Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

[greencobra]

Last firearm I bought from Four Seasons was "not too long ago" and I was in and out in 10 minutes. I did fill out the form out online before I went in though.

Damn, nice! Took 10 minutes just to fork over the cash. I'll have to try that online thing. Thanks for the heads up on that.

 

[Mr. Gold]

This sounds like a bunch of shit spraying for nothing, it sounds like Reid is just prancing around to try to make non-moonbats "look bad" because he knows its not going to go anywhere regardless.

-Mike

But, let it be reported, that's good. It won't go anywhere, and again and again, until they'll somehow manage to slip one in, and then, good luck reversing it.

As much as it is tiring to read "Oh no, that's it, they're coming for us", it looks like that's what the future entails for God knows how long. If you're some bumasss politician (or a POTUS), all you need to spout in order get headlines - is something about gun control.

If, the pro 2A org's were smart enough, they would have figured out a way to paint such people with certain characteristics, introducing a price to just blabbering about gun control without actually getting it done.

 

[Mr Weebles]

I have read that article twice and still can't figure out what this means:

The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year.

If you are buying from a dealer they already have a license and conduct background checks. Is Chicago Jesus just spouting hot air to appease the masses, or is he and his staff so utterly clueless they don't know current federal law?

 

[Horrible]

But, let it be reported, that's good. It won't go anywhere, and again and again, until they'll somehow manage to slip one in, and then, good luck reversing it.

As much as it is tiring to read "Oh no, that's it, they're coming for us", it looks like that's what the future entails for God knows how long. If you're some bumasss politician (or a POTUS), all you need to spout in order get headlines - is something about gun control.

If, the pro 2A org's were smart enough, they would have figured out a way to paint such people with certain characteristics, introducing a price to just blabbering about gun control without actually getting it done.

Lies repeated often enough and unchallenged, become truth. They are playing the long game. Indoctrinate and brainwash enough people for a long enough time and truth and facts cease to matter.

They don't need to pass anything anytime soon, just brainwash enough people so that it in 10 years when they want to ram some other Unconstitutional crap down our throats, the average low-information voter supports it without thinking. They don't want people thinking. That is the purpose of the bread and circus.

Reid doesn't give a $hit anymore. He lost his majority and he is retiring, so he never has to face the voters again. He is doing whatever he can to help his party in 2016 and beyond. If this means pushing tyranny, he's all for it. His is a POS (I apologize if I offended any POSs).

 

[milktree]

I hesitate to speak this out loud for fear of giving "them" ideas, but I suspect what's being done is figuring out how to reclassify any individual who does more than x number of firearms transactions per year as a dealer who must then have some kind of FFL.

You mean to lower the bar of "in the business" to a specific number, rather than intent and behavior?

As I understand it, there's no numerical limit set by the Feds, but if they think you're buying and selling to make money, they'll stomp on your (even if it's just two guns) but if you're a collector and simply curating your collection, (and it looks like that) they'll leave you alone.

 

[Mr. Gold]

Reid doesn't give a $hit anymore. He lost his majority and he is retiring, so he never has to face the voters again. He is doing whatever he can to help his party in 2016 and beyond. If this means pushing tyranny, he's all for it. His is a POS (I apologize if I offended any POSs).

You're giving him too much credit . I don't even think he cares about any party. He's gonna look much better after retiring and giving talks where he can pad himself on the shoulder "I tried this, I tried that and tried" (translation: Failed, failed, and failed).

I'm willing to bet that the last year for every Democrat POTUS is much about staying clean and controversy free in order to cash in on the future talks at Yale, Harvard and the rest of the world, where if you were a Dem' POTUS your basically the second coming...

 

[MachineHead]

Sounds an awful lot like a poll tax. Similar to a poll tax (and voter ID laws), the idea behind proposals like this is to suppress the exercise of an enumerated right.

That it does. Example: a hardworking legal immigrant with a family to protect and a limited income will certainly be encumbered by this insurance proposition.

This would undoubtedly bring a major drain on a certain population.

 

[kevin9]

You mean to lower the bar of "in the business" to a specific number, rather than intent and behavior?

As I understand it, there's no numerical limit set by the Feds, but if they think you're buying and selling to make money, they'll stomp on your (even if it's just two guns) but if you're a collector and simply curating your collection, (and it looks like that) they'll leave you alone.

Basically yes. Current situation almost sounds logical, and requiring some thought and discretion on the part of the ATF, which is exactly why I think it likely that's what they're trying to change. Logic, thought and discretion are antithetical to progressivism.

 

[Bfatz]

I have read that article twice and still can't figure out what this means:



If you are buying from a dealer they already have a license and conduct background checks. Is Chicago Jesus just spouting hot air to appease the masses, or is he and his staff so utterly clueless they don't know current federal law?

Clueless, all career politicians are clueless, they're to busy taking care of their personal needs and Lobbyist requests. Recall the elder Bush back in the day



This right here told me a long time ago that these people are clueless to the real world happenings. The point being he didn't even know what a check out scanner was....

 

[Squire]

I have read that article twice and still can't figure out what this means:

If you are buying from a dealer they already have a license and conduct background checks. Is Chicago Jesus just spouting hot air to appease the masses, or is he and his staff so utterly clueless they don't know current federal law?

Chicago Jesus...Love it

 

[DarkRyu]

Why isn't he in jail yet?

 

[Kevin_NH]

Insurance is a silly point on which to hang their hat

"Faced with an insurance requirement, a would-be mass murderer might be discouraged from trying to buy weapons at all." This dude is absolutely clueless.

And he totally ignores the fact that insurance against unintentional acts would be dirt cheap (you generally can't buy insurance coverage for your own intentional act).

I suspect this is a vocabulary issue; what these anti-gun writers are really advocating for isn't really for gun owners to be "insured", but rather bonded.

Here is the kicker: nothing will be affected. If he does decree this new classification of high-volume sellers as dealers, no seller who wasn't breaking some other law will be affected. He will have "done something", and the NRA will have "lost". That's what they want out of this, the perspective that "common sense" is winning, even if it has no actual effect in society or the marketplace.

And that's the reason he can get away with doing this -- it's legal, it changes nothing, but it saves face. Executive office has the power (via "executive action") to instruct agencies to enforce the laws that already exist, so he can certainly tell treasury to pay more attention to this facet of existing law.

Will he take away tax stamps for trusts? Or corporations ?

Constitutionally? Not explicitly, but also no reason to try, just let 41P go through and the result is the same.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

That it does. Example: a hardworking legal immigrant with a family to protect and a limited income will certainly be encumbered by this insurance proposition.

This would undoubtedly bring a major drain on a certain population.

The effect would be even more widespread than just on folks with limited incomes. The very fact that there's one more thing someone has to do to exercise a right serves as a burden on that right.

Using the voting analog again, how would the right to vote be burdened if there were only one or two voting stations in a city? Most people in Boston can walk to their polling station. Now we'd be talking about unnecessary bus rights or having to deal with parking and you can bet that such a move would suppress voting rates.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Remember Clinton's big push to REDUCE the number of "kitchen table" FFLs?

Funny how everybody has forgotten the big Clinton-era push to reduce FFLs held by "kitchen table dealers" who only sold a few guns a year. Total FFLs dropped from over 282,000 in 1993 to fewer than 104,000 by 1999.

You mean to lower the bar of "in the business" to a specific number, rather than intent and behavior?

As I understand it, there's no numerical limit set by the Feds, but if they think you're buying and selling to make money, they'll stomp on your (even if it's just two guns) but if you're a collector and simply curating your collection, (and it looks like that) they'll leave you alone.

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 923(a): No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms... and see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C)): "as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms"

This is the law as written, ATF can interpret this how they like, but will (eventually) lose in court if they take it too far.

 

[Waher]

Look on the bright side Obama does this, it goes to court, by some miracle the court cares about the Bill of Rights and renders a decision which wipes out all regulation as unconstitutional.

Oh, and I'd like my pony.

 

[gene]

If he had any vision at all about how to stop gun violence and any good ways of keeping guns from criminals he would have started with Shitcargo.
He and almost all if not all the mainstream media are scum sucking bottom feeders when it comes to any gun facts and or violence.

 

[Dadstoys]

Funny how everybody has forgotten the big Clinton-era push to reduce FFLs held by "kitchen table dealers" who only sold a few guns a year. Total FFLs dropped from over 282,000 in 1993 to fewer than 104,000 by 1999.

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 923(a): No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms... and see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C)): "as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms"

This is the law as written, ATF can interpret this how they like, but will (eventually) lose in court if they take it too far.

Stuff like this is how Clinton's ATF "Convinced" Dealer and collectors it might be time to hang it up.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/note.html

 

[Kevin_NH]

The funny thing is, right now BATFE can make up any definition they like for what "engage in the business of dealing in firearms ,...exerts... considerable time" means, but if Obama decides to set a bright line that anybody who sells more than 10 guns a year is "engaged in the business", that will actually make it harder to prosecute people, and encourage the growth of home-based (aka "kitchen table") FFLs.

 

[kevin9]

If I had to guess I imagine they try something along the lines of "you're a dealer if you buy or sell more than 1 gun a month". Now, how they would detect and enforce such a rule is a whole other discussion.

 

[Kevin_NH]

It's the "right to keep and bear arms". Plural.

If I had to guess I imagine they try something along the lines of "you're a dealer if you buy or sell more than 1 gun a month". Now, how they would detect and enforce such a rule is a whole other discussion.

Clearly, the only way to enforce 1 gun a month is to implement Universal Background Checks. It all fits together!

 

[jkelly1229]

I bought a gun in 20 min today dunno what you had a problem with there. But seriously f him I keep buying guns every time I read one of these. And it's killing me lol

 

[Horrible]

Why isn't he in jail yet?

Same reason SHillary isn't there.