Can Obama increase background checks for guns? (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

So President Obama is meeting with Loretta Lynch today to discuss whether or not he has the ability to issue an executive order that would increase the number of background checks for guns- I'm assuming for private sales at gun shows, though this wasn't specified. In the past he's tried to have Congress do this and failed. Naturally some gun rights defenders are freaking out; the governor of Texas just issued a defiant "Come and take them!" as if Obama was threatening to seize guns rather than require background checks for purchase. Trump

And Cruz have already promised to reverse whatever Obama tries to do.

My question is: does Obama have the right to do this by executive order? I've always been confused at how far he can go with this ability.

 

[NCCommish]

Since this order would enhance existing law it's probably doable.

 

[cstu]

We do background checks to allow people to vote - is it really that insane to do background checks on people before they buy dangerous weapons?

 

[NCCommish]

We do background checks to allow people to vote - is it really that insane to do background checks on people before they buy dangerous weapons?

Polls put public support for full background checks at around 90%. A very small minority of people are against them. Mostly politicians afraid of the NRA. Whose own memebers want background checks at over 70% according to polls.

 

[Cjw_55106]

It took until the 3rd post to move the discussion off of the topic. Good work folks.

 

[JuniorNB]

Why would anyone not want this?? He's not talking about banning sales of anything.

 

[timschochet]

Why would anyone not want this?? He's not talking about banning sales of anything.

Many gun owners are fearful that universal background checks will lead to registration of all firearms and then seizure. That's the paranoid argument. The pragmatic argument, according to those opposed, is that it will cost too much and have no effect on crime. It will also hurt gun shows, since people want to take their purchases home with them. I have a feeling this last is the biggest reason.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Why would anyone not want this?? He's not talking about banning sales of anything.

Many gun owners are fearful that universal background checks will lead to registration of all firearms and then seizure. That's the paranoid argument. The pragmatic argument, according to those opposed, is that it will cost too much and have no effect on crime. It will also hurt gun shows, since people want to take their purchases home with them. I have a feeling this last is the biggest reason.

It's a stepping stone to Gun Show Prime memberships. $99 a year will allow you the added bonus of taking them home that day.

 

[MattFancy]

I really see no downside in doing this. Even if it doesn't stop "all" gun violence, it's just common sense.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Nah. I think that all people should be allowed to buy all kinds of guns ....

50 cal. Machine guns, grenade launchers whatever. Buy today shoot today. Merica

 

[TobiasFunke]

It took until the 3rd post to move the discussion off of the topic. Good work folks.

This is the most FFA thread ever. Credit to NCCommish for trying to respond. Lemme give it a shot:

The federal law requires background checks be performed by anyone "engaged in the business of selling firearms" but also contains an explicit exemption for casual sellers. It's not clear how broadly the government can define "engaged in the business" without brushing up against the exemption. Here's a little more detail on that. It's hard to know whether an Obama executive order would exceed his statutory authority under that law without seeing it of course, but those are the basic parameters.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Why would anyone not want this?? He's not talking about banning sales of anything.

Many gun owners are fearful that universal background checks will lead to registration of all firearms and then seizure. That's the paranoid argument. The pragmatic argument, according to those opposed, is that it will cost too much and have no effect on crime. It will also hurt gun shows, since people want to take their purchases home with them. I have a feeling this last is the biggest reason.

Wouldnt it be logical to allow folks to get "pre-approved"? Sure, there are probably some off the cuff purchases, but I think most people know when they are serious about buying a gun.

 

[joffer]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

 

[Cjw_55106]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

I think thats about it....but thats just a guess on my part.

 

[JuniorNB]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

They should add talking to a neighbor to find out if 'he seemed like a nice guy. Mostly kept to himself'

 

[jon_mx]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

Probably if they are Muslim.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

I suspect it is more or less the same in each state. In Colorado it asks for admissions on criminal past, drug use, mental health issues or treatment, judgments of incapacity or restraining orders. The check, as I understand it is pretty thorough as to criminal background running both an NCIC and CCIC check, though as yet there is no multi-jurisdiction check of other state databases. (Misdemeanor or petty local offenses from out of state jurisdictions are not searched, currently) There should be no way (Unless drug use or mental health treatment resulted in an addendum to a sentence in criminal court) for them to check on drug use or mental health treatment absent abusing insurance information, potentially. The thing is, such a search require a search algorithm that looks beyond record identifiers, it requires one which will read underlying files, generally this is not yet being done, though the tech exists. Many states are now assembling restraining order databases, and I would guesstimate that within no more than two years these will be linked across the nation and will be fully searchable.

 

[NCCommish]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

I suspect it is more or less the same in each state. In Colorado it asks for admissions on criminal past, drug use, mental health issues or treatment, judgments of incapacity or restraining orders. The check, as I understand it is pretty thorough as to criminal background running both an NCIC and CCIC check, though as yet there is no multi-jurisdiction check of other state databases. (Misdemeanor or petty local offenses from out of state jurisdictions are not searched, currently) There should be no way (Unless drug use or mental health treatment resulted in an addendum to a sentence in criminal court) for them to check on drug use or mental health treatment absent abusing insurance information, potentially. The thing is, such a search require a search algorithm that looks beyond record identifiers, it requires one which will read underlying files, generally this is not yet being done, though the tech exists. Many states are now assembling restraining order databases, and I would guesstimate that within no more than two years these will be linked across the nation and will be fully searchable.

That sounds like a move in the right direction.

 

[jonessed]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

 

[NCCommish]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

I think he will do what he can and dare the GOP to fight it in an election year.

 

[joffer]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

Probably if they are Muslim.

sorry Obama, no AR-15 for you

 

[BobbyLayne]

What does the background check look for? Just previous felony convictions or more?

Would like to know the specifics. Background check is pretty vague.

Background check is a garbage can term that could me at the Federal level, Federal & state, Federal, state & local (county + city) - and that is just checking criminal records. Could also entail finacial and commercial records, presumably military service records.

 

[timschochet]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

But if it could go somewhere would you be in favor of that?

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

 

[BowieMercs]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

 

[NCCommish]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

 

[jonessed]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

But if it could go somewhere would you be in favor of that?

Not as an executive order. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was done through Congress.

 

[timschochet]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").Ba

Universal background checks will likely have very little effect on mass shootings. But many law enforcement experts believe that it will have an effect on gun crimes in general.

 

[timschochet]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

But if it could go somewhere would you be in favor of that?

Not as an executive order. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was done through Congress.

Why not?

 

[BowieMercs]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

 

[spreagle]

Why would anyone not want this?? He's not talking about banning sales of anything.

Because once liberals get enough controls in place for every single gun transfer, they will want to insert delays and cooling off periods so long that buying a gun will be a miserable experience and effectively be banned. Or in a time of crisis when some good law abiding citizen needs to buy a gun for good reason such as self defense, the liberals will just shut the system down. I'm sure there is plenty of other ways the liberals have planned to make owning a gun very difficult once they get enough control measures in place. They can't be trusted to be reasonable so they cant be given an inch more of gun control.

 

[NCCommish]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

 

[Cjw_55106]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

But if it could go somewhere would you be in favor of that?

Not as an executive order. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was done through Congress.

Why not?

I dont want to speak for Jones, but my guess is, most people in the US dont want an individual to have the power to make laws. Its kind of a big deal.

 

[JuniorNB]

Why would anyone not want this?? He's not talking about banning sales of anything.

Because once liberals get enough controls in place for every single gun transfer, they will want to insert delays and cooling off periods so long that buying a gun will be a miserable experience and effectively be banned. Or in a time of crisis when some good law abiding citizen needs to buy a gun for good reason such as self defense, the liberals will just shut the system down. I'm sure there is plenty of other ways the liberals have planned to make owning a gun very difficult once they get enough control measures in place. They can't be trusted to be reasonable so they cant be given an inch more of gun control.

The paranoia runs deep with this one.

 

[BowieMercs]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

That would be a private sale. Those are perfectly legal depending on the type of gun and/or what state you live in. Buyer & seller must be residents of the same state.

 

[NCCommish]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

That would be a private sale. Those are perfectly legal depending on the type of gun and/or what state you live in. Buyer & seller must be residents of the same state.

Didn't say it wasn't currently legal. Said it takes advantage of the private seller loophole to provide a gun with no background check. Which was the point I was replying to.

 

[BowieMercs]

Gun show loophole sounds scarier than just saying private sales are legal.

 

[JuniorNB]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

That would be a private sale. Those are perfectly legal depending on the type of gun and/or what state you live in. Buyer & seller must be residents of the same state.

So if that is the loophole they are trying to close, why would anyone be against it? Closing loopholes is a good thing.

 

[BowieMercs]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

That would be a private sale. Those are perfectly legal depending on the type of gun and/or what state you live in. Buyer & seller must be residents of the same state.

So if that is the loophole they are trying to close, why would anyone be against it? Closing loopholes is a good thing.

its NOT a loophole. The laws were written that way on purpose.

 

[spreagle]

It must be bad because Obama the Transparent just appeared with Large Calves Loretta and didn't detail anything, other than he was doing gun control.

 

[NCCommish]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

That would be a private sale. Those are perfectly legal depending on the type of gun and/or what state you live in. Buyer & seller must be residents of the same state.

So if that is the loophole they are trying to close, why would anyone be against it? Closing loopholes is a good thing.

its NOT a loophole. The laws were written that way on purpose.

Laws are written with loopholes all the time. See tax law. And regardless laws change.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is such kabuki theater. Do you really think Lynch has told Obama there is anything he can't do? Think Gonzalez and Bush.

 

[Cjw_55106]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

That would be a private sale. Those are perfectly legal depending on the type of gun and/or what state you live in. Buyer & seller must be residents of the same state.

So if that is the loophole they are trying to close, why would anyone be against it? Closing loopholes is a good thing.

its NOT a loophole. The laws were written that way on purpose.

Laws are written with loopholes all the time. See tax law. And regardless laws change.

Yep, laws change. Many prefer they change through the proper channels, not through a single dictatorship type move.

 

[JuniorNB]

Hard to give an opinion on this until we know what exactly he's looking to push through. If it makes it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands, then I'm all for it. If it's really step one in the government someday taking all of our guns, I'm not. And being non-paranoid, I'm confident it's the former.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And does it even matter? The Obama administration right now is in violation of court orders on immigration. Executive authority is almost boundless right now.

 

[BowieMercs]

It's all for show. I can't recall any of the mass shootings using guns sourced from a private sale ( those exploiting the gunshow "loophole").

The shooter in Chattanooga allegedly purchased his guns online so no background check.

Online sales from a dealer are subject to FFL transfer rules.

This was a site that connects private sellers with buyers not gun dealers is my understanding.

That would be a private sale. Those are perfectly legal depending on the type of gun and/or what state you live in. Buyer & seller must be residents of the same state.

So if that is the loophole they are trying to close, why would anyone be against it? Closing loopholes is a good thing.

its NOT a loophole. The laws were written that way on purpose.

Laws are written with loopholes all the time. See tax law. And regardless laws change.

Fair enough. A lot of people think of loopholes as some sneaky way to reward big business for contributions.

If anything, this law helps the little guy not business.

 

[jonessed]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

But if it could go somewhere would you be in favor of that?

Not as an executive order. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was done through Congress.

Why not?

Because it's illegal and I think the executive office has too much power as it is. I'm not an ends justified the means guy.

 

[JuniorNB]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

But if it could go somewhere would you be in favor of that?

Not as an executive order. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was done through Congress.

Why not?

Because it's illegal and I think the executive office has too much power as it is. I'm not an ends justified the means guy.

Executive orders are illegal?

 

[spreagle]

Private sales is not a loophole, per the constitution the government to has to trust the citizens with guns.

"The constitution was written for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other". Johe Adams.

I still don't understand why the government can mistrust the citizens at point of the original gun sale. It's probably one of those unconstitutional things that just got ingrained over time as normal.

 

[jonessed]

This will go the way of his immigration reform, nowhere. It's a publicity stunt.

But if it could go somewhere would you be in favor of that?

Not as an executive order. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was done through Congress.

Why not?

Because it's illegal and I think the executive office has too much power as it is. I'm not an ends justified the means guy.

Executive orders are illegal?

I think this one is. At least what is being proposed.