Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[GIJEW]

Here it is, folks, in detail:

Details of Obama executive actions on guns | Jamie Dupree - WSB Radio

That's pretty sweeping.

I wonder what the urgency is in having the states report more data to NICS when B.O. didn't bother to stipulate that DOJ has to work with the states to prosecute and imprison criminals who break all those federal laws?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

At first read (The Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will also issue updated guidance that says the government can consider someone a gun dealer regardless of where the guns are sold) in the article this morning (Obama executive action on guns to require background checks for more sales | Fox News) my reaction was this does nothing - there is no loophole. Now, after looking into it further, it as I feared - all private sales. That's what this boils down to. FFL's are already required to do background checks no matter where they sell, gun shows or otherwise. It's the private sales they've been after and that's pretty much what this boils down to.

So, here's the question. This EO is so vague any private sale of a firearm may be a prosecuting offense if the ATF or whomever wants to pursue it. How does that affect sales here on INGO and in your back yard? This same law was tried in Indiana and ZERO convictions resulted so Indiana repealed it. No one was following the law. It was not something prosecutors would try and people ignored it. Is that what's going to happen? Everyone will ignore it? I'm not asking anyone to admit in a public forum whether they will ignore the law, I'm asking if your opinion is people in general will ignore the law. My opinion is what happened in Indiana will be nation wide.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Review of the new nothingburger EAs: Executive Orders: The Shoe Drops | Shall Not Be Questioned

 

[cobber]

The next president defunds the ATF.

We have to make it to 2017, however.

 

[avboiler11]

The purposefully vague non-definition of what will constitute a seller requiring a FFL bothers me greatly, as law-abiding citizens could be made into insta-felons at the whim of an ATF agent or federal prosecutor. I understand current regulation also does not strictly define when someone is considered a 'dealer', but this appears to make "we know it when we see it" a lot more subjective and much wider in scope.

Kirk, in your opinion is this a misplaced concern?

 

[avboiler11]

I also love how DOD, DOJ and DHS are tasked with exploring and researching "smart guns" - but there is no mandate for them to adopt let alone issue "smart guns".

 

[rob63]

At first read (The Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will also issue updated guidance that says the government can consider someone a gun dealer regardless of where the guns are sold) in the article this morning (Obama executive action on guns to require background checks for more sales | Fox News) my reaction was this does nothing - there is no loophole. Now, after looking into it further, it as I feared - all private sales. That's what this boils down to. FFL's are already required to do background checks no matter where they sell, gun shows or otherwise. It's the private sales they've been after and that's pretty much what this boils down to.

So, here's the question. This EO is so vague any private sale of a firearm may be a prosecuting offense if the ATF or whomever wants to pursue it. How does that affect sales here on INGO and in your back yard? This same law was tried in Indiana and ZERO convictions resulted so Indiana repealed it. No one was following the law. It was not something prosecutors would try and people ignored it. Is that what's going to happen? Everyone will ignore it? I'm not asking anyone to admit in a public forum whether they will ignore the law, I'm asking if your opinion is people in general will ignore the law. My opinion is what happened in Indiana will be nation wide.

Does it really count as ignoring a law if it an EO and it is vague in the first place? My take on it is that the EO does nothing that wasn't already a part of the law anyway and is not likely to be used to prosecute anybody that wouldn't have been prosecuted anyway; it is simply meant to sound good to the uninformed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The purposefully vague non-definition of what will constitute a seller requiring a FFL bothers me greatly, as law-abiding citizens could be made into insta-felons at the whim of an ATF agent or federal prosecutor.

It was vague before. It just means that USAs might start prosecuting marginal cases. We've all seen them at gun shows. Guys who are continually "selling off their collection". Those will likely be the first large, slow targets.

Kirk, in your opinion is this a misplaced concern?

Anything the government does can go wildly wrong (the smart gun nonsense concerns me). However, this is beyond feckless.

New Obama ukazi: "We have these laws . . . and maybe we should enforce them and stuff."

 

[87iroc]

So did they do enough to have everyone on the pro-2A side screaming in the press so that echo's Obama's case that he did 'something' when in reality he did 'nothing'?

 

[avboiler11]

Here is the ATF's newly issued guidance on needing an FFL to sell firearms:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

After reading this...I'm much less concerned than I was before.

 

[KG1]

One way of looking at it this could potentially take one their major talking points off the table. They always loved to push this trumped up "gun show loophole" meme that was a bunch of BS to begin with designed to pump up the anti crowd.

 

[Opie]

Here is the ATF's newly issued guidance on needing an FFL to sell firearms:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

After reading this...I'm much less concerned than I was before.

Here is my concern. If you sell a gun to anyone, and it is used in a crime down the road (especially one that draws media attention) the Federal Government could make a reaction based on a sense of public outrage and attempt to make a collector out to be a "dealer" so that someone "pays the price" for whatever crime is committed. This could be a gun that was sold 4 times before being used in a crime, but we all know how **** rolls down hill.....

 

[avboiler11]

There is nothing stopping Uncle Sugar from doing just that today.

As I said earlier, this 'change' does seem to broaden the scope of "we know it when we see it"...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As I said earlier, this 'change' does seem to broaden the scope of "we know it when we see it"...

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kopel on Obama's EAs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../?postshare=1711452011025152&tid=ss_tw-bottom

 

[Jeepster48439]

Here is the ATF's newly issued guidance on needing an FFL to sell firearms:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download.

I didn't see a date that this guidance was compiled or promulgated. Any one know when it was written?

 

[rvb]

I didn't see a date that this guidance was compiled or promulgated. Any one know when it was written?

footer of last page says "January 2016"

 

[ArcadiaGP]

He's doing a speech right now. This ol' gem:

"We are the only advanced country on earth that sees this kind of mass violence…with this kind of frequency."

 

[Jeepster48439]

footer of last page says "January 2016"

Thanks. Didn't scroll to the bottom of the last page. Used to seeing it prominently displayed on the cover.

 

[87iroc]

Here is the ATF's newly issued guidance on needing an FFL to sell firearms:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

After reading this...I'm much less concerned than I was before.

Great link. Thanks Updated this month so that should be good to go(until they change their mind...but at least its something other than the EO)