Why is the ATF rule making post below locked?

[Scota4570]

It seems important.

It may only apply to commercial vendors?

I am confused.

Scot

[Mike Brooks]

We don't discuss controversial subjects here.

[Molly]

IMO the post is not controversial but it clearly could be and going political is probably a good reason to lock it.  But it is also worthy of some discussion.

Yes it is confusing.  In one way it seems to apply the reg effects something like 9600 "Licensee's or "permit holders".  And yet in another place it says "all persons".  That specifically needs clarification.  There are clearly more than 96xx people in the US with a pound of "powder" in their possession.

But it also seems to say there is already a reporting responsibility if one has "explosives" and all the change does is change the frequency and establish a retention requirement.  This again seems to reflect back on current licensees and permit holders.

I suggest comments avoid the political overtones and work on material facts.  If it only applies to "merchants" it does not really bother me.  If it applies to anyone and everyone beyond merchants that's another matter.

[axelp]

in years past, the member that had their post locked also got a personal message letting them know why, etc... I appreciated that courtesy on the rare occasion that I posted something controversial back then...

Ken

[Tim Crosby]

 Specifically prohibited topics or responses are:

1.  Current politics and religion including but not limited to gun control legislation.

  It was locked and left up as an informative post.

   Tim C.   

[Scota4570]

Thanks for the clarification. 

For what it might be worth, I do not think laws that impact us, or proposals for them, are "politics".  That is legislation. 

To me politics are debatable philosophical ideas that come from an ideological point of view and is related to governance. 

I agree that many people are not mature enough to hear or debate points of view that conflict with their own.  I am glad I am not a moderator. 

[Bill in Md]

 In the safe harbor of cognitive dissonance, nothing can offend.

[LynnC]

Do we have any attorneys here that would care to interpret this?

I would like to know if this applies to me and my BP supply.

[Don Steele]

Scot,
Thank you for asking. I was also quite taken back to see that post immediately locked. I read as much as I could find about this ATF proposal as it may affect me, and all of us quite severely. After I cooled down a bit, I reflected on the locking of this topic here on the ALR, done without public comment advising the rest of us as to why that administrative action was taken. Eventually, I came to realize that it was a preemptive action, but the basic information and link were intentionally left up for each member here to do their own homework.
My thanks to the administrators.

[Molly]

And I understand the action and accept it and RESPECT it.

[Mike Brooks]

I just find it easier to not post anymore.

[Scota4570]

These moderators are easy to deal with. 

I also go the the Antique Radio Forum, less these days though. Any hint of a point of view that differs from their own is deleted and or the thread it locked from the Clubhouse forum.  Up to about 10% of threads are locked, and deleted later.  It is outright censorship. 

[X62503]

When I was little and built my own forts out of cardboard and couch cushions, I put a sign up that declared, “NO DAMES ALLOWED.”  Online forums are the modern, updated pillow fort clubs for grown-ups!

[axelp]

I prefer freedom myself. But I also respect order and dislike chaos.

General US Grant once said he "would rather have someone in the tent peeing outward, than a guy outside the tent peeing inward."   uh... I am not sure if that fits here at all, but I thought it was darn clever!

I guess we are all here in the tent and if ya feel the need to pee, be nice about it.

but... I miss the "old" Mike Brooks... there I said it.

K

[Crow Choker]

I'm glad the original post and information WAS posted. Sometimes gov't laws and/or actions by departments/politicians are passed/made into law without citizens knowing about it. I contacted both of my two US Senators and US Congresswoman about the ATF possible regulations and gave them my opinion what the ATF is trying to possibly do. IMO they can't take away the 2nd Amendment but will try everything to make it harder for reloaders to have/store powder, be it black or smokeless. Over regulation IMO. Actions such as the ATF's can get passed/made into law and when trying to reverse them alot of hops and barrels need to be gone through.

[Bob Roller]

In the 1970's (I think)there WAS a regulation about possessing more than 5 pound of black powder.I had maybe 15 but was told by a local BATF officer that it was not being enforced and everyone he shot with had a keg.He asked if I sold any and I said no and that was the truth then and now. We have a friend,retired police officer that I have given powder to but he shoots small calibers and that is a rare gift and saves him a drive to Kentucky that has inflated the prices at a particular shop.
Bob Roller

[axelp]

In California, the regulations are always rather draconian.

HOWEVER in my location up in the Sierra, there is a real and present wildfire danger and so I try my best to store my blackpowder safely and follow all State and Federal guidelines. Did you read that Governor Newsome?

[Molly]

Over the weekend one of the Virginia gun groups (VCDL) released an update and stated that it only impacts black powder and not smokeless.  I'm not ready to totally accept that as the proposed reg. in the initially posted link references all substances listed in another place (they had a link to that place) and there was a two page list of chemicals etc (most of which I have never heard of) that were supposed to be included AND smokeless was on that list.