Can Obama increase background checks for guns? (1 Viewer)

[Enderdog]

I'm not even sure what this would stop. Just dealers that sell at gun shows? I know I buy, sell, or trade a gun on occasion with someone local, and I know neither me or the other person is going to pay the government a fee for that.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not even sure what this would stop. Just dealers that sell at gun shows? I know I buy, sell, or trade a gun on occasion with someone local, and I know neither me or the other person is going to pay the government a fee for that.

I think you should.

 

[shadrap]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm not even sure what this would stop. Just dealers that sell at gun shows? I know I buy, sell, or trade a gun on occasion with someone local, and I know neither me or the other person is going to pay the government a fee for that.

Jim Acosta Verified account ‏@Acosta
Key part of new admin gun sales guidance will warn that sellers "in the business" must use background check system or risk prosecution.

- So the president is going to order the government to warn sellers of a specific kind that they should adhere to a non-statutory provision or they could be prosecuted by those who do not have the statutory authority to prosecute them.

Should go well.

 

[joffer]

Doesn't all this arguing seem a bit silly prior to discovering what, exactly, Obama wants to do?

THAT NOT WHY WERE HERE

 

[GrandpaRox]

99% of gun owners don't give a #### about this other than the "don't give an inch" factor. In actuality this will make pretty much zero impact to that 99%.

It will help the Obama lovers fawn all over him, yet it won't ####### matter.

I would vote against any politician that backs this but it does not affect me or any of the numerous gun owners that I have ever known/worked with and that is a lot.

 

[flapgreen]

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.

Plenty of reason to be paranoid in times like these.

 

[timschochet]

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.

Plenty of reason to be paranoid in times like these.

Really? Do tell.

 

[shader]

99% of gun owners don't give a #### about this other than the "don't give an inch" factor. In actuality this will make pretty much zero impact to that 99%.

It will help the Obama lovers fawn all over him, yet it won't ####### matter.

I would vote against any politician that backs this but it does not affect me or any of the numerous gun owners that I have ever known/worked with and that is a lot.

If it doesn't matter, why do you care?

 

[timschochet]

99% of gun owners don't give a #### about this other than the "don't give an inch" factor. In actuality this will make pretty much zero impact to that 99%.

It will help the Obama lovers fawn all over him, yet it won't ####### matter.

I would vote against any politician that backs this but it does not affect me or any of the numerous gun owners that I have ever known/worked with and that is a lot.

If it doesn't matter, why do you care?

At first gun owners were behaving like this decision meant Obama was going to seize all guns- hence the governor of Texas "Come and take them!" Now these same folks are acting like it's meaningless, won't make a bit of difference (but they're against it anyhow, of course.) Wish they'd make up their minds...

 

[TheAristocrat]

Obama is like the fat chicks of presidents. She do what she's going to do but things can quickly change when you have your head straight again.

 

[spreagle]

I'm not even sure what this would stop. Just dealers that sell at gun shows? I know I buy, sell, or trade a gun on occasion with someone local, and I know neither me or the other person is going to pay the government a fee for that.

Probably estate sale auctioneers who occasionally auction off a gun would be another. A lot of guys go to these auctions just for the guns, not anymore.

 

[[icon]]

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.

It's Always fun to see people talk with conviction about stuff they know absolutely nothing about. I have purchased two firearms online. Both involved them being picked up by a FFL for a legal transfer that involved the same background check I would undergo if I had bought it from a gun shop.

 

[[icon]]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

This actually happened but it was only a couple calibers and I'm not convinced it had anything to do with trying to keep ammo out Of the hands of civilians.

 

[cubd8]

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

Even if he can do it, can he actually enforce it?

 

[Apple Jack]

at the "end around" comment. As if the NRA hasn't bought a wall in Congress.

 

[JaxBill]

Interesting response

A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association said on Monday that the organization’s lawyers would look at the president’s proposals more closely to determine if there was anything they might go to court to challenge. But she said that at first glance the plan seemed surprisingly thin.

“This is it, really?” asked Jennifer Baker, an official with the N.R.A.’s Washington lobbying arm. “This is what they’ve been hyping for how long now? This is the proposal they’ve spent seven years putting together? They’re not really doing anything.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/us/politics/obama-says-he-will-act-on-gun-control-in-coming-days.html

 

[MattFancy]

Interesting response

A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association said on Monday that the organization’s lawyers would look at the president’s proposals more closely to determine if there was anything they might go to court to challenge. But she said that at first glance the plan seemed surprisingly thin.

“This is it, really?” asked Jennifer Baker, an official with the N.R.A.’s Washington lobbying arm. “This is what they’ve been hyping for how long now? This is the proposal they’ve spent seven years putting together? They’re not really doing anything.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/us/politics/obama-says-he-will-act-on-gun-control-in-coming-days.html

Gotta love the NRA. If there were more too it, they would be #####ing about how he's taking away their guns. So now, they'll play the, "this is all he is doing?" card to make it seem like it's not enough.

 

[TPW]

at the "end around" comment. As if the NRA hasn't bought a wall in Congress.

They've been very good at using proper legislative channels with strong effect, no doubt. The president on the other hand just does whatever the hell he wants or has his cronies pass controversial legislation on Christmas Eve with zero opposition support.

It's my way or the highway with Obama. I'll say it once again, you Progressives had better hope that an aggressive conservative who doesn't care about negative press never sits in the White House again. All of this stuff being done and much more can be undone with a stroke of a pen.

 

[Poncho]

So stricter background checks for gun owners he is all for, didn't he VETO stricter background checks for Syrian refugees? lol

 

[TobiasFunke]

Doesn't all this arguing seem a bit silly prior to discovering what, exactly, Obama wants to do?

Yup. In fact it's even sillier than this- I don't even think Obama is going to issue an executive order. My best guess is that we'll get an ATF rulemaking attempting to clarify who is and is not "engaged in the business of selling firearms."

This thread is a parade of stupid. One post after another misunderstanding basic aspects of the relationship between the legislative and executive branches, all in the name of criticizing something sight unseen. Every person who posted something conclusive in this thread about the president's authority here should do their country a great service and never ever vote again.

This isn't some new power grab, folks. Congress passes laws that often require some measure of interpretation by the executive branch- like for example requiring licenses for people "engaged in the business of selling firearms"- and the executive branch does its job when it interprets and applies them. The courts then hear any challenges brought to the executive branch's interpretation/application of the law, and if they find that they executive branch's interpretation/application is inconsistent with the statute, it strikes that interpretation/application. It's a process almost as old as the Constitution, and it's not remotely controversial.

 

[The Commish]

Interesting response

A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association said on Monday that the organization’s lawyers would look at the president’s proposals more closely to determine if there was anything they might go to court to challenge. But she said that at first glance the plan seemed surprisingly thin.

“This is it, really?” asked Jennifer Baker, an official with the N.R.A.’s Washington lobbying arm. “This is what they’ve been hyping for how long now? This is the proposal they’ve spent seven years putting together? They’re not really doing anything.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/us/politics/obama-says-he-will-act-on-gun-control-in-coming-days.html

Even the NRA knows it's ok to poke this particular bear.

 

[ATC1]

Enter political thread - All this digging in on both sides is really stupid IMO. Both sides really need to... oh this is pointless. Trump or Clinton. Whoohooo!!

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

So the president is trying to determine if he can, on his own better enforce the law already on the books? Isn't that what you guys always demand?

He's reinterpreting statutory language to accomplish his political goals and once again using an executive end around because he's been completely ineffective in dealing with the body of government which is actually responsible for passing laws in this country, the United States Congress.

In other words, same #### different day.

yep.

agree

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So stricter background checks for gun owners he is all for, didn't he VETO stricter background checks for Syrian refugees? lol

About a million times more worried about gun owners.

*** I think he threatened to veto it (HR 4038).. it passed the house and its in the senate currently.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

I really try not to use this, but sometimes it just nails it:



The ammunition shortage- just like every recent weapon-buying frenzy- was caused by paranoid gun nuts reacting to Obama's election and to the perceived threat of stricter regulations after Sandy Hook. Obama can't order federal agencies to purchase massive amounts of ammunition-as you may have heard, Congress has the power of the purse. And he certainly can't order state agencies to do it- they're state agencies, for chrissakes.

Maybe think about getting your news from somewhere other than breitbart.com next time.

 

[shadrap]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

[/quote

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

I really try not to use this, but sometimes it just nails it:



The ammunition shortage- just like every recent weapon-buying frenzy- was caused by paranoid gun nuts reacting to Obama's election and to the perceived threat of stricter regulations after Sandy Hook. Obama can't order federal agencies to purchase massive amounts of ammunition-as you may have heard, Congress has the power of the purse. And he certainly can't order state agencies to do it- they're state agencies, for chrissakes.

Maybe think about getting your news from somewhere other than breitbart.com next time.

Your right about the State but:

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunition-purchases.htm

 

[TobiasFunke]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

[/quote

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

I really try not to use this, but sometimes it just nails it:



The ammunition shortage- just like every recent weapon-buying frenzy- was caused by paranoid gun nuts reacting to Obama's election and to the perceived threat of stricter regulations after Sandy Hook. Obama can't order federal agencies to purchase massive amounts of ammunition-as you may have heard, Congress has the power of the purse. And he certainly can't order state agencies to do it- they're state agencies, for chrissakes.

Maybe think about getting your news from somewhere other than breitbart.com next time.

Your right about the State but:

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunition-purchases.htm

My bad. I thought you would understand that when I said "maybe think about getting your news from somewhere other than breitbart.com," I was using that as shorthand for all nonsense conspiracy theory garbage "news" blogs. Let me amend:

Maybe next time get your news from reputable journalists instead of crappy op-ed writers for financial websites who provide data without perspective (there's no comparison of the referenced ammo purchase to normal agency buying patterns) and who say things like "according to one estimate" without actually linking or citing to that estimate.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

How do you decide which executive orders are legal and which ones aren't?

Subject matter and scope.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Tobias... thats just irish being exactly what he has in his own username.

http://cdn.bearingarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gao-e1392665431172.png

http://bearingarms.com/breaking-dhs-is-not-buying-up-all-the-ammunition/

Credit is due to the National Rifle Association for debunking conspiracy theories about “the government” causing this crisis. Last month’s issue of American Rifleman, the “official journal of the NRA,” lays out the case for why American gun owners have only themselves to blame for the steep rise in ammunition prices (and the steep fall in ammunition supply).

From 2000 to 2012, the NRA reported, excise taxes received by the federal government on ammunition sales (a proxy for ammo sales per se) roughly tripled in size. The dollar value of actual ammunition sales increased nearly 100% from 2007 to 2012. In real life, the NRA explained this means that ammunition sales “started to climb fast as gun sales began surging” in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election.

High prices, low supply
Conspiracy theorists will dispute this simple explanation, no doubt. But it jibes with what manufacturers of ammunition are saying. ATK subsidiary Federal Cartridge, for example, has a statement on its website advising, “We are currently experiencing high demand for our products.” In an interview with American Rifleman, Federal confirmed, too, that “the current increase in demand,” (and by implication, the increase in prices) “is attributed to the civilian market” (this means you).

Put simply, it’s the hoarders and speculators, not DHS, that is drying up ammunition supplies.

 

[TPW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3IWq3CXHyc

I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

ATF&E Agent: Mr. Jones, you are under arrest for selling your shotgun to your cousin Herb.

Mr. Jones: Why? Was I violating Federal, state, or local criminal law?

ATF&E Agent: No sir, you violated an Executive Order, one not put out through any legislative branch, and one that does not address executive powers or functions, but which makes behavior criminal.

Mr. Jones: What? What is the source of that power? Is it enumerated in the Constitution?

ATF&E Agent: No, but can you, off the top of your head cite why it is not allowed?

Mr. Jones: I thought that if powers were not specifically given to the government they were reserved to the people. I thought the Legislative branch passed laws, particularly criminal laws. I thought Executive orders dealt exclusively with matters within the purview of that branch of government, you know, setting policy for federal employees, ambassadors and such, directing agency internal operations.

ATF&E Agent: Mr. Jones, you are also under arrest for violation of Executive Orders for attempting to read and understand the Constitution without having been admitted to the Bar and having taught at a university.

Mr. Jones: Don't taze me bro!

ATF&E Agent: Too late.

Mr. Jones: AAAHHHHEEEAH! GGGurrrgfkk!

 

[spreagle]

Tobias... thats just irish being exactly what he has in his own username.

http://cdn.bearingarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gao-e1392665431172.png

http://bearingarms.com/breaking-dhs-is-not-buying-up-all-the-ammunition/

Credit is due to the National Rifle Association for debunking conspiracy theories about “the government” causing this crisis. Last month’s issue of American Rifleman, the “official journal of the NRA,” lays out the case for why American gun owners have only themselves to blame for the steep rise in ammunition prices (and the steep fall in ammunition supply).

From 2000 to 2012, the NRA reported, excise taxes received by the federal government on ammunition sales (a proxy for ammo sales per se) roughly tripled in size. The dollar value of actual ammunition sales increased nearly 100% from 2007 to 2012. In real life, the NRA explained this means that ammunition sales “started to climb fast as gun sales began surging” in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election.

High prices, low supply

Conspiracy theorists will dispute this simple explanation, no doubt. But it jibes with what manufacturers of ammunition are saying. ATK subsidiary Federal Cartridge, for example, has a statement on its website advising, “We are currently experiencing high demand for our products.” In an interview with American Rifleman, Federal confirmed, too, that “the current increase in demand,” (and by implication, the increase in prices) “is attributed to the civilian market” (this means you).

Put simply, it’s the hoarders and speculators, not DHS, that is drying up ammunition supplies.

I disagree it was hoarders and speculators who caused this problem. Ammunition went from a "just in time" purchase for everybody (like gasoline), to "Hmmm, I better store a little bit just in case I need it" for everybody. That's not hoarding and speculation, unless hoarding and speculation is defined as putting a few gallons of gas in a tank in the garage in case the power goes out. Quite predictably, supply was totally unable to keep up with this small shift in thinking. THEN the hoarders and speculators stepped in. If anything, gun owners are to blame for being lackadaisical "just in timers" in the previous decades, not for shifting their thinking to a more reasonable "always having a little on hand".

 

[Kid_kong]

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.

iIsn't this gun show "loophole" apply only to antique guns?

 

[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.

iIsn't this gun show "loophole" apply only to antique guns?

Private sales. Not gun show loophole.

It applies to all non NFA guns, subject to state/local laws.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

iIsn't this gun show "loophole" apply only to antique guns?

I believe you are referring to another matter. I believe you are referencing an exception, or a non-coverage area, of provisions relating to commercial sale of weapons. Whether one needs a specific federal license or not can be effected both by the nature of a weapon (fully automatic or not) and the age of a weapon (antique guns as you say).

Pawn Star Rick Harrison can buy and sell antique weapons without a federal license. The background checks he would have to perform is a wholly separate question.

 

[BowieMercs]

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and
sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personalcollection, you do not need to be licensed.


https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2Fe5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b



^ used to determine if you are a gun dealer or not & must get a license/perform background checks

 

[BowieMercs]

ATF has a post about 41P on their FB page

.. one comment .. "so, say i'm a federal agency and I sell a bunch of guns to Mexican cartels - do I need an FFL?"

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

ATF&E Agent: Mr. Jones, you are under arrest for selling your shotgun to your cousin Herb.

Mr. Jones: Why? Was I violating Federal, state, or local criminal law?

ATF&E Agent: No sir, you violated an Executive Order, one not put out through any legislative branch, and one that does not address executive powers or functions, but which makes behavior criminal.

Mr. Jones: What? What is the source of that power? Is it enumerated in the Constitution?

ATF&E Agent: No, but can you, off the top of your head cite why it is not allowed?

Mr. Jones: I thought that if powers were not specifically given to the government they were reserved to the people. I thought the Legislative branch passed laws, particularly criminal laws. I thought Executive orders dealt exclusively with matters within the purview of that branch of government, you know, setting policy for federal employees, ambassadors and such, directing agency internal operations.

ATF&E Agent: Mr. Jones, you are also under arrest for violation of Executive Orders for attempting to read and understand the Constitution without having been admitted to the Bar and having taught at a university.

Mr. Jones: Don't taze me bro!

ATF&E Agent: Too late.

Mr. Jones: AAAHHHHEEEAH! GGGurrrgfkk!

Awesome

 

[TobiasFunke]

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy andsell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personalcollection, you do not need to be licensed.


https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2Fe5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b



^ used to determine if you are a gun dealer or not & must get a license/perform background checks

Yup. And of course the agency can tweak this as long as it stays within the framework of the statutory direction. As I said this is likely going to come in the form of an ATF amendment/clarification of regulations (standard administrative practice), not an executive order. Not that the FFA will let that stop them from complaining about the tyranny of non-existent executive orders, of course.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy andsell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personalcollection, you do not need to be licensed.


https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2Fe5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b



^ used to determine if you are a gun dealer or not & must get a license/perform background checks

Yup. And of course the agency can tweak this as long as it stays within the framework of the statutory direction. As I said this is likely going to come in the form of an ATF amendment/clarification of regulations (standard administrative practice), not an executive order. Not that the FFA will let that stop them from complaining about the tyranny of non-existent executive orders, of course.

I have no problem with proper agency action, rulemaking after notice and an opportunity to be heard, to clarify and define discretionary power which was legislatively authorized to that agency and within the understood purview of that authorization.

I am fairly clear that a decision to interpret that there was sufficient ambiguity in the definition of a gun dealer such that background check provisions be extended to all sales will not be accepted by the Courts. Current legislation clearly contemplates that there will be exceptions to the requirement for performing background checks and this would render that meaning a nullity. Still, that tension more or less always exists and we can and should go through the process if the Agency, or the Agency's boss, the President, determines that we should. That, however, is different than the President saying he is going to issue an Executive Order making the thing criminal on his own authority. The President, in this case, has introduced the ambiguity as to the process and bears responsibility therefore. If the President wants to issue an Executive Order to the ATF&E to undertake rulemaking on this subject, and that rulemaking is then subject to proper challenge, I have no problem. To many this will seem a distinction without a difference. Not so to me. I find the checks and balances of our Constitutional process very important.

Frankly I think the President is grandstanding a bit on the issue right now, knows it, but also knows that most people will not understand the process. He is making a political point. He wants to be seen as leading on this issue. He is willing to ignore what should even be his understanding of the proper distinctions here to be seen as leading. I understand his reasons. I believe he feels he must do something and must be seen as doing something. I even believe he thinks this might be incrementally effective. I don't ascribe to him nothing but negative motives. that said, for expediency he continues us down a road of less appreciation for our Constitution, and I find that a bad thing.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy andsell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personalcollection, you do not need to be licensed.


https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2Fe5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b



^ used to determine if you are a gun dealer or not & must get a license/perform background checks

Yup. And of course the agency can tweak this as long as it stays within the framework of the statutory direction. As I said this is likely going to come in the form of an ATF amendment/clarification of regulations (standard administrative practice), not an executive order. Not that the FFA will let that stop them from complaining about the tyranny of non-existent executive orders, of course.

I have no problem with proper agency action, rulemaking after notice and an opportunity to be heard, to clarify and define discretionary power which was legislatively authorized to that agency and within the understood purview of that authorization.

I am fairly clear that a decision to interpret that there was sufficient ambiguity in the definition of a gun dealer such that background check provisions be extended to all sales will not be accepted by the Courts. Current legislation clearly contemplates that there will be exceptions to the requirement for performing background checks and this would render that meaning a nullity. Still, that tension more or less always exists and we can and should go through the process if the Agency, or the Agency's boss, the President, determines that we should. That, however, is different than the President saying he is going to issue an Executive Order making the thing criminal on his own authority. The President, in this case, has introduced the ambiguity as to the process and bears responsibility therefore. If the President wants to issue an Executive Order to the ATF&E to undertake rulemaking on this subject, and that rulemaking is then subject to proper challenge, I have no problem. To many this will seem a distinction without a difference. Not so to me. I find the checks and balances of our Constitutional process very important.

Frankly I think the President is grandstanding a bit on the issue right now, knows it, but also knows that most people will not understand the process. He is making a political point. He wants to be seen as leading on this issue. He is willing to ignore what should even be his understanding of the proper distinctions here to be seen as leading. I understand his reasons. I believe he feels he must do something and must be seen as doing something. I even believe he thinks this might be incrementally effective. I don't ascribe to him nothing but negative motives. that said, for expediency he continues us down a road of less appreciation for our Constitution, and I find that a bad thing.

I agree, a rulemaking is different than an executive order, and I would be far more skeptical of the latter. Can you give me a link to the executive order that he has introduced, or the action he has taken to "introduce the ambiguity as to the process'?

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy andsell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personalcollection, you do not need to be licensed.


https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2Fe5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b



^ used to determine if you are a gun dealer or not & must get a license/perform background checks

Yup. And of course the agency can tweak this as long as it stays within the framework of the statutory direction. As I said this is likely going to come in the form of an ATF amendment/clarification of regulations (standard administrative practice), not an executive order. Not that the FFA will let that stop them from complaining about the tyranny of non-existent executive orders, of course.

I have no problem with proper agency action, rulemaking after notice and an opportunity to be heard, to clarify and define discretionary power which was legislatively authorized to that agency and within the understood purview of that authorization.

I am fairly clear that a decision to interpret that there was sufficient ambiguity in the definition of a gun dealer such that background check provisions be extended to all sales will not be accepted by the Courts. Current legislation clearly contemplates that there will be exceptions to the requirement for performing background checks and this would render that meaning a nullity. Still, that tension more or less always exists and we can and should go through the process if the Agency, or the Agency's boss, the President, determines that we should. That, however, is different than the President saying he is going to issue an Executive Order making the thing criminal on his own authority. The President, in this case, has introduced the ambiguity as to the process and bears responsibility therefore. If the President wants to issue an Executive Order to the ATF&E to undertake rulemaking on this subject, and that rulemaking is then subject to proper challenge, I have no problem. To many this will seem a distinction without a difference. Not so to me. I find the checks and balances of our Constitutional process very important.

Frankly I think the President is grandstanding a bit on the issue right now, knows it, but also knows that most people will not understand the process. He is making a political point. He wants to be seen as leading on this issue. He is willing to ignore what should even be his understanding of the proper distinctions here to be seen as leading. I understand his reasons. I believe he feels he must do something and must be seen as doing something. I even believe he thinks this might be incrementally effective. I don't ascribe to him nothing but negative motives. that said, for expediency he continues us down a road of less appreciation for our Constitution, and I find that a bad thing.

Awesome post

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy andsell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personalcollection, you do not need to be licensed.


https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2Fe5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b



^ used to determine if you are a gun dealer or not & must get a license/perform background checks

Yup. And of course the agency can tweak this as long as it stays within the framework of the statutory direction. As I said this is likely going to come in the form of an ATF amendment/clarification of regulations (standard administrative practice), not an executive order. Not that the FFA will let that stop them from complaining about the tyranny of non-existent executive orders, of course.

I have no problem with proper agency action, rulemaking after notice and an opportunity to be heard, to clarify and define discretionary power which was legislatively authorized to that agency and within the understood purview of that authorization.

I am fairly clear that a decision to interpret that there was sufficient ambiguity in the definition of a gun dealer such that background check provisions be extended to all sales will not be accepted by the Courts. Current legislation clearly contemplates that there will be exceptions to the requirement for performing background checks and this would render that meaning a nullity. Still, that tension more or less always exists and we can and should go through the process if the Agency, or the Agency's boss, the President, determines that we should. That, however, is different than the President saying he is going to issue an Executive Order making the thing criminal on his own authority. The President, in this case, has introduced the ambiguity as to the process and bears responsibility therefore. If the President wants to issue an Executive Order to the ATF&E to undertake rulemaking on this subject, and that rulemaking is then subject to proper challenge, I have no problem. To many this will seem a distinction without a difference. Not so to me. I find the checks and balances of our Constitutional process very important.

Frankly I think the President is grandstanding a bit on the issue right now, knows it, but also knows that most people will not understand the process. He is making a political point. He wants to be seen as leading on this issue. He is willing to ignore what should even be his understanding of the proper distinctions here to be seen as leading. I understand his reasons. I believe he feels he must do something and must be seen as doing something. I even believe he thinks this might be incrementally effective. I don't ascribe to him nothing but negative motives. that said, for expediency he continues us down a road of less appreciation for our Constitution, and I find that a bad thing.

I agree, a rulemaking is different than an executive order, and I would be far more skeptical of the latter. Can you give me a link to the executive order that he has introduced, or the action he has taken to "introduce the ambiguity as to the process'?

It was his press secretary putting out that he was going to do so by executive order, or so I understood. I took that as the fact of his intent. If I am mistaken then the premise of the thread is mistaken. I was dealing with the premise of the thread.

Was that premise incorrect? I am happy to be apprised of the facts if they are out there. I am not going to look for them now, during my work day. I just pop in here sporadically while actually doing things for my employer. perhaps tonight.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy andsell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personalcollection, you do not need to be licensed.


https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2Fe5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b



^ used to determine if you are a gun dealer or not & must get a license/perform background checks

Yup. And of course the agency can tweak this as long as it stays within the framework of the statutory direction. As I said this is likely going to come in the form of an ATF amendment/clarification of regulations (standard administrative practice), not an executive order. Not that the FFA will let that stop them from complaining about the tyranny of non-existent executive orders, of course.

I have no problem with proper agency action, rulemaking after notice and an opportunity to be heard, to clarify and define discretionary power which was legislatively authorized to that agency and within the understood purview of that authorization.

I am fairly clear that a decision to interpret that there was sufficient ambiguity in the definition of a gun dealer such that background check provisions be extended to all sales will not be accepted by the Courts. Current legislation clearly contemplates that there will be exceptions to the requirement for performing background checks and this would render that meaning a nullity. Still, that tension more or less always exists and we can and should go through the process if the Agency, or the Agency's boss, the President, determines that we should. That, however, is different than the President saying he is going to issue an Executive Order making the thing criminal on his own authority. The President, in this case, has introduced the ambiguity as to the process and bears responsibility therefore. If the President wants to issue an Executive Order to the ATF&E to undertake rulemaking on this subject, and that rulemaking is then subject to proper challenge, I have no problem. To many this will seem a distinction without a difference. Not so to me. I find the checks and balances of our Constitutional process very important.

Frankly I think the President is grandstanding a bit on the issue right now, knows it, but also knows that most people will not understand the process. He is making a political point. He wants to be seen as leading on this issue. He is willing to ignore what should even be his understanding of the proper distinctions here to be seen as leading. I understand his reasons. I believe he feels he must do something and must be seen as doing something. I even believe he thinks this might be incrementally effective. I don't ascribe to him nothing but negative motives. that said, for expediency he continues us down a road of less appreciation for our Constitution, and I find that a bad thing.

I agree, a rulemaking is different than an executive order, and I would be far more skeptical of the latter. Can you give me a link to the executive order that he has introduced, or the action he has taken to "introduce the ambiguity as to the process'?

It was his press secretary putting out that he was going to do so by executive order, or so I understood. I took that as the fact of his intent. If I am mistaken then the premise of the thread is mistaken. I was dealing with the premise of the thread.

Was that premise incorrect? I am happy to be apprised of the facts if they are out there. I am not going to look for them now, during my work day. I just pop in here sporadically while actually doing things for my employer. perhaps tonight.

I haven't seen that anywhere. Every reference I've seen to the new proposal has been just a vague reference to "executive action," which of course doesn't really mean anything.

If he does something on the licensing requirements by executive order instead of an ATF rulemaking or policy document, I'd probably agree with you on first glance that it's an overreach. But I've seen nothing to indicate that is what's planned.

I pointed out a couple hours ago that the premise of the thread was premature and possibly (probably?) mistaken. I guess everyone just has me on ignore I was also in a pissy, angry mood at the time

 

[pantagrapher]

I applaud Obama for doing this.

 

[timschochet]

I thought it was an executive order too based on what I've been reading and hearing on the radio. That's why the thread has its title. If that turns out to be wrong I guess I'll change it.

 

[General Malaise]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

I really try not to use this, but sometimes it just nails it:



The ammunition shortage- just like every recent weapon-buying frenzy- was caused by paranoid gun nuts reacting to Obama's election and to the perceived threat of stricter regulations after Sandy Hook. Obama can't order federal agencies to purchase massive amounts of ammunition-as you may have heard, Congress has the power of the purse. And he certainly can't order state agencies to do it- they're state agencies, for chrissakes.

Maybe think about getting your news from somewhere other than breitbart.com next time.

 

[matuski]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

I missed the part of your story where Obama put laws in place to stop the manufacture of bullets.

 

[matuski]

Back in 2008 I had lunch with two guys who were furious over Obama's election and said he was going to put laws in place that would stop the manufacturing of bullets. They were crazed over it, swearing that it was only a matter of time before Obama would cut off the ammunition supply. I thought they sounded pretty dumb and couldn't wait for lunch to end.

Bottom line - you gun nuts are a bunch of idiots. Whining all the ####### time about Obama this and Obama that and really, nothing has changed other than we've suffered 8 years of senseless and barbaric gun massacres at schools, colleges, movie theaters, office buildings and malls because not enough was done. I'm tired of it. I hope Obama does do something. This ain't right. My kids shouldn't go to school scared and I shouldn't be dropping them off worried that some lunatic will mow them down.

You might have lunch with those idiots again & listen next time. Obama tried to do it by having federal & State agencies buy enough ammo to short the individual market. It actually worked.

He figured, can't get the guns, get the ammo. Sorry dude, your lunch buddies were right. Now if you want more gun control & think the guns are the problem Obama is your guy. The fiasco in a Denver theater where 20 or so people died was.................screw it, you won't listen anyway.

I really try not to use this, but sometimes it just nails it:



The ammunition shortage- just like every recent weapon-buying frenzy- was caused by paranoid gun nuts reacting to Obama's election and to the perceived threat of stricter regulations after Sandy Hook. Obama can't order federal agencies to purchase massive amounts of ammunition-as you may have heard, Congress has the power of the purse. And he certainly can't order state agencies to do it- they're state agencies, for chrissakes.

Maybe think about getting your news from somewhere other than breitbart.com next time.