Obama 01/05/16 Executive Orders on guns press release

[LittleLebowski]

Link to NFA thread discussing the addition of background checks to trusts and possible timelines (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18636-BUY-NOW-IF-YOU-WANT-TO-USE-A-TRUST-Obama-ending-trusts)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our




Gun violence has taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country. Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence—and millions more have been the victim of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun. Many of these crimes were committed by people who never should have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. Over the same period, hundreds of thousands of other people in our communities committed suicide with a gun and nearly half a million people suffered other gun injuries. Hundreds of law enforcement officers have been shot to death protecting their communities. And too many children are killed or injured by firearms every year, often by accident. The vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of gun owners—believe we must take sensible steps to address these horrible tragedies.

The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence. Some of the gaps in our country’s gun laws can only be fixed through legislation, which is why the President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people. And while Congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand background checks and reduce gun violence, today, building on the significant steps that have already been taken over the past several years, the Administration is announcing a series of commonsense executive actions designed to:

1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.

2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.

The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws.

The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.

ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.

ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.

The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.

3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.

The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.

The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.

4. Shape the future of gun safety technology.

The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.

The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.

Congress should support the President’s request for resources for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws, as well as a new $500 million investment to address mental health issues.

Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do.


New Actions by the Federal Government

Keeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands Through Background Checks

The most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence is to make sure those who would commit violent acts cannot get a firearm in the first place. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was created by Congress to prevent guns from being sold to prohibited individuals, is a critical tool in achieving that goal. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the background check system has prevented more than 2 million guns from getting into the wrong hands. We know that making the system more efficient, and ensuring that it has all appropriate records about prohibited purchasers, will help enhance public safety. Today, the Administration is announcing the following executive actions to ensure that all gun dealers are licensed and run background checks, and to strengthen the background check system itself:

Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:

-A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.

-Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

-There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting. Congress has prohibited specific categories of people from buying guns—from convicted felons to users of illegal drugs to individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress also created incentives for States to make as many relevant records as possible accessible to NICS. Over the past three years, States have increased the number of records they make accessible by nearly 70 percent. To further encourage this reporting, the Attorney General has written a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified for mental health reasons, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence. The Administration will begin a new dialogue with States to ensure the background check system is as robust as possible, which is a public safety imperative.

Make the background check system more efficient and effective. In 2015, NICS received more than 22.2 million background check requests, an average of more than 63,000 per day. By law, a gun dealer can complete a sale to a customer if the background check comes back clean or has taken more than three days to complete. But features of the current system, which was built in the 1990s, are outdated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will take the following steps to ensure NICS operates more efficiently and effectively to keep guns out of the wrong hands:

-FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks. This new hiring will begin immediately and increase the existing workforce by 50 percent. This will reduce the strain on the NICS system and improve its ability to identify dangerous people who are prohibited from buying a gun before the transfer of a firearm is completed.

-FBI has partnered with the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) to modernize NICS. Although NICS has been routinely upgraded since its launch in 1998, the FBI is committed to making the system more efficient and effective, so that as many background checks as possible are fully processed within the three-day period before a dealer can legally sell a gun even if a background check is not complete. The improvements envisioned by FBI and USDS include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.

Making Our Communities Safer from Gun Violence

In order to improve public safety, we need to do more to ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws and make sure that criminals and other prohibited persons cannot get their hands on lost or stolen weapons. The Administration is therefore taking the following actions:

Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws. In a call earlier today, the Attorney General discussed the importance of today’s announcements and directed the Nation’s 93 U.S. Attorneys across the country to continue to focus their resources—as they have for the past several years under the Department’s Smart on Crime initiative—on the most impactful cases, including those targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms traffickers, and dangerous individuals who bypass the background check system to acquire weapons illegally. During the call, the Attorney General also emphasized ongoing initiatives to assist communities in combating violent crime, including ATF’s efforts to target the “worst of the worst” gun crimes. These efforts will also complement the following actions announced today:

-The President’s budget for FY2017 will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators who can help enforce our gun laws, including the measures announced today. Strategic and impactful enforcement will help take violent criminals off the street, deter other unlawful activity, and prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands

-ATF is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). The NIBIN database includes ballistic evidence that can be used by analysts and investigators to link violent crimes across jurisdictions and to track down shooters who prey on our communities. In February 2016, ATF is standing up the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally. These enhancements will support ATF’s crime gun intelligence and enforcement efforts, particularly in communities most affected by violent crime.

-ATF has established an Internet Investigations Center (IIC) staffed with federal agents, legal counsel, and investigators to track illegal online firearms trafficking and to provide actionable intelligence to agents in the field. The IIC has already identified a number of significant traffickers operating over the Internet. This work has led to prosecutions against individuals or groups using the “dark net” to traffic guns to criminals or attempting to buy firearms illegally online.

-Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns. Under current law, federal firearms dealers and other licensees must report when a gun from their inventory has been lost or stolen. The regulations are ambiguous, however, about who has this responsibility when a gun is lost or stolen in transit. Many lost and stolen guns end up being used in crimes. Over the past five years, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a licensee that claimed it never received the gun even though it was never reported lost or stolen either. Today, ATF issued a final rule clarifying that the licensee shipping a gun is responsible for notifying law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.

-Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts. In the event of an emergency, victims of domestic violence should call 911 or otherwise contact state or local law enforcement officials, who have a broader range of options for responding to these crimes. To provide an additional resource for state, local, and tribal law enforcement and community groups focused on domestic violence, the Attorney General is issuing a memo directing U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to engage in renewed efforts to coordinate with these groups to help combat domestic violence and to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.


Increase Mental Health Treatment and Reporting to the Background Check System

The Administration is committed to improving care for Americans experiencing mental health issues. In the last seven years, our country has made extraordinary progress in expanding mental health coverage for millions of Americans. This includes the Affordable Care Act’s end to insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, required coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services in the individual and small group markets, and an expansion of mental health and substance use disorder parity policies, all of which are estimated to help more than 60 million Americans. About 13.5 million more Americans have gained Medicaid coverage since October 2013, significantly improving access to mental health care. And thanks to more than $100 million in funding from the Affordable Care Act, community health centers have expanded behavioral health services for nearly 900,000 people nationwide over the past two years. We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment—and make sure that these individuals and their families know they are not alone. While individuals with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, incidents of violence continue to highlight a crisis in America’s mental health system. In addition to helping people get the treatment they need, we must make sure we keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited by law from having them. Today, the Administration is announcing the following steps to help achieve these goals:

-Dedicate significant new resources to increase access to mental health care. Despite our recent significant gains, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. To address this, the Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to help engage individuals with serious mental illness in care, improve access to care by increasing service capacity and the behavioral health workforce, and ensure that behavioral health care systems work for everyone. This effort would increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.

Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

-Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.



Shaping the Future of Gun Safety Technology

Tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by firearms every year—in many cases by guns that were sold legally but then stolen, misused, or discharged accidentally. Developing and promoting technology that would help prevent these tragedies is an urgent priority. America has done this in many other areas—from making cars safer to improving the tablets and phones we use every day. We know that researchers and engineers are already exploring ideas for improving gun safety and the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Millions of dollars have already been invested to support research into concepts that range from fingerprint scanners to radio-frequency identification to microstamping technology.

As the single largest purchaser of firearms in the country, the Federal Government has a unique opportunity to advance this research and ensure that smart gun technology becomes a reality—and it is possible to do so in a way that makes the public safer and is consistent with the Second Amendment. Today, the President is taking action to further this work in the following way:

-Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to take two important steps to promote smart gun technology.

-Increase research and development efforts. The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.

-Promote the use and acquisition of new technology. The Presidential Memorandum also directs the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety. In connection with these efforts, the departments will consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

[ssb]

I'd love to see what the "relevant factors" for engaging in the business are. I'm sure those will be narrowly tailored and only targeted at bad people doing bad things :rolleyes:

Preaching to the choir here, but it continues to amaze me how they keep throwing around "buying guns over the internet." It makes the mouthbreathers think that BudsGunShop will ship a Glock directly to my doorstep and it annoys the piss out of me.

The stuff on SSI Disability reporting to NICS seems questionable as well. As I recall, the language of the statute is "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution," not "receives government benefits." I will say, however, that I have basically no familiarity with the SSI Disability process apart from like half of the divorces I've worked on at a legal aid clinic involving people under 30 receiving such benefits, and that making me go hmm.

[frozentundra]

"But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present."

"...A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale."
----------------------

This seems like a step toward limiting "transfers" of firearms between citizens in good standing.

[JodyH]

Obama 01/05/16 Executive Orders on guns press release:
*blah*
*blah*
*blah*

5295

I can't wait for the legal challenges to slap 90% of this shit right off the table.
That's the best Obama and the anti's can do after the biggest push for gun control since the early '90's.
In the grand scheme of the past 8 years the scales have tipped pro-gun in a huge way.
Yea, I'm feeling pretty good about us making it into the next Presidency without losing any more ground.

[GardoneVT]

5295

Why so serious?

[JodyH]

Why so serious?
Exactly.
:cool:

[ralph]

And thanks to the feckless Republicans and Paul Ryan who voted the new budget into place, (and in the process gave up their only trump card) This shit is likely to stick, at least until Obumbo leaves office, as it would take at least that long to get a court to challenge it. Once again, Obumbo shows how stupid the Republican Party Leadership is.. After almost 8 years you'd think the Republican's would learn NOT TO TRUST THIS MAN!

[SamAdams]

The stock 'market' took a pretty good tumble today, but I gotta feeling gun & ammo sales will be very strong tomorrow.

[LittleLebowski]

Gonna be checking our new user's IP addresses a little more closely.


-ATF has established an Internet Investigations Center (IIC) staffed with federal agents, legal counsel, and investigators to track illegal online firearms trafficking and to provide actionable intelligence to agents in the field. The IIC has already identified a number of significant traffickers operating over the Internet. This work has led to prosecutions against individuals or groups using the “dark net” to traffic guns to criminals or attempting to buy firearms illegally online.

[SeriousStudent]

I drove past the local Cabela's on the way home today. No big deal, I drive past it almost every day.

Parking lot was nearly full, and I suspect they were not stocking up for grouse season. I did not go inside to make sure.

[GardoneVT]

And thanks to the feckless Republicans and Paul Ryan who voted the new budget into place, (and in the process gave up their only trump card) This shit is likely to stick, at least until Obumbo leaves office, as it would take at least that long to get a court to challenge it. Once again, Obumbo shows how stupid the Republican Party Leadership is.. After almost 8 years you'd think the Republican's would learn NOT TO TRUST THIS MAN!

What "shit" are you referring too?

Hiring more BATF agents? Hardly a death blow to the 2nd Amendment.Who knows, a major bad guy trafficking stolen guns to bad guys might actually go down in the process.

The other stuff? Frankly it's Obama using the feeble tools he has to make life harder on us. Chalk this one up to a victory for Separation of Powers, and hit the snooze button.Wake me up when he puts shot timers on the NFA list.

[45dotACP]

Anybody have the TL;DR version? I'm seeing the following...
-Hire more ATF agents
-Give a token liberal frown at the words "gun show"
-Tell everyone you "stood up to the NRA"
-Background checks for NFA trusts
-Maybe actually think about enforcing current laws?

[Josh Runkle]

What "shit" are you referring too?

Hiring more BATF agents? Hardly a death blow to the 2nd Amendment.Who knows, a major bad guy trafficking stolen guns to bad guys might actually go down in the process.

The other stuff? Frankly it's Obama using the feeble tools he has to make life harder on us. Chalk this one up to a victory for Separation of Powers, and hit the snooze button.Wake me up when he puts shot timers on the NFA list.

There are some possible implications of the EO that may not yet be felt.

For example: those engaged in selling guns, even in a private party sale now need a license to sell...so, I go to the gunshop to sell a GLOCK to the shop...and I can't, because the restriction is now placed on the seller, and I don't have a license to sell, regardless of the fact that I am selling to an FFL.

DHHS declaring that HIPAA doesn't come before state security...there's a lot of terrible stuff here, and it very well might be a big deal.

[Suvorov]

Not much here - something I'm happy for. I am curious on what grounds (if any) they will be able to affect private party transfers in states that allow it? Are they just going to broadly define anyone selling a gun as being in the business? Of course in the land where I reside all this (and far far more) is already the law of the land. Maybe it is Barry's feeble attempt to be able to say he "did something" on his legacy, but I think we are in for more. We will see how his "town hall meeting" goes down but I see this whole thing gearing up to be more of a culture war than anything else. He already has fired his first shot across our bow with his "gun lobby" comments in his New Years address. He has the backing of several Billionaires as well as the most powerful propaganda machine the world has ever known behind him. We will see......

[Arbninftry]

I was up late feeding the new baby. Just found a new ATF release.
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

It is titled
ATF P 5310.2 - Do I need a license to buy or sell firearms

Dated JAN 2016

The word "repetitive" comes up numerous time throughout the document. This might change some things for the "firearms speculators". These people that set up booths at gunshows every weekend selling their "private collection" they will probably get shut down.

This might actually clean up all the junk at the Tulsa Wannemachers gun show. The last two years have been very bad, not many reputable gunshops with booths, but just a lot of private sellers with junk from 1955.

I think when the dust settles, it will not change much, unless you like buying and going to run a booth at a flea market, or junk show.

[peterb]

I was up late feeding the new baby. Just found a new ATF release.
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

It is titled
ATF P 5310.2 - Do I need a license to buy or sell firearms

Dated JAN 2016

The word "repetitive" comes up numerous time throughout the document. This might change some things for the "firearms speculators". These people that set up booths at gunshows every weekend selling their "private collection" they will probably get shut down.


Like the folks who have a perpetual "garage sale", but claim they aren't antique/junk dealers.

I have no problem with the principle of tightening the definition of a dealer, but doing it without a clear standard is not good.

[NETim]

Like the folks who have a perpetual "garage sale", but claim they aren't antique/junk dealers.

I have no problem with the principle of tightening the definition of a dealer, but doing it without a clear standard is not good.

After watching Billy Bob's efforts to dramatically and intentionally reduce the number of FFL's during his regime, now I get to witness the Leftists get all bothered by folks dealing firearms without an FFL.

Basically, the Left doesn't want anyone dealing in firearms, PERIOD!

[LittleLebowski]

"Gun dealers are something we will define on a case by case basis."

[ralph]

What "shit" are you referring too?

Hiring more BATF agents? Hardly a death blow to the 2nd Amendment.Who knows, a major bad guy trafficking stolen guns to bad guys might actually go down in the process.

The other stuff? Frankly it's Obama using the feeble tools he has to make life harder on us. Chalk this one up to a victory for Separation of Powers, and hit the snooze button.Wake me up when he puts shot timers on the NFA list.

You might go back and read what was posted..Like exactly who is going to be considered "in the business of selling guns" from what I gather if you sell even 2 guns you are considered "in the business". You gonna go get a FFL for that? Call the ATF for the transfer? Write it down in your bound book? and when the ATF stops by, show it to them? Is this not the making of a defacto list? The problem is, the ATF at some point is going to go to congress and tell them they can't keep up, demanding more money, opening the door for more EO's/ laws...It's in the details, and this is just a small step, and you can bet Hillary (if elected ) will expand on this... Any time a sitting president uses EO's to chip away at your freedoms it's a serious act, And should NOT be taken lightly. This man is a enemy of freedom, and anything he does should be viewed with suspicion... By giving away their trump card (the budget) The Republicans no longer have any leverage to make him rescind these EO's, and the AG will do all she can to make it as difficult as she can to get this into a hearing.. So, yes, they will stand, and the longer they stand, people get used to the idea, the less chance of them ever being removed... and they will have successfully pushed the ball that much farther..

[texasaggie2005]

"Gun dealers are something we will define on a case by case basis."

Which really means;

"Keep doing what you think is legal, but we'll ruin your world if we arbitrarily decide to not like you."

[SamAdams]

Gotta feeling the real damage will be done administratively. Over the last decade quite a few gun dealers in our area were shut down. I believe I read articles saying they were especially going after the small part time folks. I know a couple of nice people who had such a sideline business and were shutdown. They sold a gun to a hispanic. The buyer showed proper ID and passed NICS. ATF agents came & said the gun was destined for Mexico, so they were shut down. WTF?

Their baby daughter had a life threatening disease so they couldnt deal with what was happening. Didnt have any spare money for a lawyer either.


P.S. - I found out what happened to them when I went to pick up a .22 rifle I had ordered from Bud's. They were listed as a recommended FFL for the transfer. The couple had gotten some bad news about their baby's most recent medical test results that day. The guy felt terrible about any 'added trouble' for me. Drove me to another dealer in town and insisted on paying the transfer fee himself. I felt bad for them & hope life got better.

[JodyH]

Which really means;

"Keep doing what you think is legal, but we'll ruin your world if we arbitrarily decide to not like you."
Ummm... that's already in place and has been for decades.
Everybody in America commits multiple federal criminal acts on a daily basis and selective, targeted prosecution has been a thing for decades as well.

[Appalachained]

I went to Bud's yesterday (10:30 am Monday) and there were three customers filling out forms at the same time with people standing around waiting their turn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NETim]

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

― Ayn Rand

[LittleLebowski]

Which really means;

"Keep doing what you think is legal, but we'll ruin your world if we arbitrarily decide to not like you."

Pretty much, only more so now.

[ssb]

The constant reminders of "only a few transactions..." scare the shit out of me.

Most of their examples at the end I don't have a problem with, and indeed it was my impression that pretty much all of the ones involving buying guns and flipping them for a profit already constituted a violation of the law. My problem is that, given all the other language, I highly doubt that's what they're going after.

Let's say I offer several firearms for sale on AR15.com. As is typical with such ads, the firearms will be shipped to a dealer in the buyer's state who then conducts the transfer. I make no representations as to my status or my reasons for selling. Am I to understand that some newly-hired ATF agent from their Internet Investigations Center (ostensibly, whose job it is to monitor online sales could) interpret that as "repetitive," have me charged with a felony, and make me sort this out in court?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The mental health provisions are interesting. I'm no legal expert but how does reporting to NICS as proposed meet the standard of what is on the 4473 forms about adjudication? I'm interested in the take of the psychological and psychiatric professions. They are against stigmatizing the mentally ill. There is fear such rules will cut down on folks seeking help. We've seen that with PTSD in the police and military. However, the professions are not firearms friendly - so can they oppose this? They probably would go for the dealer rules and then spin in circles over the mental health reporting.

Research into smart guns - that's interesting. Why - because it is a double edged sword. The problem with product development was that it doesn't work yet and the laws or hypothetical laws that mandate all guns be such. Otherwise, it is just a free market product. Ah ha! Market research indicates a group of folks called 'fencers' (on the fence), they might buy a gun if it were a safe gun. They worry about retention, crooks stealing it and the kids getting it. So gun users would increase if such existed (and worked). Some antigun organizations have pointed out this problem as they want NO guns.

[RoyGBiv]

The mental health provisions are interesting.
Thankfully my kids are at least as mentally healthy as their parents (I'll leave that to your imagination). But if they needed "mental health services", I would be forced to think twice about 1. the necessity and 2. how to source mental health services without leaving a paper trail. Gray market shrink service.

Which is worse... Working it out using the internet for advice or sacrificing your kids 2A rights for professional assistance?
I suppose that depends on the severity of the problem.

[NEPAKevin]

My main issue is that none of this should be done though executive order. These are matters of law that should be introduced through Congress and cycled through the Legislative branch. One would think that anyone with President Obama's background in Constitutional law would ... oh never mind.

[Suvorov]

My main issue is that none of this should be done though executive order. These are matters of law that should be introduced through Congress and cycled through the Legislative branch. One would think that anyone with President Obama's background in Constitutional law would ... oh never mind.

And that really is the MAIN ISSUE here! Thankfully it looks like the Obama Administration didn't go as far as I was fearing, but it is just another precedent set - giving he exec branch more power. This was the point I was making to my wife and her more liberal friends when they didn't understand my big issues with what Obama was doing (since of course I'm a responsible gun owner and they have no problem with me owning guns - just those creepy people.......). They may be OK with Obama playing fast a free with the separation of powers when it comes to keeping them "safe" from maniacs with "multi-automatic-ghost guns with a thing on the stock that goes up," but if/when Trump gets elected his datum for what he can do has just been redefined and he may very well use this same trick to slaughter their sacred cows.

[Jeep]

Ummm... that's already in place and has been for decades.
Everybody in America commits multiple federal criminal acts on a daily basis and selective, targeted prosecution has been a thing for decades as well.

Targeted prosecution goes back at least to the Jefferson administration and was shamelessly indulged in by FDR, but the problem has been getting much worse in recent decades and Obama is intensifying it. In many ways, we are no longer a Constitutional republic as administrative and judicial "discretion" increasingly makes a hash out of the rule of law.

[JodyH]

The unintended consequences of selective criminalization is when everyone is a potential criminal more people start to go "all in".
That's when shit starts to get real.

[Tamara]

The way the press is high-fiving each other over this is illustrative of how frickin' clueless of actual firearms laws the average member of the media really is.

[Tamara]

And thanks to the feckless Republicans and Paul Ryan who voted the new budget into place, (and in the process gave up their only trump card) This shit is likely to stick...

What shit? This is literally the same shit we have now. This whole press release boils down to "No, seriously, guys!"

[HCM]

After watching Billy Bob's efforts to dramatically and intentionally reduce the number of FFL's during his regime, now I get to witness the Leftists get all bothered by folks dealing firearms without an FFL.

Basically, the Left doesn't want anyone dealing in firearms, PERIOD!

Exactly. Back in the late 1970's ATF was going after small time gun collectors for bring unlicensed dealers. As a result they attempted to comply by obtaining FFLs. Then Billy Bob Clinton went after all these small " kitchen table" FFL's claiming they were "not real dealers" and used administrative means to deny many of them FFL renewals. Now Emperor Obama wants these same people to have FFL's again.

Make up your mind. Oh wait, I forgot, the point is just harassment of gun owners and sellers.

[RevolverRob]

Thankfully my kids are at least as mentally healthy as their parents (I'll leave that to your imagination). But if they needed "mental health services", I would be forced to think twice about 1. the necessity and 2. how to source mental health services without leaving a paper trail. Gray market shrink service.

Which is worse... Working it out using the internet for advice or sacrificing your kids 2A rights for professional assistance?
I suppose that depends on the severity of the problem.

Well, to be honest - I'll be honest - I'm a mental health professional seeker. I have a therapist and some issues. I work on them daily and not a one of them has now, nor ever has, made me a threat to anyone including myself. But none-the-less, I worry significantly about legislation that will strip away my rights, because I am seeking "mental health care". However, without actively seeking professional help, and being a responsible citizen, and taking the chance that you'll need to simultaneously retain Pro-2A and ACLU attorneys as legal council, we will never effectively challenge the social stigma or the potential legal challenges to our rights as free people.

Which is my way of saying - If your children were to need health care, get it for them. Their rights cannot be stolen without due process recourse.

Which by the by - is why we should be exceptionally careful when we comment on how mental health is at the core of mass shootings. It is a double edged sword. I find it no less appalling that people suggest individuals who have prescriptions for SSRIs who are monitored regularly by professional, licensed, qualified, providers, shouldn't have a right to keep and bear arms. And I'm looking at the pro-2A side of the crowd when I say it, because a lot of folks who own guns, simultaneously stigmatize proper and appropriate mental health care.

FYI - I keep my attorney on speed dial and I have the names of good Civil Rights Attorneys on file. I have no problem being the "Test case" to go to the Supreme Court, to defend our rights as responsible, tax-paying, law-abidding, citizens.

-Rob

[Tamara]

I regret that I only have but one like to give for this post.

[JodyH]

What shit? This is literally the same shit we have now. This whole press release boils down to "No, seriously, guys!"
Exactamundo!
I'm actually very happy that the press and anti's are happy, that means they're even dumber than I thought they were.

[Tamara]

They sold a gun to a hispanic. The buyer showed proper ID and passed NICS. ATF agents came & said the gun was destined for Mexico, so they were shut down. WTF?

Yeah, I think I'd need a bit more detail on that one... :confused:

[Arbninftry]

I talked to my local field office of the ATF this morning. The Investigator I talked to from the Dallas Field office, was just as perplexed as we are. This is the question I posed to him.

I run a small gun shop, according to the documents the ATF released last night and the EO speech this morning, if Joe Schmoe walks in off the street and wants to liquidate his collection, does he need an FFL? Because according to their own documents, there is nothing in there about consignments.

We all know the real answer is NO! Because the dealer will handle the 4473 and the books. However, according to the documents of the ATF and the EO, Joe Schmoe is now in need of a FFL.

The ATF Investigator I talked to said "Yes according to the new model he would need a FFL, but he will not get one, because he does not have a store, that is what you the gunshop is intended for. Further more, we are sitting here discussing this very thing and we have no idea what the hell is going to happen. There is no way we can run down all of this, most likely what will happen is the private sellers at gunshows will be the testing ground. This will all work itself out in the next few weeks."

So business as usual, the BATFE does not know how to do this, and neither do any of us. So SNAFU.

[joshs]

I talked to my local field office of the ATF this morning. The Investigator I talked to from the Dallas Field office, was just as perplexed as we are. This is the question I posed to him.

I run a small gun shop, according to the documents the ATF released last night and the EO speech this morning, if Joe Schmoe walks in off the street and wants to liquidate his collection, does he need an FFL? Because according to their own documents, there is nothing in there about consignments.

We all know the real answer is NO! Because the dealer will handle the 4473 and the books. However, according to the documents of the ATF and the EO, Joe Schmoe is now in need of a FFL.

The ATF Investigator I talked to said "Yes according to the new model he would need a FFL, but he will not get one, because he does not have a store, that is what you the gunshop is intended for. Further more, we are sitting here discussing this very thing and we have no idea what the hell is going to happen. There is no way we can run down all of this, most likely what will happen is the private sellers at gunshows will be the testing ground. This will all work itself out in the next few weeks."

So business as usual, the BATFE does not know how to do this, and neither do any of us. So SNAFU.

You should send him ATF's own guidance: https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

It clearly indicates that liquidating a collection doesn't require an FFL.

[RoyGBiv]

You should send him ATF's own guidance: https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

It clearly indicates that liquidating a collection doesn't require an FFL.

Dated January 2016!!!

Outdated January 2016 too. :rolleyes:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Atlantic magazine (left leaning) was pretty MEH on it.

[joshs]

Dated January 2016!!!

Outdated January 2016 too. :rolleyes:

It came out today. That is the new guidance that he referenced in the press conference today.

[Hambo]

Exactamundo!
I'm actually very happy that the press and anti's are happy, that means they're even dumber than I thought they were.

They're dumber than you can possibly imagine.

The whole point of being a politician is to do nothing, but spin that nothing as something so you can use in campaign speeches. Not that BO is running for anything, but he could say, "Hey, gun haters, I did something about gun violence." Then he could turn to the NRA and say, "Hey, I didn't do anything new related to firearms restrictions." Both would be as close to the truth as any pol wants to get.

[TGS]

It came out today. That is the new guidance that he referenced in the press conference today.

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's so vague that any legal challenge will get that EO shredded.

What's your opinion?

[ralph]

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's so vague that any legal challenge will get that EO shredded.

What's your opinion?

Well, first you have to get it into a court, and with the current AG she's going to do everything she can to keep it OUT of court.. They like vague laws, Hence the bit in there about selling guns to be determined on a "case by case" basis... They can twist that anyway they want..

[ralph]

What shit? This is literally the same shit we have now. This whole press release boils down to "No, seriously, guys!"

I see a lot vague bits in there, and that's what I don't like, That gives them the opportunity to twist these EO's as they see fit. With an Attorney Gereral who will go along with this 100%, the chances of these EO's being challenged in a court room before Obumbo leaves is just about nil. I also question the parts about mental health...That's another area where Uncle sugar doesn't need to be poking around.. I think we all agree that those with mental health issues probably shouldn't own guns, But with that said, I'm not so sure I want the gov't deciding who has mental health issues and who doesn't, as they tend to paint with a pretty broad brush... As was stated before, we have 3 branches of Government, this should've been settled between congress and the president. I guess what really pisses me off is that we have a Republican majority in congress, yet the minority's (Democrats) get everything they want..

[Cool Breeze]

Technically these are considered executive "actions" and not executive "orders" - Does anyone understand the difference with regards to these specifically being executed. A quick google search says "executive actions" have the effect of suggestions and others say its actual law. It was mentioned briefly on fox today but nothing specific.

[okie john]

This was the point I was making to my wife and her more liberal friends when they didn't understand my big issues with what Obama was doing (since of course I'm a responsible gun owner and they have no problem with me owning guns - just those creepy people.......). They may be OK with Obama playing fast a free with the separation of powers when it comes to keeping them "safe" from maniacs with "multi-automatic-ghost guns with a thing on the stock that goes up," but if/when Trump gets elected his datum for what he can do has just been redefined and he may very well use this same trick to slaughter their sacred cows.

Then point out that Mr. Obama could have done this SEVEN YEARS AGO if he really cared about this.

Minds will be blown.


Okie John

[ralph]

Technically these are considered executive "actions" and not executive "orders" - Does anyone understand the difference with regards to these specifically being executed. A quick google search says "executive actions" have the effect of suggestions and others say its actual law. It was mentioned briefly on fox today but nothing specific.

The problem is, it seems the AG, head of the FBI etc, etc, all seem to think these are orders.. and they're all to willing to follow them.......

[Tamara]

They like vague laws, Hence the bit in there about selling guns to be determined on a "case by case" basis...

That's how it is right now. That's how it's been since GCA '68 passed. There is no statutory definition for "engaged in the business". IIRC, supposedly the guy running the St. Paul field office back in the bad ol' pre-FOPA days had a particularly narrow view of it and folks were getting prosecuted for ridiculously small amounts of horsetradin'.

[JodyH]

Since I'm thinking about selling off my three VP9's (and maybe 3 Sigs), maybe I should think about getting a FFL...
Of course I can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm not engaged in making any money off these sales.
:rolleyes:

[TGS]

Since I'm thinking about selling off my three VP9's (and maybe 3 Sigs), maybe I should think about getting a FFL...
Of course I can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm not engaged in making any money off these sales.
:rolleyes:

What sort of SIGs?

[JodyH]

What sort of SIGs?
2022, M11A1, P229R and a ton of magazines.
Gotta make room in the safe for more LEM H&K's (for me) and Walthers (for the wife) she wants another PPQ M1 and a PPS M2.
If interested keep an eye on the For Sale area, I may be putting them up in the next few days.

[NEPAKevin]

Last night, we watched the whole speech, more like a pep rally, and it appears to me that there has been a change in language. Instead of "gun control," the President used "gun safety" and everyone is pro gun safety, right? Just my opinion, but I thought the fake, reality TV tears were less than Presidential but I have not had any expectations from the selfie POTUS for some time. To give credit where credit is due, they do seem to have achieved their goal of shifting attention from terrorism to gun control, um I mean safety.

[BillB]

All the uncertainty is the result of making or changing laws by the Executive and Judicial branches. When the President or the Supreme Court through a ruling or an EO there is none of the (sometimes) careful consideration needed to actually spell out the law. It is almost as if the Founding Fathers had a clue!

As an aside, I had a dealer in NM threaten to turn me in to the ATF for "dealing" simply because he would not do a private transfer and he objected to me pointing out (with minimal snarkiness) that he was perfectly free to run his business any way that he wanted but his grasp of the relevant law was weak (or simply convenient)

That prompted me to determine what the legal definition of "dealing" was and was quite disappointed with the lack of clarity :-)

To this day I don't know if he was just trying to scare me or he did report me and someone at the ATF actually had a clue...hard to know

[joshs]

All the uncertainty is the result of making or changing laws by the Executive and Judicial branches. When the President or the Supreme Court through a ruling or an EO there is none of the (sometimes) careful consideration needed to actually spell out the law. It is almost as if the Founding Fathers had a clue!

As an aside, I had a dealer in NM threaten to turn me in to the ATF for "dealing" simply because he would not do a private transfer and he objected to me pointing out (with minimal snarkiness) that he was perfectly free to run his business any way that he wanted but his grasp of the relevant law was weak (or simply convenient)

That prompted me to determine what the legal definition of "dealing" was and was quite disappointed with the lack of clarity :-)

To this day I don't know if he was just trying to scare me or he did report me and someone at the ATF actually had a clue...hard to know

FOPA added a definition of "engaged in the business," that's why ATF is just coming out with "guidance" rather than trying to redefine a statutorily defined term. "The term 'engaged in the business' means . . . 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 . . . ." 18 U.S.C.A. § 921(a)(21)(C).

[nalesq]

Last night, we watched the whole speech, more like a pep rally, and it appears to me that there has been a change in language. Instead of "gun control," the President used "gun safety" and everyone is pro gun safety, right? Just my opinion, but I thought the fake, reality TV tears were less than Presidential but I have not had any expectations from the selfie POTUS for some time. To give credit where credit is due, they do seem to have achieved their goal of shifting attention from terrorism to gun control, um I mean safety.

The strategic purpose of these moves is to try to affect some kind of a culture shift. The prohibitionists know they can't win big on the legal front until some tipping point, critical mass number of people in this country wholeheartedly buy into the idea of a gun-free utopia.

As any competent advocate knows, changing language is a key component of culture shifting, because it literally changes the terms of what is apparently being debated within that culture.

[Dagga Boy]

I wish they were honest and just say........we want to make them all illegal and ban and confiscate everything. I would actually respect the other side more if they said what they really want rather than taking small bites of the apple. I would love to live in a world populated by unicorns, rainbows, rivers of chocolate, trees that give beer, and no weapons or violence of any kind and just free love and rock and roll amongst responsible people who love and respect everyone. I will happily give up all my stuff at that point............but I want to go last, not first.

[GardoneVT]

I wish they were honest and just say........we want to make them all illegal and ban and confiscate everything. I would actually respect the other side more if they said what they really want rather than taking small bites of the apple. I would love to live in a world populated by unicorns, rainbows, rivers of chocolate, trees that give beer, and no weapons or violence of any kind and just free love and rock and roll amongst responsible people who love and respect everyone. I will happily give up all my stuff at that point............but I want to go last, not first.

She-Clinton and Feinstein have said as much.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Banning most everything and turning back carry certainly is the end game for the Democratic ruling circles. The invocation of Australian success says it all. Tom Friedman in the NYTimes proposed the ban and confiscation of semi auto and military pattern guns. I agree that they should be pushed to announce the end state.

In interviews, commentators should ask about what I said - instead of prattling about sensible background checks. If their end state is the sporting use of O/U shotguns for affluent duck and geese hunters (like Kerry), say that. I'm sick of progun politicians (the GOP does this also) prancing around after shooting Tweetie Bird from the sky.

[Suvorov]

She-Clinton and Feinstein have said as much.

Yeah, but those are slips and they always backtrack and then Snopes goes out an does damage control. We all know that is their ultimate aim but lets face it - the progressives know that to admit such as a formal piece of their platform would be political suicide (after all - we all have our 2A right to hunt).

Out here in the Bay Area I do have the chance to run across those who really believe the world would would be a better place had the gun never existed. Yeah, because life was so wonderful and free for the common man when the skilled and (usually) noble swordsman reigned supreme and next in line was the brute who could swing the biggest club and took the most delight in bashing the townsfolk's brains in. I tell them that modern society owes it's freedom and relative egalitarianism to the personal firearm that finally gave the commoner at least a fighting chance against a landed noble and forced the latter to develop different methods of governance. It is of course breath wasted, but it makes me feel good.

[Josh Runkle]

To this day I don't know if he was just trying to scare me or he did report me and someone at the ATF actually had a clue...hard to know

Was your wife shot and your dog sodomized? If not, then ATF were not called.

[Peally]

I wish they were honest and just say........we want to make them all illegal and ban and confiscate everything. I would actually respect the other side more if they said what they really want rather than taking small bites of the apple. I would love to live in a world populated by unicorns, rainbows, rivers of chocolate, trees that give beer, and no weapons or violence of any kind and just free love and rock and roll amongst responsible people who love and respect everyone. I will happily give up all my stuff at that point............but I want to go last, not first.

At least the unicorns are real. Clearly you didn't see that Star Trek

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6300000/-Space-Dog-The-Enemy-Within-star-trek-the-original-series-6352214-694-530.jpg

[Dagga Boy]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=726194980815289&id=289679681133490

Hopefully, this will resonate here.

[JodyH]

they do seem to have achieved their goal of shifting attention from terrorism to gun control
No they haven't.
They may have shifted the medias attention away from terrorism to gun control, but the man on the street didn't hear that message because he was in line at Cabelas when the speech was going on.

[RoyGBiv]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=726194980815289&id=289679681133490

Hopefully, this will resonate here.

http://teachinginkoreanuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/awesome-interview-questions-for-candidates-600x320.jpg

[CSW]

I was up late feeding the new baby. Just found a new ATF release.
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

It is titled
ATF P 5310.2 - Do I need a license to buy or sell firearms

Dated JAN 2016

The word "repetitive" comes up numerous time throughout the document. This might change some things for the "firearms speculators". These people that set up booths at gunshows every weekend selling their "private collection" they will probably get shut down.

This might actually clean up all the junk at the Tulsa Wannemachers gun show. The last two years have been very bad, not many reputable gunshops with booths, but just a lot of private sellers with junk from 1955.

I think when the dust settles, it will not change much, unless you like buying and going to run a booth at a flea market, or junk show.

From that Doc:

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 personal
collection, you do not need to be licensed.

[RoyGBiv]

From that Doc:

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 personal
collection, you do not need to be licensed.

So, Professor Potus made a scary sounding speech but nothing changed re: the above. Bread and Circuses.

[Totem Polar]

I would love to live in a world populated by unicorns, rainbows, rivers of chocolate, trees that give beer, and no weapons or violence of any kind and just free love and rock and roll amongst responsible people who love and respect everyone. I will happily give up all my stuff at that point............but I want to go last, not first.
FnA right.


No they haven't.
They may have shifted the medias attention away from terrorism to gun control, but the man on the street didn't hear that message because he was in line at Cabelas when the speech was going on.
FnA right.

[alohadoug]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=726194980815289&id=289679681133490

Hopefully, this will resonate here.

Shared on FB. As a Mass hostage...I mean resident, I appreciate the reference.

Boy, the heads of my wife's more liberal family should be exploding soon. :D

Aloha

[Totem Polar]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=726194980815289&id=289679681133490

Hopefully, this will resonate here.
FnA right.

[CSW]

So, Professor Potus made a scary sounding speech but nothing changed re: the above. Bread and Circuses.

As stated earlier, I would not be surprised if this is all about the gun show crowd

[okie john]

From that Doc:

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 personal
collection, you do not need to be licensed.


If they go by profit, then I'm good. I've broken even on TWO firearms that I've sold, and lost money on (but gained knowledge from) the rest.


Okie John

[CS Tactical]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=726194980815289&id=289679681133490

Hopefully, this will resonate here.


http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~rob/img/outstanding.jpg

[Tamara]

FOPA added a definition of "engaged in the business," that's why ATF is just coming out with "guidance" rather than trying to redefine a statutorily defined term. "The term 'engaged in the business' means . . . 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 . . . ." 18 U.S.C.A. § 921(a)(21)(C).

Those're still some pretty wide goalposts. "Regular" and "repetitive" have been key in the couple guys I know of who've had the BATFEIEIO fall on them like a ton of bricks. (And, frankly, one of them really was a dirtbag who would sell crappy used guns at MSRP+ under a "PRIVATE COLLECTION! NO BACKGROUND CHECKS!" sign at the shows. His loss from the gun show circuit was no loss.)

[HCM]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/06/obama-gun-action-reverses-course-on-clinton-admin-policy.html?intcmp=hplnws

Obama gun action reverses course on Clinton admin policy


The executive action President Obama announced on Tuesday reverses course on a key Clinton-era policy that sought to reduce the number of federal firearms licensees.

The Obama administration’s push to require more gun sellers to obtain a license from the ATF could under some circumstances define those who sell even a single firearm as “engaged in the business” of firearms sales. That represents a stark contrast from the Clinton administration’s approach in the 1990s, when the White House successfully slashed the number of licensees by raising fees on license applications and requiring applicants to submit both fingerprints and photographs to the ATF.


The actions taken by Bill Clinton, whose wife is currently seeking the Democratic nomination for President, resulted in the number of licensed dealers dropping from about 252,000 in 1993 to about 55,000 in 2014.

In 1994, ATF officials complained that many FFLs were not actually “engaged in the business” and oversight of the small sellers was cumbersome, if not impossible. “Probably 70 percent of the people holding licenses shouldn’t hold them,” one ATF spokesperson told the Times. “Most applicants declare that they intend to buy and sell guns as a primary livelihood, but in reality, the firearms bureau says, most people want to buy guns at wholesale prices for personal use,” the paper added.

[Dagga Boy]

Kitchen table gun FFL's died under Clinton. Real brick and mortar shops were better regulated with the resources. Of course tons of catch 22's were also created.
The problem with people who do not know a f'icking thing about how any of this works making policy is they create situations the polar opposite of what they want. If practically everyone has an FFL....no background checks are getting done. Everything will be FFL to FFL sales with only book hand entries. I can see tons of fake laser printed FFL's being used. Also, I can see some extensive lawsuits for folks who cannot get an FFL. This stuff makes me nuts.

[NETim]

A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them. -- P. J. O'Rourke

[Cacafuego]

"Quote Originally Posted by BillB View Post

To this day I don't know if he was just trying to scare me or he did report me and someone at the ATF actually had a clue...hard to know
Was your wife shot and your dog sodomized? If not, then ATF were not called. "


I literally laughed out loud at this. I work a couple days a week at a small, old gun shop. We had a fellow who was buying a Glock 9mm every 10 days or so, cash, and listing his employer as Wendy's. (Employer listed on the happily now-defunct Clark Cunty, NV handgun registration form.) We knew damn well he was wrong. We called the local PD, we called the ATF. I personally ratted the guy out to a couple of FBI agents who came in trolling for business, and to an ATF agent (scruffy-looking little SOB) who also came in looking for tips. FINALLY they did something. The Glocks turned up in S. America, prompting a suspicious contact from ATF ("We TRIED to tell you people about this guy!")



So one phone call ain't gonna do nuthin'.

[Hatchetman]

I've been working on a massive Facebook post deconstructing BHO's recent warblings that will likely never see the light of day as FB considers reasoned thought anathema fodder. Having broken down the sundry elements of "gun violence prevention" and held them up to the light however, my cognitive dissonance has only increased. This foolishness is all smoke and mirrors, won't impact "gun violence" one whit, amounting to raw meat for true believers and little else. Those polishing these turds are clearly arrogant, petty, manipulative, divisive, contemptuous, ignorant of the entire empiric firearm data side of things, and so on, but I have to proceed under the assumption they are not stupid. As such why the fornication would they launch such a heavy handed, light headed piece of political theater?

Some first hand datapoints have informed my thinking: I'm an alumnus and employee of George Mason University (and the latter status inspires me to stand mute regarding some of what is to follow); this evening we have our Fearless Leader and those paragons of journalistic virtues from CNN on campus holding some sort of gun "town hall." Think this is Obama's 3rd or 4th visit to campus; security is far tighter than it has been in the past. The building holding this shindig will be emptied at 1430 with no one but the anointed allowed back in till 0700 tomorrow, among other measures I won't mention. As I understand it all "town hall" attendees were awarded tickets via the Fairfax county Democratic party, hence the use of the "town hall" irony quotes: ain't much of a "town hall" if you only let your side in. In view of the handpicked nature of the audience it's hardly surprising that the NRA turned down an opportunity to participate; I wish they had countered by offering BHO an invite to wander by Waples Mills and address a handpicked audience of NRA supporters.

As that may be, all this passion play choreography suggests to me that again, from the outset, these imperious weenies are not looking for any sort of meaningful engagement with all American people, arranging things in a manner that will only inspire hosannahs from True Believers. These guys moreover have to understand on some level that gun control under its various guises has not been a winner for the Democratic party and no amount of repackaging is gonna alter electoral dynamics they've already been bitten by. Add that to the fact that there are "gun safety" efforts going on various places--my state of VA is losing reciprocity with a couple dozen states while us CHP folk aren't allowed to carry in additional state edifices--and I'm left to conclude these weenies are coordinating an effort that either is:

1). Stupid.

2). Playing a longer game.

I'm not usually one to discount the march of folly as I expect a dispassionate exam of the human condition would strongly suggest that stupid decision making is one of humanities' most consistent habits and history's prime attractor. However, as stated, I don't think these weenies are necessarily stupid. Other possibilities include:

• Alinksy Long Game. I came up in Chicago and hung with Alinskyites in the mid '70s and they were all about divisive street theater, with the goal being to isolate opponents and ridicule them. Much of this sound and fury that seems to signify little appears to have roots in that type of playbook.

• Playing to the base in more ways than one. Richmond, Virginia had a program called Project Exile where federal and state gun laws were ruthlessly enforced and prosecuted. Unsurprisingly violent crime fell. Many have pointed out that enforcing current laws in a similar manner would likely result in more of the same, yet Obama and the DOJ appear to be avoiding just that. I'm wondering if something of a corollary to Stalin's "how many divisions does the Pope have?" question is occurring: were stringent enforcement of current firearm laws to occur in areas with the most violent crime, a lot of friends and family of Democratic voters would end up in jail, perhaps impacting get out the vote efforts. Mayhaps these weenies have concluded that the 6000 or so criminals and gangbangers who get killed each year aren't all that likely to be voters anyway, while alienating their kin might mean more work getting graveyard interees to the polls so they have concluded it's easier to write off 6000 than annoy a constituency, and then cover their crass calculations by blaming fly over country for the problem.

• Preparing the battlespace. Perhaps these weenies are as crass as I've suggested and expect another mass shooting incident to come their way before BHO leaves office. Maybe their is a coordinated effort to impose petty "gun safety" measures in the hope of angering folks on our side of the argument to embrace violence, and perhaps that tactic is what is inspiring all the security measures occurring around me today. These guys are prepping for the next bad day, making sure all the wackos out there know that the media is ready to give them 24/7 coverage, and standing by to yodel "if only you listened to us last time."

• Electoral threshold looming. I don't claim to understand the number crunchers that appear on the TV election nights, and various war rooms are rumored to have a pretty good precinct by precinct understanding of the nation. Perhaps these weenies think they are on the threshold of some sort of demographic/electoral shift where big city machine politics combined with fellow travelers in the 'burbs are gonna trump the rest of flyover country come election night, hence it's in their interests to shamelessly and meaninglessly pander to the base while ignoring the rest of us.

No doubt there are other factors in play, and I could be way off the mark, but as I attempt to assay the political ore being mined these days it all comes up "fools gold," unless you stipulate a longer game embracing devious means.

[RoyGBiv]

This one feels like it belongs here, rather than the "Shooting Incidents" thread....

Armed robbers terrorize suspects in Sugar Land (http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2016/01/07/armed-robbers-terrorize-suspects-sugar-land/78437148/)

Hit the pause button at 0:36 and tell me what you see....

379 days and praying.

[CSW]

Anyone catch this last night? http://video.foxnews.com/v/4691485799001/

[RoyGBiv]

This is what taking the initiative looks like.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLTMkg1RLW0

[RoyGBiv]

Obama and guns: Eleven false or misleading claims from the president's remarks this week (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/07/obama-and-guns-eleven-false-or-misleading-claims-from-presidents-remarks-this-week.html?intcmp=hphz06)
By John R. Lott


1. Last year, both France and the US had four mass public shootings. France suffered more casualties (murders and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (532 to 396). And this occurred despite the US being five times more populous than France.

But it isn’t just the horrific year that France had last year. Far from being well below the frequency found in US, other European countries actually have a worse problem. From 2009 through December 2015, eleven European countries experienced mass public shootings at a greater frequency than did the US, after adjusting for population. These countries include Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and the Czech Republic.
.................
3.“I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms.”

Here’s another quote: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” That’s what Obama said to me when we were colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1996. Obama has also publicly supported a nationwide “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” as well as a “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” Even as late as the 2008 Presidential primaries, Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

[NETim]

This one feels like it belongs here, rather than the "Shooting Incidents" thread....

Armed robbers terrorize suspects in Sugar Land (http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2016/01/07/armed-robbers-terrorize-suspects-sugar-land/78437148/)

Hit the pause button at 0:36 and tell me what you see....

379 days and praying.

Hmm... looks like a "no guns allowed" sign. That means the armed robbers broke some kind of law, didn't they? Maybe?

[RoyGBiv]

Hmm... looks like a "no guns allowed" sign. That means the armed robbers broke some kind of law, didn't they? Maybe?

Affirmative.

That's a giant 30.06 sign. It's required (precise language, in English and Spanish, with minimum 1" block letters in contrasting colors (no white letters on glass)) in order to enforcibly prohibit a licensed CC from the premises... That sign, or verbal notice... Fat lotta good...

[LSP972]

... stringent enforcement of current firearm laws to occur in areas with the most violent crime, a lot of friends and family of Democratic voters would end up in jail...

This is EXACTLY why the no-insurance statute in Louisiana lasted about six months before all cops were told basically to stop enforcing it. For those six months, we were like rampaging killer bees; towing rides and locking up assholes left and right. The wrecker firms were getting FAT, between the tow fees and subsequent storage fees, because the un-insured couldn't spring their rides from durance vile without showing a valid and current insurance policy on same ride. It was great… the moans and wails and gnashing of teeth, as thousands of scofflaws suddenly became pedestrians, was epic.

And then, a notable legislator stood up in session and proclaimed that this activity was unfair to his constituents, who were primarily "low-income". It was a real impassioned plea to his fellow legislators; and became known around squad rooms as the "Let My Peoples GO!" speech.

What followed was as predictable as the sunrise.

.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One amusing item is that the Hillary team with Obama's cooperation are attacking Bernie Sanders as a gun nut. Obama says he won't support any candidate that isn't with him on gun control. So Chuck Todd asked an Obama toady flat out if he wouldn't support Sanders. The toad seemed to say so. Bernie says there is no difference between him and Hill/Ob team on guns. However, he has a checkered past according to the H/O team and hasn't come out for the total ban and confiscation scheme of the Hill/Ob team. Oh, I don't want to take your guns but I like Australia and the UK (yeah, right).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

PS - Gabby vs. Gun nut Bernie!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/gabby-giffords-hillary-clinton-sanders-gun-control-217557

[LSP552]

One amusing item is that the Hillary team with Obama's cooperation are attacking Bernie Sanders as a gun nut. Obama says he won't support any candidate that isn't with him on gun control. So Chuck Todd asked an Obama toady flat out if he wouldn't support Sanders. The toad seemed to say so. Bernie says there is no difference between him and Hill/Ob team on guns. However, he has a checkered past according to the H/O team and hasn't come out for the total ban and confiscation scheme of the Hill/Ob team. Oh, I don't want to take your guns but I like Australia and the UK (yeah, right).

The more they (Dems) talk about bans and such, the more I like it!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's a piece on the group polarization strategy by the Democrats.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-gun-control-rift-exposed-by-obama/423381/

IMHO, if you have gun rights as a top freedom issue, Hillary is not a viable candidate and is an existential threat. Not discussing other issues. Certainly, we have other nuts out there but the Democrats have made this a 0,1 issue.

[littlejerry]

Here's a piece on the group polarization strategy by the Democrats.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-gun-control-rift-exposed-by-obama/423381/

IMHO, if you have gun rights as a top freedom issue, Hillary is not a viable candidate and is an existential threat. Not discussing other issues. Certainly, we have other nuts out there but the Democrats have made this a 0,1 issue.

I can thinks of dozens of issues other than gun rights in which Hillary is not a viable candidate.

[Drang]

Well, I guess that 10 day cruise was good for my heart health, since I was literally At Sea when this hit, and I managed to avoid it until long enough after that the fury dies down.

That said: If we win the $Billion+ Power Ball this week, we'll pay off our bills and dedicate the rest to decimating the US regulatory state nine-fold.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree that she is a crappy candidate on many dimensions. Just commenting on how they were making guns a make or break issue.

[GardoneVT]

One amusing item is that the Hillary team with Obama's cooperation are attacking Bernie Sanders as a gun nut. Obama says he won't support any candidate that isn't with him on gun control. So Chuck Todd asked an Obama toady flat out if he wouldn't support Sanders. The toad seemed to say so. Bernie says there is no difference between him and Hill/Ob team on guns. However, he has a checkered past according to the H/O team and hasn't come out for the total ban and confiscation scheme of the Hill/Ob team. Oh, I don't want to take your guns but I like Australia and the UK (yeah, right).

I'm thinking this may just be Obama playing politics. Chicago scuttlebutt is She-Clinton stepped aside in '08 in exchange for Obama naming her to SecState and backing her turn at the Presidential bat. Bernie is an outsider to the Democrat mainstream political machine, hence the movements.

Honestly -and I've probably signed my p-f ban warrant saying this-id vote for Bernie. Not because I'd like his politics.

But the cold reality of things ,way I see it, is the GOP ("Schrodingers Party") isnt gonna get the White House, unless Trump can appeal to minorities and women. He might pull off attracting the female vote by some improbable miracle, but Saudi Arabia will convert to Judaism before Trump gets the Latin vote. The Dem candidate will likely get those swing votes, and has the media's backing on slandering whoever does get the GOP nomination whether it's Trump or someone else.

That leaves She-Clinton and Sanders. Two guesses who's going to be less damaging to the country.

[JodyH]

I'm in the middle of Latin-Norte America and there are a lot of Trump signs in the barrio and at the mercado and in general the Mexicans I know have zero interest in voting for Hillary, they will not turn out to vote for her.
Just a wild ass guess, but I'll call it and say if it's Trump vs. Hillary or Bernie... it's Trump by a landslide and he'll carry the minority and the woman votes.
Hillary will get the SJW/feminist vote and that's it.
Bernie will get the wild eyed commie college vote and that's it.
Neither one of them have any charisma whatsoever and turnout FOR them will be squat.
I'm see a cult of personality forming around Trump and it's going to be an interesting next few months.

4 years of Trump might be just what we need to break the stranglehold political correctness has on America, and that's what's killing us more than anything.

[Dagga Boy]

I'm in the middle of Latin-Norte America and there are a lot of Trump signs in the barrio and at the mercado and in general the Mexicans I know have zero interest in voting for Hillary, they will not turn out to vote for her.
Just a wild ass guess, but I'll call it and say if it's Trump vs. Hillary or Bernie... it's Trump by a landslide and he'll carry the minority and the woman votes.
Hillary will get the SJW/feminist vote and that's it.
Bernie will get the wild eyed commie college vote and that's it.
Neither one of them have any charisma whatsoever and turnout FOR them will be squat.
I'm see a cult of personality forming around Trump and it's going to be an interesting next few months.

4 years of Trump might be just what we need to break the stranglehold political correctness has on America, and that's what's killing us more than anything.

Great....two progressives....:(

[HCM]

I'm in the middle of Latin-Norte America and there are a lot of Trump signs in the barrio and at the mercado and in general the Mexicans I know have zero interest in voting for Hillary, they will not turn out to vote for her.
Just a wild ass guess, but I'll call it and say if it's Trump vs. Hillary or Bernie... it's Trump by a landslide and he'll carry the minority and the woman votes.
Hillary will get the SJW/feminist vote and that's it.
Bernie will get the wild eyed commie college vote and that's it.
Neither one of them have any charisma whatsoever and turnout FOR them will be squat.
I'm see a cult of personality forming around Trump and it's going to be an interesting next few months.

4 years of Trump might be just what we need to break the stranglehold political correctness has on America, and that's what's killing us more than anything.

Reagan was spot on when he said most Latinos were republicans (or at least conservatives) and just didn't know it. Just like blue collar Anglos who are generally conservative but vote democratic "cause that's what Daddy did. There is also something of a cultural attraction to a "Mano Dura" (strong or firm handed) leader.

[JodyH]

Great....two progressives....:(
I'm not a fan of Trump at all, because I think he's a blowhard populist.
If he's elected both parties in Congress will screw him over every chance they get and he'll accomplish nothing on his agenda.
What he will do is run his mouth constantly, saying the craziest non-PC shit you can only dream about saying right now in America, and hopefully he'll move the PC goal post back towards sanity by doing that.

The rest of the R's are wet mops when it comes to personality and they don't have a chance in hell of getting elected under the current electoral vote map (the Dems have gerrymandered the electoral vote to the point them getting the Presidency is almost fait accompli). It's going to take a charismatic guy who breaks all the rules to gain traction and it looks like Trump has figured that out.

[Dagga Boy]

I'm not a fan of Trump at all, because I think he's a blowhard populist.
If he's elected both parties in Congress will screw him over every chance they get and he'll accomplish nothing on his agenda.
What he will do is run his mouth constantly, saying the craziest non-PC shit you can only dream about saying right now in America, and hopefully he'll move the PC goal post back towards sanity by doing that.

The rest of the R's are wet mops when it comes to personality and they don't have a chance in hell of getting elected under the current electoral vote map (the Dems have gerrymandered the electoral vote to the point them getting the Presidency is almost fait accompli). It's going to take a charismatic guy who breaks all the rules to gain traction and it looks like Trump has figured that out.

I can at least hope for an actual Constitutional scholar and real conservative.

[Dagga Boy]

Reagan was spot on when he said most Latinos were republicans (or at least conservatives) and just didn't know it. Just like blue collar Anglos who are generally conservative but vote democratic "cause that's what Daddy did. There is also something of a cultural attraction to a "Mano Dura" (strong or firm handed) leader.

Somehow, the Latino community have become the Gay Marriage and Unrestricted Abortion party loyalists. The democrats have done really well. If you told Dr. Martin Luther King that the black community would be the anchor to the Gay Marriage and Abortion party, you would have likely gotten an ugly response.....yet here we are.

[GardoneVT]

Somehow, the Latino community have become the Gay Marriage and Unrestricted Abortion party loyalists. The democrats have done really well. If you told Dr. Martin Luther King that the black community would be the anchor to the Gay Marriage and Abortion party, you would have likely gotten an ugly response.....yet here we are.

It seems few remember that the politicians in favor of Segregation were in fact Democrats. They've done a great job burying that ugly bit of history.

[Dagga Boy]

It seems few remember that the politicians in favor of Segregation were in fact Democrats. They've done a great job burying that ugly bit of history.

Heck it was led by Al Gore's dad, and they got folks on board that Woodrow Wilson was a great hero to minority communities. Yea, the Democrats do revisionist history really well.

[Tamara]

I agree that she is a crappy candidate on many dimensions. Just commenting on how they were making guns a make or break issue.

Of course Hilz is banging the gun control gong in the primaries; it's the only issue on which she can legitimately run to the Left of Bernie. On the economy and foreign policy, Bernie Sanders makes Hillary look like John McCain.

[LittleLebowski]

Reagan was spot on when he said most Latinos were republicans (or at least conservatives) and just didn't know it. Just like blue collar Anglos who are generally conservative but vote democratic "cause that's what Daddy did. There is also something of a cultural attraction to a "Mano Dura" (strong or firm handed) leader.

Yup. The Republican party needs to work on Latino outreach.

[Jeep]

. . . the Dems have gerrymandered the electoral vote to the point them getting the Presidency is almost fait accompli.

Keep in mind that the Dem's lock on a lot of states is accomplished through votes by aliens, "walking around" money, multiple voting and vote fraud. The vote fraud machine came out big time for Obama, but Hillary is going to motivate it less--maybe far less. We will see fewer Chicago voters also voting early in Milwaukee, and the price for fixing all those Philly voting machines before opening time on election day is going to go way up.

Bill Clinton will raise a ton of money for Hillary, but I doubt he still has the clout to raise the sums Obama raised in 2008 and 2012, and I'm not sure that the Clinton fundraising pitch of 1992 and 1996, "donate now or you are dead to us once we win" is going to be as successful as it was back then.

If I'm right, and if the Dem vote fraud machine is working at only half its 2012 run rate, then this could be a very competitive election. Hillary is a bad candidate, and the vote fraud machine is less motivated by bad candidates.

[jc000]

I'm in the middle of Latin-Norte America and there are a lot of Trump signs in the barrio and at the mercado and in general the Mexicans I know have zero interest in voting for Hillary, they will not turn out to vote for her.
Just a wild ass guess, but I'll call it and say if it's Trump vs. Hillary or Bernie... it's Trump by a landslide and he'll carry the minority and the woman votes.
Hillary will get the SJW/feminist vote and that's it.
Bernie will get the wild eyed commie college vote and that's it.
Neither one of them have any charisma whatsoever and turnout FOR them will be squat.
I'm see a cult of personality forming around Trump and it's going to be an interesting next few months.

4 years of Trump might be just what we need to break the stranglehold political correctness has on America, and that's what's killing us more than anything.

I agree. I think people severely underestimate the popularity Trump holds with many black and latin males. I've been outright shocked by some of the people I know enthusiastically endorsing him.

It's about time someone has said what the majority of us are feeling and, when the leftist hate hammer tried to smash him down, instead of scurrying away he pushed back with force.

A quick read on his campaign site of his take on "the issues" looks a-ok to me. I'm all in.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a good take on why Trump is popular and why the standard GOP candidates stink for most folks:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/

From a gun rights point of view, voting for Bernie to be the candidate is a good thing. While he is now backing down on some stances, he is being attacked as a gun nut. Nice to see that fail.

In the general election, we are doomed with all the candidates. No enthusiasm for anyone of them.

[Jeep]

In the general election, we are doomed with all the candidates. No enthusiasm for anyone of them.

Some of them are far, far worse, though. Clinton would be a disaster.

[Cincinnatus]

Gun bans and confiscation were mentioned earlier.

Here's a thought: addressing the problem of shootings by ban or confiscation of non-criminals' guns is like addressing the problem of rape by chopping off the Johnson of everyone who DIDN't rape anyone while not only leaving the rapists' equipment intact, but giving them free viagra to boot.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In my view, the difference between all candidates is the steepness of the slope into the pit of chaos. I see none with a positive slope towards a better USA for all.

So, the shallowest decline is the best? Sad choices.


Here's a thought: addressing the problem of shootings by ban or confiscation of non-criminals' guns is like addressing the problem of rape by chopping off the Johnson of everyone who DIDN't rape anyone while not only leaving the rapists' equipment intact, but giving them free viagra to boot.

I hate to be Devil's advocate but I don't like the analogy. First, when you use sexual analogies in the gun debate it doesn't go well. Some folks are just immediately offended and you lose them right there. It's like the mantra that just because you have vagina, doesn't mean you are a hooker. Some idiot professor used that in a gun control debate on his campus - and came out denounced by everyone. Looked like a fool.

Second - if I was to answer you, I would say when you can voluntarily chop off your Johnson and pass it on to a criminal rapist, tell me about it. The gun control folks argue in research on what is called time to crime, that legally bought guns to enter the criminal world through theft, gifts or sale. Johnsons don't have that problem.

[Peally]

That's the way it generally is, nothing new there.

[CSW]

In my view, the difference between all candidates is the steepness of the slope into the pit of chaos. I see none with a positive slope towards a better USA for all.

So, the shallowest decline is the best? Sad choices.

Yup, there's not a single GOP candidate that stands above the rest!

[Jeep]

In my view, the difference between all candidates is the steepness of the slope into the pit of chaos. I see none with a positive slope towards a better USA for all.

So, the shallowest decline is the best? Sad choices.

I'm a conservative. I don't expect politics to fix things, and I don't expect to vote for people I particularly like. Instead, with one exception, for my entire life I have been voting for the shallowest overall decline.

I hope for a change in our culture, which is the only way that things can overall get and stay better, but reason, individual responsibility, hard work, and taking care of one's family seems to be losing out in favor of emotionalism, claimed victimization, celebrity culture and free stuff. As long as that goes on all we can do is to try for the shallowest overall decline.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Retro bit on when Hillary attacked Obama for him being too antigun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/clinton-attacks-bernie-sanders-on-guns-_b_8952808.html

Now he doesn't want to take our guns away. Who should the ducks of American fear the most.

[David S.]

I guess that I've given up on Republicans and the so-called "conservative" platform in general. I believe that the modern popular version (and I'm not sure how back "modern" goes) is inconsistent and incoherent on a ton of issues. For all it's faults, the Democratic party and liberal views at least seem consistent.

The liberals want government control, or at least have their protective little fingers in everything, even those things the citizens have freedom to act. Abortion, children, education, immigration, marriage, liquor, medicine, drugs (licit and illicit), guns, retirement, ..... Sure, we'll allow you as long as we are involved in the process. Based on the premise, you'd expect what follows. During the marijuana debate, how many liberals said, "Yes, and just tax the @#$% out of it like we do alcohol and cigarettes!!"

The "conservatives," on the one hand, say they want small, "limited government," BUT. . .
The invasion/occupation/nation-building of several countries to protect us from radical Islam is a big government solution. To prohibit/limit access to a particular plant, veteran care, border protection, NCLB. Government. Government. Government. To protect the traditional view of marriage: Allow traditional organizations like churches to do that.... Just kidding, they have a government solution for that one too.

It's clear to me that I haven't met very many "limited government conservatives" with any real interest in limited government. They just want have government solutions to a different set of problems.

But, hey, at least the Republicans'll let me keep my guns.

[GardoneVT]

But, hey, at least the Republicans'll let me keep my guns.

Going against The Trend again, but IMO this is only a limited facet of things.
Break it down by area and things get murky. Example; a North Dakota Democrat voted against the Sandy Hook-inspired gun control laws. Contrast that with California Republicans who support gun control.

The real division is the rural way of life vs the city way of life. City folks like public programs and assault weapons bans. Rural folks predominantly don't because by nature of where they live they HAVE to be self reliant.City folks assume everyone should live like they do, and rural folks are content with Living and Letting Others Live As They Wish.

So each side votes what they think is the best, and the winner is whoever outnumbers the other. Right now there's enough rural folks to keep both sides balanced. In ten years ?

[Drang]

Going against The Trend again, but IMO this is only a limited facet of things.
Break it down by area and things get murky. Example; a North Dakota Democrat voted against the Sandy Hook-inspired gun control laws. Contrast that with California Republicans who support gun control.
This is true. The DNC is very frustrated with a few members of the WA state legislature, who are nominally D's but vote with the R's on several issues, especially guns.

The real division is the rural way of life vs the city way of life. City folks like public programs and assault weapons bans. Rural folks predominantly don't because by nature of where they live they HAVE to be self reliant.City folks assume everyone should live like they do, and rural folks are content with Living and Letting Others Live As They Wish.

So each side votes what they think is the best, and the winner is whoever outnumbers the other. Right now there's enough rural folks to keep both sides balanced. In ten years ?

Also true. We are hearing more and more from the leftist/statist hive of villainy and scum that is Seattle that everyone should live in an urban enclave in a high-rise, and not own a car, or a gun, because cars and guns are evil, mmmmm'kay?

[HCM]

This is true. The DNC is very frustrated with a few members of the WA state legislature, who are nominally D's but vote with the R's on several issues, especially guns.


Also true. We are hearing more and more from the leftist/statist hive of villainy and scum that is Seattle that everyone should live in an urban enclave in a high-rise, and not own a car, or a gun, because cars and guns are evil, mmmmm'kay?

Single family homes are wasteful of the collectives resources comrade .

[Dagga Boy]

Single family homes are wasteful of the collectives resources comrade .

Good.....I have a couple of them, a gas pig truck, and a boat that can drain fuel and convert it to pure American Big Block Chevy emissions at disturbing levels. :cool:......because I hate commie hippy's.

[RoyGBiv]

Wayne LaPierre | A Challenge for the President


Wayne LaPierre says that President Obama has chosen to attack what he misunderstands most about America—the Second Amendment, gun owners and the NRA. Obama even announced a federal gun force that will be four times the size of the Special Forces units he deployed against ISIS terrorists. LaPierre concludes by challenging the president to a one-on-one, one-hour fair debate.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yClzzvWUoG4

[RoyGBiv]

** Be a college professor and post a profane rant against guns and the police on FB.

What's that get you?

A little one-on-one time with the President. :mad:

Obama Speech Guest: ‘F**k The Laws,’ ‘F**k Police,’ ‘F**k The NRA’ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/14/obama-speech-guest-fk-the-laws-fk-police-fk-nra-tirade/)

[Grey]

It's just in line with his agenda...

[Peally]

** Be a college professor and post a profane rant against guns and the police on FB.

What's that get you?

A little one-on-one time with the President. :mad:

Obama Speech Guest: ‘F**k The Laws,’ ‘F**k Police,’ ‘F**k The NRA’ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/14/obama-speech-guest-fk-the-laws-fk-police-fk-nra-tirade/)

Pieces of shit follow the same laws of gravity as anything else, they tend to gravitate towards each other.

[11B10]

Pieces of shit follow the same laws of gravity as anything else, they tend to gravitate towards each other.




..........and flow downhill. We can only hope. Does anyone here actually think this was a "vetting mistake," as Breitbart has charitably offered as an excuse? No folks, I would bet a whole lot of $$$ this is how the POTUS expresses himself behind closed doors. He probably is still struggling to get the smile off his face when he reads it.

[RoyGBiv]

Here's a Polk in the eye... (SWIDT? ;) )

Growing number of police chiefs, sheriffs join call to arms (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/15/growing-number-police-chiefs-sheriffs-join-call-to-arms.html?intcmp=hpbt2)


“It’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone."

[Drang]

The latest on Obama's executive orders from the Washington Times:
Obama's gun control executive order directs Pentagon to make firearms safer, not more lethal - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/31/obamas-gun-control-executive-order-directs-pentago/)

{I}n President Obama’s first foray into small-arms procurement for the armed forces, his Jan. 4 executive order on gun control directs the Pentagon to find ways to make not so much more lethal firearms, but safer ones.
Most of the article reprises the controversy over the M16/M4/M9/MHS programs; noting that Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy all expressed personal interest in the Army's issue rifles, Retired Major General Robert Scales told the Washington Times that


“Presidential involvement in small arms has been strategic and game-changing in our history,” said Mr. Scales, a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. “Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge. Give me a break.”

Mr. Obama, who has made reducing gun violence and increasing gun control a top priority, signed a Jan. 4 order that directs the Defense Department, as well as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, to “Increase research and development efforts.”

A White House fact sheet states: “The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.”
Because, God knows, when I was carrying an M16 or an M9 for a living, my number one concern was "I sure wish I had a smart gun"...

[Totem Polar]

Judas effing Priest.

[Dagga Boy]

Well.....you wouldn't want to hurt anybody. Next thing.....tanks that shoot potpourri, and the Air Force acquiring glitter bombs.

[LSP552]

Can't make this shit up!

It's just forcing the military to spend funding from a reduced budget to develop "smart" guns. I'm sure the intent is to use the military to develop the technology then try and force feed us.

[CSW]

Well.....you wouldn't want to hurt anybody. Next thing.....tanks that shoot potpourri, and the Air Force acquiring glitter bombs.

Kinder, gentler bullshit. This administration truly has its head up its ass.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Never happen in real time. Takes years for a new system to come in. They can't even order some Glock 17s or a new Beretta without farting around.

Just posturing. The Pentagon would submerge any changes. As far as weapons that can't hurt folks, look at the LCS - it just failed a test attack by simulated Iranian speed boats.

[RevolverRob]

If Wayne LaPierre challenged me to an hour-long, fair, debate - I'd take him up on that just for funsies. I'm pretty sure that my oldest nephew's first grade debate team could defeat LaPierre and Obama in a debate. I don't think LaPierre will win, by any measure, because he has the personal appeal of a oozing slug in your kitchen sink and debates are never about anything other than rhetoric.

-Rob

[Gray222]

If Wayne LaPierre challenged me to an hour-long, fair, debate - I'd take him up on that just for funsies. I'm pretty sure that my oldest nephew's first grade debate team could defeat LaPierre and Obama in a debate. I don't think LaPierre will win, by any measure, because he has the personal appeal of a oozing slug in your kitchen sink and debates are never about anything other than rhetoric.

-Rob

This gave me an interesting idea for a thread..

[LittleLebowski]

If Wayne LaPierre challenged me to an hour-long, fair, debate - I'd take him up on that just for funsies. I'm pretty sure that my oldest nephew's first grade debate team could defeat LaPierre and Obama in a debate. I don't think LaPierre will win, by any measure, because he has the personal appeal of a oozing slug in your kitchen sink and debates are never about anything other than rhetoric.

-Rob


Actually, LaPierre can debate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1243368/posts

[Drang]

And without a teleprompter, Obama is reduced to stuttering and making rude gestures.

[RevolverRob]

Actually, LaPierre can debate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1243368/posts

I read through that. LaPierre had better rhetoric. That's what debates are all about. Only in certain areas did he directly respond to IANSA with alternative facts. He starts straight away, "He said the UN proposal would create a global bureaucracy and that IANSA wants to impliment its social engineering on the US." - The only thing missing from that statement is "You know...social engineering...from the Europeans...like the Nazis." - Seriously. I am putting words in his mouth and being hyperbolic to a degree, but the rhetorical tone there is meant specifically to pander to emotion. All debate is meant to pander to emotion. Humans are emotional, often irrational, beings. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I think LaPierre couldn't destroy Obama in a debate, I think he could, rather easily. Hell, Donald Trump is singlehandedly kicking the ass of a cross-section of very good rhetoricians merely by being bombastic.

What I am saying is - I could kick LaPierre's ass in a debate rather easily. But then I don't pander to emotion or get frustrated when others do, unlike most politicians. Also, LaPierre still has the charm of an oozing slug, but then what politician doesn't?

[StraitR]

Well.....you wouldn't want to hurt anybody. Next thing.....tanks that shoot potpourri, and the Air Force acquiring glitter bombs.

5784

[CSW]

5784

And there's another example.
The white house, the symbol of leadership for the free world.... Should NOT be lit up in colors to celebrate anything or any cause.
In my opinion, it should remain stoic, and illuminated..... But NOT gussied up like Mardi Gras.
What the fuck.....


Rant over. :mad: