are correct, it will never happen. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It cannot happen without an act of congress. ATF does not have the authority. No act of congress required, they already acted. The director of the treasury can authorize an amnesty. I would assume since NFA is a tax law, and the director of the treasure likes money, this would be a tax-payment amnesty, not necessarily the criminal kind. Although, I do not believe this amnesty would trump or eliminate 922(o) - aka the MG ban. And btw, it will never happen! Well, I'm not sure the director of the Treasury still has that power, since BATFE has been moved from Treasury to Justice. IMHO, it would have to be the Attorney General (as the head of DOJ) who would have to declare the amnesty. And yes, you are correct, it will never happen.
Well, I was curious so I chased details on the Amnesty and Director. The good news - the amnesty will allow registration by people in illegal posession. Title 26, chapter 53, S179.101 " (b) Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes in the manner prescribed by this part. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor in the manner prescribed by this part. No firearm may be registered by a person unlawfully in possession of the firearm except during an amnesty period established under section 207 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 ." GCA68 defines the director as : "The Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC." Now using my logical leap.... Since there BATF doesn't exist anymore, and the BATFE is not part of the treasury, there is no 'Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Department of the Treasury' So, the amnesty can only be called by the director of a federal agency that no longer exists. Resulting in (drum roll please) an amnesty that will never happen. |
| Our single best hope(and it is within the realm of possibility), is to elect some good politicos next year, throw the incumbent bums out and call a Constitutional Convention to remove the Commerce Clause. This has been recently discussed by some of the better Governors. Without the Clause, all Federal gun laws would be DOA. |
|
Quoted:
Our single best hope(and it is within the realm of possibility), is to elect some good politicos next year, throw the incumbent bums out and call a Constitutional Convention to remove the Commerce Clause. This has been recently discussed by some of the better Governors. Without the Clause, all Federal gun laws would be DOA. If you want to remove the commerce clause then start an ammendment to that effect. Calling a consitutional convention is inherently dangerous as once they meet they are no longer bound to address only the problem you sent them for. And if you think a new constitution, written by the entitlement generation with every pressure group throwing money at the delegates like a hot chick on a pole, is a good thing then I have this snazzy bridge to sell you. |
Armory Sponsor