Obama in January!!!!

[bersaguy]

Link speaks for itself

 

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Economy/obama-guns-background-checks-firearms/2015/12/28/id/707325/?ns_mail_uid=39319797&ns_mail_job=1647715_12282015&s=al&dkt_nbr=pf2l8kyi

[Grand Torino]

I hate that SOB. That is all.

[runco]

I'll save everyone  from clicking on the link:

 

What's Next on Gun Control: Obama and the Loophole

 

Monday, 28 Dec 2015 12:46 PM

 

 

The next shoe to drop on gun control may come by mid-January, when President Barack Obama is expected to issue an executive order requiring everyone "in the business" of selling firearms to perform background checks.

Wait a second, you might be saying. Doesn't federal law already oblige gun retailers to do computerized criminal checks via the Federal Bureau of Investigation's data base? Yes and no.

Yes, when it comes to federally licensed dealers. But no, when you're talking about people who lack federal licenses and sell guns from their personal collections.

The problem is that an awful lot of firearms are sold in the latter fashion by individuals who aren't technically gun retailers but who sell weapons at weekend gun shows or from their homes. Forthcoming research by the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that 40 percent of all gun transfers occur without background checks (that's the so-called gun show loophole). Presumably the background-check gap permits some criminals and mentally disabled people to buy guns who otherwise might be stopped.

Following another a year of shooting massacres of Americans, Obama has let it be known from his holiday retreat in Hawaii, through unidentified advisers, that soon after New Years Day he plans to follow through on plans to expand the definition of who's "in the business" of selling firearms — and who's thus required to perform background checks. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, among others, has strongly backed this idea, and now Obama appears ready to make its implementation one of the first major acts of his final year in office.

 

Another fan of expanded background checks: Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg LP and founder of Everytown for Gun Safety, the nation's leading nonprofit advocating tougher regulation of firearms. Bloomberg visited Obama at the White House last week to discuss gun-safety strategies.

 

The timing of the expected Obama move on background checks guarantees it will receive a hostile reaction from gun-rights advocates, thousands of whom will gather next month in Las Vegas for the firearm industry's annual Shooting, Hunting & Outdoor Trade Show, known as SHOT.

An ironic twist is that many of the attendees at SHOT each year are federally licensed bricks-and-mortar gun dealers who sometimes concede privately that they have no real problem with all gun sellers being forced to do background checks. These full-time retailers resent competition from casual unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

 

But the National Rifle Association's orthodoxy — that any additional gun control is merely a first step toward bans and confiscation — holds sway in the firearms world, making outward expressions of support among gun sellers for Obama's proposal unlikely.

While the enormous gathering in Las Vegas isn't technically an NRA event, the group's strong anti-Obama stance will almost certainly be evident there, and a fresh proposal to stiffen regulation may have the effect of pouring gasoline on a fire already burning hot.

There will probably be calls to challenge Obama's authority to broaden the background check mandate without congressional involvement. Lawsuits and objections from pro-gun Republicans on Capitol Hill will likely follow, as has happened with other efforts by the administration to use executive authority in the environmental arena.

Another sure thing: Texas Senator Ted Cruz and other Republican presidential candidates will condemn the Obama proposal. In other words, the Great American Gun Debate will continue in 2016.

 

© Copyright 2015 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

 

[JayC]

ATF is going to cause themselves more headaches...  Can't wait for somebody who is considered 'in the business' of selling firearms because of the EO, being turned down for an FFL because they don't meet the ATF 'business' requirements.

 

All sorts of fun court cases coming down the time from this stupidity.

[nightrunner]

Depends on the wording. If, like the article states, it says "in the business of", it won't really mean anything. Law already says if you are in the business of, you have to have a FFL. And we all know all FFL transfers include a background check. Selling a personal collection doesn't mean you are in the business of.

[GlockSpock]

Depends on the wording. If, like the article states, it says "in the business of", it won't really mean anything. Law already says if you are in the business of, you have to have a FFL. And we all know all FFL transfers include a background check. Selling a personal collection doesn't mean you are in the business of.

But I think what he will probably do is define "in the business of". Of course it will not really affect crime or criminals at all but rather become a nuisance for law abiding citizens. I'd say there may be some sort of initiative to discourage or prevent private gun show sales. Possibly a set "limit" of the number you can sell a year without being "in the business of".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[East_TN_Patriot]

Depends on the wording. If, like the article states, it says "in the business of", it won't really mean anything. Law already says if you are in the business of, you have to have a FFL. And we all know all FFL transfers include a background check. Selling a personal collection doesn't mean you are in the business of.

 

 

ATF is going to cause themselves more headaches...  Can't wait for somebody who is considered 'in the business' of selling firearms because of the EO, being turned down for an FFL because they don't meet the ATF 'business' requirements.

 

All sorts of fun court cases coming down the time from this stupidity.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.  If one is "in the business" of selling firearms then they are required to have an FFL, so this doesn't accomplish anything except to confuse the situation and placate anti-gunners.  What a bunch of BS.

[nightrunner]

Possibly a set "limit" of the number you can sell a year without being "in the business of".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My opinion, that is a good thing. Right now it's a grey area with the ATF being able to change that number on a whim. Set an number in writing and is gun owners will know if we are breaking the law or not.

Just my opinion that I know isn't shared by all on here.

[GlockSpock]

My opinion, that is a good thing. Right now it's a grey area with the ATF being able to change that number on a whim. Set an number in writing and is gun owners will know if we are breaking the law or not.

Just my opinion that I know isn't shared by all on here.

 

If were to end up being reasonable (random example, 120 guns per year, probably even half that or a fourth of that), then other than an issue of freedom it wouldn't much affect me. If it is something insane like you cannot sell 2 or more guns a year than that is not something I could even potentially think positively of. But to me the issue isn't whether or not it is reasonable but rather that it only affects law abiding citizens instead of criminals. The San Bernardino shooters show what bad guys do when they cannot or feel they cannot pass a background check.

[Oh Shoot]

Being "engaged in the business" is defined by 18 USC 921.

 

I fail to see how an EO can add to federal code without an amendment of the statute itself by the Congress.

 

- OS

[nightrunner]

If were to end up being reasonable (random example, 120 guns per year, probably even half that or a fourth of that), then other than an issue of freedom it wouldn't much affect me. If it is something insane like you cannot sell 2 or more guns a year than that is not something I could even potentially think positively of. But to me the issue isn't whether or not it is reasonable but rather that it only affects law abiding citizens instead of criminals. The San Bernardino shooters show what bad guys do when they cannot or feel they cannot pass a background check.

I would imagine it being something similar to being considered a used car salesman, which I believe is selling 5 cars a year. I'm not sure but I have heard that number before.

[GlockSpock]

Being "engaged in the business" is defined by 18 USC 921.

I fail to see how an EO can add to federal code without an amendment of the statute itself by the Congress.

- OS

(C) 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;

So who is to determine whom purchases one firearm a year with the intent to resale and whom purchases and sells 100 firearms a year with the sole intention of enhancing their own collection?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nightrunner]

(C) 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;

So who is to determine whom purchases one firearm a year with the intent to resale and whom purchases and sells 100 firearms a year with the sole intention of enhancing their own collection?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the keyword is "livelihood". Meaning that is how you make your living or part of it.

[GlockSpock]

I believe the keyword is "livelihood". Meaning that is how you make your living or part of it.

 

I'm not necessarily claiming that in the business of isn't somewhat defined, I'm pretty sure that they guy you see at the flea market with two tables totaling 30 firearms and is making purchases/trades/sales etc with the intent of making a profit is almost undeniably enhancing their livelihood by doing so. However, a hobbyist who sales 20-30 firearms a year with the intent of trying something new or upgrading their collection is dangerously close to being targeted in my opinion.

Edited December 29, 2015 by CZ9MM

[nightrunner]

Since you can't really regulate intent very well. You have to put a number on it. And that is based on what the average reasonable person would be doing, in their eyes. 30 guns a year is more than 1 gun every other week or more than 2 a month. I'm betting there are licensed FFLs that don't do that much business.

Yes we are being targeted and even more highly regulated.

[Oh Shoot]

I believe the keyword is "livelihood". Meaning that is how you make your living or part of it.

 

And further:

 

"The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism."

 

- OS

[Trekbike]

My opinion, that is a good thing. Right now it's a grey area with the ATF being able to change that number on a whim. Set an number in writing and is gun owners will know if we are breaking the law or not.
 

 

If they set a number you can sell/year, regardless of what the number is, how is this enforced without a national database of registered firearms you own to track the flow?          

[shotgunshooter]

It's not practical and IMHO can't be enforced. What's stopping me from selling a gun to Joe the Plumber down the street the day after this passes? Nothing, because there isn't a way for them to know unless all of those Infowars people are correct about there being registration, UN troops on our soil, and Obama has already declared martial law.
Edit: I meant when it comes to selling private collections.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Edited December 29, 2015 by shotgunshooter

[nightrunner]

Isn't it implying that you have to do a background check on every purchase? Basically everything has to be done with an FFL transfer

[runco]

This is nothing more than a feel good measure or in other words look at me check mark, and its another action to divide the nation more.  I personally can't see nothing new and the enforcement has no teeth. 

 

[URL=http://s963.photobucket.com/user/runco0318/media/OEO_zpshguysik4.jpg.html][/URL]

[mikegideon]

That's exactly what I was thinking.  If one is "in the business" of selling firearms then they are required to have an FFL, so this doesn't accomplish anything except to confuse the situation and placate anti-gunners.  What a bunch of BS.

 

We should ALL apply for an FFL if some kind of BS order comes down. Choke the system. I'm thinking obama doesn;t have anything he can make stick.

[mikegideon]

Being "engaged in the business" is defined by 18 USC 921.

 

I fail to see how an EO can add to federal code without an amendment of the statute itself by the Congress.

 

- OS

 

What I was thinking too. He's a slimy one. 

[WindHawk]

ATF is going to cause themselves more headaches...  Can't wait for somebody who is considered 'in the business' of selling firearms because of the EO, being turned down for an FFL because they don't meet the ATF 'business' requirements.

 

All sorts of fun court cases coming down the time from this stupidity.

 

Hmmm, what would happen if every gun owner in the USofA suddenly decided to send an application to become an FFL?  Sure, 99.999% of us would be denied but think of the "grid lock" and mess it would create. "But "O", we're just trying to be good citizens and comply with your EO."

 

Edit: Didn't see Mike's post first.  I second his idea!

Edited December 29, 2015 by WindHawk

[Mike.357]

do you have to send a check to apply?

[btq96r]

...and placate anti-gunners.

 

This is the only objective he's after with any EO on guns.  He knows that he can't get more without Congress making changes to existing laws in the USC or CFR, but he needs to get the anti-gun groups happy enough to write checks for Democratic candidates (or run ads against Republican candidates) in the 2016 election cycle. 

 

I doubt anything with real enforceable consequences that impede gun ownership or sale will come from this.