Monthly Archives: October 2009

What’s This? From Daley’s Chicagoland fiefdom…

Posted on by

It seems that all is not well for gun-grabbers in Illinois. Women in Daley’s totalitarian paradise are buying guns at an increasing rate. Strange that. I thought all was well in the Illinois socialist realm. Apparently not.

Oct 27, 2009 10:21 pm US/Central

Number Of Women Buying Handguns Increasing

CHICAGO (CBS) ―

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, about 48 percent of people taking their first handgun seminars this year happen to be women. CBS 2’s Pamela Jones reports on the growing trend.

“It’s very dangerous out there. I mean, there’s people getting robbed here and there,” said Josie Santiago. “It’s just for protection.”

Santiago says she’s always thinking about the danger lurking on the streets of the Chicago area. It’s a big reason why she visited Illinois Gun Works in Elmwood Park.

Not only did she shop for a new weapon, but she also wanted to find out about taking firearms training from the pros.

“It’s better that you know how to use it,” Santiago said. “You know, take the class, take the course, protect yourself.”

And she’s not alone. A National Shooting Sports Foundation survey found that the top two reasons women seek firearms training are for personal protection and target practice.

At Illinois Gun Works, the owners say they’ve seen a 40 percent increase recently in the numbers of women looking to take classes, and that the number of women coming in to purchase guns is rising, too.

“A lot more. We purchased this business seven years ago, and I’ve noticed the increase,” said Debbie Mastrianni.

“It’s not so much because they’re scared. I think they just want to learn about it,” said Don Mastrianni.

Josie Santiago says the lessons in personal security are something she wants to pass on to other women in her family, but she wants them to learn the responsibility of being behind the trigger as well.

Facebook

What’s This? From Daley’s Chicagoland fiefdom…

Posted on by

It seems that all is not well for gun-grabbers in Illinois. Women in Daley’s totalitarian paradise are buying guns at an increasing rate. Strange that. I thought all was well in the Illinois socialist realm. Apparently not.

Oct 27, 2009 10:21 pm US/Central

Number Of Women Buying Handguns Increasing

CHICAGO (CBS) ―

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, about 48 percent of people taking their first handgun seminars this year happen to be women. CBS 2’s Pamela Jones reports on the growing trend.

“It’s very dangerous out there. I mean, there’s people getting robbed here and there,” said Josie Santiago. “It’s just for protection.”

Santiago says she’s always thinking about the danger lurking on the streets of the Chicago area. It’s a big reason why she visited Illinois Gun Works in Elmwood Park.

Not only did she shop for a new weapon, but she also wanted to find out about taking firearms training from the pros.

“It’s better that you know how to use it,” Santiago said. “You know, take the class, take the course, protect yourself.”

And she’s not alone. A National Shooting Sports Foundation survey found that the top two reasons women seek firearms training are for personal protection and target practice.

At Illinois Gun Works, the owners say they’ve seen a 40 percent increase recently in the numbers of women looking to take classes, and that the number of women coming in to purchase guns is rising, too.

“A lot more. We purchased this business seven years ago, and I’ve noticed the increase,” said Debbie Mastrianni.

“It’s not so much because they’re scared. I think they just want to learn about it,” said Don Mastrianni.

Josie Santiago says the lessons in personal security are something she wants to pass on to other women in her family, but she wants them to learn the responsibility of being behind the trigger as well.

If this passes, we’re screwed! (Pelosi’s Healthcare Plan)

Posted on by

The dem House version of Obamacare has just been released. Grover Norquist’s website has published a list of some of the tax increases contained in it. The bill mentions “Tax” explicitly 87 times.

Monstrous!

Here’s some examples from ATR.

BREAKING: Comprehensive List of Taxes
In House Democrat Health Bill

From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:20 PM

Add to Reddit Add to Stumbleupon Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Twitter

H.R. 3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” has been introduced–all 1990 pages of it. This gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes. Here they all are, with description and page number (PDF version):

***

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (< $500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000). Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

Facebook

If this passes, we’re screwed! (Pelosi’s Healthcare Plan)

Posted on by

The dem House version of Obamacare has just been released. Grover Norquist’s website has published a list of some of the tax increases contained in it. The bill mentions “Tax” explicitly 87 times.

Monstrous!

Here’s some examples from ATR.

BREAKING: Comprehensive List of Taxes
In House Democrat Health Bill

From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:20 PM

Add to Reddit Add to Stumbleupon Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Twitter

H.R. 3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” has been introduced–all 1990 pages of it. This gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes. Here they all are, with description and page number (PDF version):

***

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000). Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

Obamacare Impacts to Private Health Insurance

Posted on by

It’s that time of year where many employed by larger companies, choose our benefits for the coming year. For those unfamiliar with this, it’s called “the cafeteria plan.” The employer provides a number of benefit options for healthcare, dental and vision care, life insurance, long and short-term disability plans and others. My employer also has options for health and childcare savings plans.

The company provides some up-front cash for the employer’s subsidy and you can then choose your benefits from the list. If the cost of your benefits exceed the amount provided by your employer, the difference is taken out of your paycheck.

For years, I’ve chosen a PPO option for myself and for my wife. It was of reasonable cost, deductible and our personal physicians accepted the plan. It was NOT an HMO and did not have the restrictions that make HMOs infamous. We also had a separate prescription plan that was very reasonable. Both my wife and myself take maintenance drugs for blood pressure and for me, cholesterol. I’ve been taking Crestor for a couple of years. Outside on my plan, Crestor would cost well over $1000 for a 3-months supply.

In a benefits briefing recently, I was told my PPO option would no longer be available. I had a choice of moving to an HMO or to a new Health Savings Plan. In addition, the prescription plans were now rolled into the two health options instead of being a separate plan. That means that younger folks who do not have regular prescriptions, or only an occasional prescription will be forced to pay for a prescription whether they want one or not. No reason was given for the changes other than the rise in costs. For me personally, this means an increase in healthcare premium costs from $72 each 2-week pay-period to around $120 each pay-period—almost doubling my healthcare premium costs deducted out of my pay-check.

The Health Savings plan also has a high deductible—$750 per individual or $1500 per family. The embedded prescription plan also has a deductible of the same, $750 for one or $1500 per family. It isn’t clear yet if the deductible for the savings account plan and the prescription plan are separate or merged. It appears to be separate. That means my yearly deductible would be $3000 per year vs. $600 under my previous PPO/Prescription plan.

Hows that change for ya? I’ll be forced into the HMO because I can’t afford the new deductible. The health savings plan is great for the younger employees who are healthy and have few medical needs. It’s terrible for us older folks nearing retirement.

I can understand why my employer is going this route. Health costs are going up. The economy is in the toilet and there’s not much hope on the horizon for improvement. The dems WILL BE raising taxes on individuals and corporations to pay for their $1 Trillion and higher spending spree and they have turned the money presses on full which will create inflation. That is a fact of economics. Companies are trying to position themselves to minimize the tax and economic impact of Obamacare. It’s difficult due to all the differing versions. But benefit changes will continue unless FedMed/Obamacare is killed—permanently.

But, I’m not alone. My Daughter and Son-in-law have the individual Blue-Cross/Blue-Shield Affordacare plan. I don’t know what their premium costs for their family of five. But, the pressure from Obamacare will force it up. The Wall Street Journal just published a study of Blue Cross costs by WellPoint. WellPoint is the underwriter for BC/BS in several states.

Here’s a comment from the WellPoint study.

At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint’s customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too.

…

In fact, what distinguishes the Wellpoint study is its detailed rigor. Take Ohio, where a young, healthy 25-year-old living in Columbus can purchase insurance from WellPoint today for about $52 per month in the individual market. WellPoint’s actuaries calculate the bill will rise to $79 because Democrats are going to require it to issue policies to anyone who applies, even if they’ve waited until they’re sick to buy insurance. Then they’ll also require the company to charge everyone nearly the same rate, bringing the premium to $134. Add in an extra $17, since Democrats will require higher benefit levels, and a share of the new health industry taxes ($6), and monthly premiums have risen to $157, a 199% boost.

Meanwhile, a 40-year-old husband and wife with two kids would see their premiums jump by 122%—to $737 from $332—while a small business with eight employees in Franklin County would see premiums climb by 86%. It’s true that the family or the individual might qualify for subsidies if their incomes are low enough, but the business wouldn’t qualify under the Senate Finance bill WellPoint examined. And even if there are subsidies, the new costs the bill creates don’t vaporize. They’re merely transferred to taxpayers nationwide—or financed with deficits, which will be financed eventually with higher taxes.

…

A family of four with average health in those same cities would all face cost increases of 122% buying insurance on the individual market. And it’s important to understand that these are merely the new costs created by ObamaCare—not including the natural increases in medical costs over time from new therapies and the like.

Democrats have been selling health care as one huge free lunch in which everyone gets better insurance while paying less. But the policy facts simply don’t add up, and Democrats are attacking WellPoint because they don’t want anyone to understand what their health-care schemes will mean in practice. Democrats know that if the public is given the facts and the time to consider them, Americans might demand that Democrats stop pushing the country off this cliff and start all over.

To quote a favorite author of mine—TANSTAAFL. “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” There have been people filmed on TV who thinks all this government handout is free—without costs. They’ve been lied to by the democrats for generations and they’ll not take lightly anyone whom they view as taking away their free lunch. “It’s Obama money that he gives out from his ‘stash,” said one interviewee in Milwaukee.

But such an action is inevitable because the nation cannot sustain the costs of the democrat give-aways. What will happen with the bubble bursts? Whatever comes, it won’t be pretty.

Facebook

Obamacare Impacts to Private Health Insurance

Posted on by

It’s that time of year where many employed by larger companies, choose our benefits for the coming year. For those unfamiliar with this, it’s called “the cafeteria plan.” The employer provides a number of benefit options for healthcare, dental and vision care, life insurance, long and short-term disability plans and others. My employer also has options for health and childcare savings plans.

The company provides some up-front cash for the employer’s subsidy and you can then choose your benefits from the list. If the cost of your benefits exceed the amount provided by your employer, the difference is taken out of your paycheck.

For years, I’ve chosen a PPO option for myself and for my wife. It was of reasonable cost, deductible and our personal physicians accepted the plan. It was NOT an HMO and did not have the restrictions that make HMOs infamous. We also had a separate prescription plan that was very reasonable. Both my wife and myself take maintenance drugs for blood pressure and for me, cholesterol. I’ve been taking Crestor for a couple of years. Outside on my plan, Crestor would cost well over $1000 for a 3-months supply.

In a benefits briefing recently, I was told my PPO option would no longer be available. I had a choice of moving to an HMO or to a new Health Savings Plan. In addition, the prescription plans were now rolled into the two health options instead of being a separate plan. That means that younger folks who do not have regular prescriptions, or only an occasional prescription will be forced to pay for a prescription whether they want one or not. No reason was given for the changes other than the rise in costs. For me personally, this means an increase in healthcare premium costs from $72 each 2-week pay-period to around $120 each pay-period—almost doubling my healthcare premium costs deducted out of my pay-check.

The Health Savings plan also has a high deductible—$750 per individual or $1500 per family. The embedded prescription plan also has a deductible of the same, $750 for one or $1500 per family. It isn’t clear yet if the deductible for the savings account plan and the prescription plan are separate or merged. It appears to be separate. That means my yearly deductible would be $3000 per year vs. $600 under my previous PPO/Prescription plan.

Hows that change for ya? I’ll be forced into the HMO because I can’t afford the new deductible. The health savings plan is great for the younger employees who are healthy and have few medical needs. It’s terrible for us older folks nearing retirement.

I can understand why my employer is going this route. Health costs are going up. The economy is in the toilet and there’s not much hope on the horizon for improvement. The dems WILL BE raising taxes on individuals and corporations to pay for their $1 Trillion and higher spending spree and they have turned the money presses on full which will create inflation. That is a fact of economics. Companies are trying to position themselves to minimize the tax and economic impact of Obamacare. It’s difficult due to all the differing versions. But benefit changes will continue unless FedMed/Obamacare is killed—permanently.

But, I’m not alone. My Daughter and Son-in-law have the individual Blue-Cross/Blue-Shield Affordacare plan. I don’t know what their premium costs for their family of five. But, the pressure from Obamacare will force it up. The Wall Street Journal just published a study of Blue Cross costs by WellPoint. WellPoint is the underwriter for BC/BS in several states.

Here’s a comment from the WellPoint study.

At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint’s customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too.

…

In fact, what distinguishes the Wellpoint study is its detailed rigor. Take Ohio, where a young, healthy 25-year-old living in Columbus can purchase insurance from WellPoint today for about $52 per month in the individual market. WellPoint’s actuaries calculate the bill will rise to $79 because Democrats are going to require it to issue policies to anyone who applies, even if they’ve waited until they’re sick to buy insurance. Then they’ll also require the company to charge everyone nearly the same rate, bringing the premium to $134. Add in an extra $17, since Democrats will require higher benefit levels, and a share of the new health industry taxes ($6), and monthly premiums have risen to $157, a 199% boost.

Meanwhile, a 40-year-old husband and wife with two kids would see their premiums jump by 122%—to $737 from $332—while a small business with eight employees in Franklin County would see premiums climb by 86%. It’s true that the family or the individual might qualify for subsidies if their incomes are low enough, but the business wouldn’t qualify under the Senate Finance bill WellPoint examined. And even if there are subsidies, the new costs the bill creates don’t vaporize. They’re merely transferred to taxpayers nationwide—or financed with deficits, which will be financed eventually with higher taxes.

…

A family of four with average health in those same cities would all face cost increases of 122% buying insurance on the individual market. And it’s important to understand that these are merely the new costs created by ObamaCare—not including the natural increases in medical costs over time from new therapies and the like.

Democrats have been selling health care as one huge free lunch in which everyone gets better insurance while paying less. But the policy facts simply don’t add up, and Democrats are attacking WellPoint because they don’t want anyone to understand what their health-care schemes will mean in practice. Democrats know that if the public is given the facts and the time to consider them, Americans might demand that Democrats stop pushing the country off this cliff and start all over.

To quote a favorite author of mine—TANSTAAFL. “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” There have been people filmed on TV who thinks all this government handout is free—without costs. They’ve been lied to by the democrats for generations and they’ll not take lightly anyone whom they view as taking away their free lunch. “It’s Obama money that he gives out from his ‘stash,” said one interviewee in Milwaukee.

But such an action is inevitable because the nation cannot sustain the costs of the democrat give-aways. What will happen with the bubble bursts? Whatever comes, it won’t be pretty.

JPFO takes on the BATFE

Posted on by

Interesting open letter on the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership website. I’m not an FFL and I’ve not heard about this “new” requirement. I would hope that more folks and organizations take on the BAFTE and have this requirement canceled.

October 22nd 2009

Dear BATFE Acting Director Melson:

We at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership recently received the document that is copied below for your convenience. We would respectfully ask you to either validate these assertions or refute them in detail.

Our organization has had a long and disconcerting experience with the agency you now head. We would suggest that you might seek to bring a refreshing era of candor and honesty…and, if possible, a substantial dose of legality… to the BATFE. You can certainly start by examining the following carefully compiled expose in detail, and then tell Americans if you are truly planning a national gun registry. (JPFO’s open letter continues below following document …… )

BATFE Backdoor Registration Scheme

For nearly 20 years, contrary to the Intent of Congress and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 926(a), BATFE has been quietly building a massive Firearms Registration System for Firearms, Firearm Owners and Firearm Transactions.

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, signed into law in 1986, specifically forbids registration of firearms records at 18 U.S.C. 926(a):

“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

When a firearms dealer, importer or manufacturer dies or otherwise goes out of business, all the Acquisition/Disposition records (the “Bound Book”) kept by the business must be delivered to the BATFE Out-of-Business Center. Currently (according to the 2010 BATFE Budget Submission), over 1.2 million records per month are being received by the BATFE Out-Of-Business Center.

Most recently, on August 25, 2008, BATFE implemented Ruling 2008-2, allowing Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders to keep the Acquisition/Disposition “Bound Book” on a computer. However, when the FFL goes out of business, he must provide a computer file (digital file) and file layout to the ATF Out-of-Business Records Center – in addition to a printout of the “bound A/D book”. Since BATFE kindly allows dealers to also record antique firearms in the A/D book, these records are also being turned in to BATFE.

Obviously, BATFE intends to make use of those digital records. The digital file includes the Name and Address of every Buyer and every Seller for each gun, as well as the Name, Make, Model, Caliber and Serial of each firearm. In fact, each set of Out-of-Business digital records is precisely a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a). BATFE has not revealed what they are doing with these files.

In 1992, BATFE began creating a computerized “index” (based solely on firearm serial number) to the microfilm Out-of-Business records, called the “CARS” system (Computer Assisted Retrieval System), as reported in a 1995 letter to Tanya K. Metaksa of the NRA. Since there are so many duplicate serial numbers, this system must have been woefully inadequate for tracing.

By 2004, BATFE acknowledged the existence of an automated Microfilm Retrieval System (MRS) containing information on 380 million firearms with an additional 1 million firearms added per month. This system had been enlarged from the previous system (CARS) to contain not only firearm serial number, but manufacturers and importers as well.

More recently (since at least 2005), ATF has been converting microfilmed dealer out-of-business records to “digital images” of the records. It is not clear whether this is a digitized “picture” file, or an actual digital record of the acquisition/disposition. However, regardless of the method of storage, and whether access to the detail record is automated or manual, this system is precisely, in fact, a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

From the 2005 Appropriations Bill:

“Conversion of Records. The conferees recognize the need for ATF to complete the conversion of tens of thousands of existing Federal firearms dealer out-of-business records from film to digital images at the ATF National Tracing Center. Once the out-of-business records are fully converted, search time for these records will be reduced significantly. The conference agreement includes $4,200,000 for the ATF to hire additional contract personnel to continue the conversion and integration of records.”

However, this same Appropriations Bill also states:

“Provided, That no funds appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees:”

Similar provisions have been contained in every annual Appropriations Bill between 2005 and 2010.

The Firearms Tracing System (FTS) contains firearm tracing information from all traces performed since 1989. The data includes Multiple Sales reports (ATF F 3310.4 with names and addresses), all guns that were “suspected” as being used for criminal purposes, as well as the detail results from all traces (which would certainly include Name and address of all known sellers and purchasers). Suspect guns include, for example, individuals purchasing large quantities of firearms (collectors?) and dealers with “improper” record keeping. Once a gun is traced, even in error, the data is kept in the trace file.

Whether all these records are being combined into a huge data base is unknown. Regardless, each of these are a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

BATFE is so proud of their Firearms Tracing System [FTS], they offer on-line access to the records by another system (eTrace) on the internet – world-wide! BATFE offered world access to the eTrace System in United Nations Marking and Tracing Workshops held in Nairobi, Kenya in December, 2007, Lomé, Togo in April, 2008, Rio de Janeiro in June, 2008, and other locations. In 2007, BATFE reported some 10,000 individuals representing over 1620 law enforcement agencies around the world (now over 2,000 agencies) had access to our firearms data. Now, information on your guns (and you!) is directly available to 10 foreign governments (including strong cooperation with governments having known corruption issues, such as Mexico and Columbia), and trace requests have been received from 58 foreign governments (some with terrorist connections).

Implications of these registration systems are huge. These records can easily be sorted to report on all buyers of .223 and 5.56mm rifles – or all buyers of .50 BMG rifles, or all purchases by any individual.

As BATFE has been placing increasing importance on their tracing function, they have been creating more firearms registration records. We need to question their statutory authority for automating the tracing process. Originally, the tracing process was intended to be handled by phone calls to the manufacturer or importer, followed by calls to the distributor, and finally to the dealer. By increasingly computerizing this process, BATFE has created a massive system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a). The ultimate goal of such a tracing system is a registration system of every firearm and every firearm owner in the United States.

The author is a retired computer professional with over 40 years experience with computers and software.

(end document)

There you have it, Acting Director Melson. This seems to us at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to be a methodical and carefully researched presentation, but perhaps you can prove us wrong.

The reason we at JPFO are making this an open letter, which will be widely disseminated on the Internet, is because BATFE has a sordid history unlike nearly any other Federal agency. The BATFE brought America Ruby Ridge and Waco.

More recently, people now under your leadership blatantly framed David Olofson with light primer ammunition to get his lawful rifle to fire like a machine gun. You, being a forensics expert, should understand more than anybody how patently unlawful and dishonest this testing procedure was, and continues to be.

But these travesties, no matter how grave, are truly overshadowed by the ominous plans outlined above. Perhaps you might wonder why concerned, freedom loving Americans would be suspicious of a Federal government that knew where to find every privately owned firearm…and do so with lightning speed and efficiency via a computerized database. And why would you want to share this data with foreign powers? Are we being “hysterical”? Are we being “paranoid”? Frankly, I don’t think so.

So, Mr. Melson, what is your detailed response to our inquiry?

Respectfully,

Aaron Zelman – Founder JPFO

Etc. etc.

p.s. If you wish, we will also provide you with your own personal DVD copy of our documentary entitled “The Gang”. This is a concise history of the criminal activity of the agency you now head. We doubt any of your subordinates will share with you much of the information contained in this documentary. “The Gang” will help you understand why so many Americans would, justifiably, like to see the BATFE abolished.

Facebook