Obama announces EO plans for the immediate future

[Junior Bonner]

Alligator tears.

 

[Glocktogo]

That may be true, but they only have to hold up long enough for the defendant(victim) to run out of money.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. DoJ wins such an overwhelming majority of the cases it files, in part because they bring the full weight and power of the United States government to bear on their targets. Some poor schmuck who was trying to sell part of his personal collection to put a new transmission in his car, isn't going to win.

 

[Erick]

This is a great example of people who know nothing about the items they intend to legislate.

We know this is about control and setting a precedent. If they really wanted to help keep felons from obtaining a firearm, they could have simply given private sellers a method to see if a potential buyer is a red light or green light. I would have no problem typing a name into a private database like Been Verified". However, the burden clearly should not be on the seller as not even the federal government can't vet without flaw.

 

[Erick]

Intended or unintended consequence? Say you decide to play it safe and get a dealer license to avoid becoming a target. Will the BATFE sign off if your home isn't zoned for commercial use? I know some FFL holders operate out of their homes, but some have been denied a license due to that issue. I'm not sure if there's any standardization on the subject.

That's precisely what prevented me from getting my FFL. I wondered the same.

 

[mightymouse]

If they really wanted to help keep felons from obtaining a firearm, they could have simply given private sellers a method to see if a potential buyer is a red light or green light.

There is a mechanism in place for this to occur. It requires the seller to transfer the gun to the FFL. The FFL then performs the background check on the buyer. Should the buyer pass, the FFL transfers the gun to the buyer. If the buyer does not pass, the FFL must then perform a background check on the seller before the gun can be transferred back to the seller. It is a complicated goat f&*k, but that is how the mechanism works.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Here's an idea: Make it so buyers can run a background check on themselves. Then after clearing the check they're given a code that's good for say a week. When they show up to buy a gun they give the seller their code. The seller can quickly confirm that the code is valid by calling or going online and entering the code. The code is never associated with a specific weapon. The seller never has to have anymore info on the buyer than they do now.

 

[Glocktogo]

I don't see how this equates to "Use Dr.s against us." But then, I'm sure to be hit by a falling piece of sky as soon as I step outside my door.

I've asked before and I'll ask again... what exactly are we to do to prevent people with mental health issues from obtaining firearms they can then use to commit massacres like some of the ones we've seen over the years? Seriously... what EXACTLY, if not reporting specific mental health data to NICS and/or the federal government. Give us some ideas. Tell us how we can assure these people don't have access to firearms WITHOUT doing this?

This absolutely 100% totally and completely does NOT mean anyone with a diagnosis of depression or anxiety in their medical files, or anyone on an anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication is automagically going to have their 2nd Amendment rights taken away. It just isn't like that at all, in spite of what some people would have you believe.

Its super easy and super well defined. IF you as a Dr. feel one of your patients should not be allowed to possess firearms, sign an order requesting a mental competency hearing in court. Then show up and testify. If the judge issues a ruling of mental incompetency, that order should then be entered into the court record AND THE COURT should report that to NICS.

Anything less is a violation of the patient's constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment.

This is a great example of people who know nothing about the items they intend to legislate.

That was blatantly obvious when I read one of the "criteria" for determining if you're a "dealer". From page 9 of the ATF's new guidance form:

What are the circumstances under which you are selling firearms? Are you selling shortly after acquiring them? Repeatedly selling the same type of firearm? Or repetitively selling new firearms?

In addition to the volume and frequency of firearms transactions, the timing and circumstances surrounding firearm transactions are also significant indicators of whether a person is engaged in the business. Repetitively selling or offering to sell firearms shortly after they are acquired; “restocking” inventory; repetitively acquiring the same type of firearm or a large quantity of the same type of firearm, and then reselling or offering to sell those firearms; and/or repetitively acquiring and reselling or offering to sell firearms in unopened or original packaging (or in new condition), are all factors which individually or combined may indicate a person is engaged in the business.

The "selling in original packaging" criteria is utterly baffling. All the new guns I've bought in the past 20 years have included a safety manual, gun lock and in some cases, a fired casing for tracing purposes, not to mention most of the original cases are suitable for transport under FAA regulations on an airplane. What's better to ensure you're passing all that safety and security equipment along to the next owner, than the original packaging? many owners also include the original packaging as evidence the firearm isn't stolen, as most stolen guns don't come with these items.

Therefore, I can only assume that President Obama wants to ensure that we only sell our privately owned guns WITHOUT this important safety and security equipment? WTF???

 

[blazeitornot]

Looks like Obama had some good news for low-balling government approved FFL dealers today.

 

[Defnestor]

What he meant:
"It is a sad state of affairs, that as gun ownership has increased, murders per 100,000 of the population has decreased. I intend to rectify this situation, by making it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Only when all of America suffers the same horrific, homicidal depredations of my home city of Chiraq and other socialist, third-world hell-holes, will I be satisfied."

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

What he meant:
"It is a sad state of affairs, that as gun ownership has increased, murders per 100,000 of the population has decreased. I intend to rectify this situation, by making it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Only when all of America suffers the same horrific, homicidal depredations of my home city of Chiraq and other socialist, third-world hell-holes, will I be satisfied."

There are more guns, but not more gun owners.

Number of households with guns on the decline, study shows

America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before​

There is no proven correlation between more gun, less crime. Crime rates, including murder, have been dropping for years. For many reasons. Just saying more guns, less murders makes about as much sense as saying more smart phones, less murders.