Obama prepares order on guns

LTC8K6 said:
The NFA stuff is odd. NFA weapons are not used in crimes, and the reason trusts or corporations are used to buy them is almost certainly because they cost a fortune, not to avoid background checks.
Click to expand...
The two major reasons for the use of trusts I always read about are;

1. Avoids the CLEO signature. The local sheriff can deny the signature on the tax stamp application for any reason, or for no reason at all. Is anyone comfortable with a police chief denying an application signature based on race or creed? At least one state (TN) requires the CLEO to sign if the applicant is not a prohibited person.

2. Allows use of multiple owners. The owner of an NFA firearms has to control the firearm at all times either by keeping it locked up or being around when it is used. If I want my family to have legal access to the silencers I make, the best way to use a trust and make them all trustees.

Ranb
 
LTC8K6 said:
"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked."

Obama apparently did say that.

I just can't understand why this keeps getting repeated as if it's true.
Click to expand...
Well it is true; he just neglected to say that it is illegal to do so. A lie by omission?

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I hope my military training and shooting coach certification counts as some sort of "grandfather clause".


Ammo class? That is rather vague; would it be DD vs non-DD or something else. Hopefully not handgun ammo vs rifle ammo.


The federal license for ammunition manufacturing is $30/3 years. The much worse part is the ITAR; $2250.00 each year even if you're not an exporter. There has to be a better way.


Will we need a new legal definition of a "firearm component"? Surely you don't want to include screws, scopes, mounts, rings and other minor parts. I make firearms from tubing and bar stock; no way I want to have controls on the metal stock I purchase from OnlineMetals.com in Seattle.

Ranb
Click to expand...
If you wanna get into the nuts and bolts of my proposal, I suppose I can bump the thread I made for it that was roundly ignored. I've been thinking about this for a while and I'd love input before writing to congresscritters about it; last time I brought it up nobody cared to do more than throw rocks at it.
 
On a law web site I read these were not regulatory changes and thus carried no legal weight, as their production did not adhere to regulation-creation laws. They were "guidance documents".
 
Beerina said:
On a law web site I read these were not regulatory changes and thus carried no legal weight, as their production did not adhere to regulation-creation laws. They were "guidance documents".
Click to expand...

Is he 'guiding' the SSA to violate the HIPPA laws enacted by Congress? Or is he guiding the SSA to lobby Congress for a law change? I think it is illegal for the Executive branch to lobby Congress isn't it?
 
LTC8K6 said:
The NFA stuff is odd. NFA weapons are not used in crimes, and the reason trusts or corporations are used to buy them is almost certainly because they cost a fortune, not to avoid background checks.
Click to expand...
It's actually used to avoid having to get a sheriff to sign off on the purchase, since as a matter of policy many won't. This requirement is waived for a trust.
 
Can anyone tell us what the actual new rules are?

How many guns do you have to sell each year or each month to be called a "dealer"?
 
Can the USA have referendums?

Seems like the best way to proceed to me. Let the people decide. If the majority of peeps in the US of A want to carry on living in the wild west then I say leave em to it. Let em carry on shooting at each other.

But if there is an overwhelming majority for wanting some sane federal gun control then let the gun nuts suck it up. No prison time for holding a gun against the regulations, just a large fine and lifetime ban.

Maybe only guys with the biggest dicks should be allowed to own a gun. As for the chicks, they will just have to be satisfied with a blender. (of course you would have to present your o'l boy in person to an official dick weight and measure center since I wouldn't put it past the gun nuts photoshopping their meat and two veg to get past the regs)
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Can anyone tell us what the actual new rules are?

How many guns do you have to sell each year or each month to be called a "dealer"?
Click to expand...
There are no new rules. This is a charade to fool the rubes.
 
BadBoy said:
Maybe only guys with the biggest dicks should be allowed to own a gun. As for the chicks, they will just have to be satisfied with a blender. (of course you would have to present your o'l boy in person to an official dick weight and measure center since I wouldn't put it past the gun nuts photoshopping their meat and two veg to get past the regs)
Click to expand...
You anti-gun nuts sure are obsessed with dicks.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
If you wanna get into the nuts and bolts of my proposal, I suppose I can bump the thread I made for it that was roundly ignored. I've been thinking about this for a while and I'd love input before writing to congresscritters about it; last time I brought it up nobody cared to do more than throw rocks at it.
Click to expand...

Ranb said:
Bump away.
Click to expand...

Can't find it. The search results suggest to me I made the thread on the old forum with my old name.

I'll just spawn a new one.
 
BadBoy said:
Can the USA have referendums?
Click to expand...
Not at the federal level.

If the majority of peeps in the US of A want to carry on living in the wild west then I say leave em to it. Let em carry on shooting at each other.
Click to expand...
I think you're watching too much TV. It's not the wild west in the USA at all.

But if there is an overwhelming majority for wanting some sane federal gun control then let the gun nuts suck it up. No prison time for holding a gun against the regulations, just a large fine and lifetime ban.
Click to expand...
Can you name just one federal gun bill that actually had the support of a majority of citizens polled? While people like to trot out polls that suggest a majority of Americans want bkgd checks or some other scheme, there has never been any such bill sponsored lately, unless you count those bills which were loaded down with other crap to ensure a great majority of people were against it. After all, what is the anti-gun politician to do if their anti-gun bill is passed? They'll not have a platform to run on the future.

Maybe only guys with the biggest dicks should be allowed to own a gun. As for the chicks, they will just have to be satisfied with a blender. (of course you would have to present your o'l boy in person to an official dick weight and measure center since I wouldn't put it past the gun nuts photoshopping their meat and two veg to get past the regs)
Click to expand...
I'd like to see you explain your sexism.

Ranb
 
Hercules56 said:
Can anyone tell us what the actual new rules are?

How many guns do you have to sell each year or each month to be called a "dealer"?
Click to expand...

I agree with Wildcat. I think there's actually nothing new here.

However, lately the gov't has been making rules and laws and only getting around to telling us what they actually say much later.

For your second question, there has never been a fixed number, iirc. It could be anywhere from a single gun or gun part, up to whatever. That info is also reflected in the statement from the White House.
 
I reading that the CLEO signature for individuals has been eliminated by 41P. Earlier versions of the new regulation would have required trusts to identify responsible persons who would need to submit photos and fingerprints as well as obtaining the CLEO signature. While the responsible person identity requirement remains, the CLEO signature which was used as a de-facto ban in some places is now gone. Nice!!!

http://www.guns.com/2016/01/05/whit...ludes-dropping-cleo-requirement-on-nfa-items/

As part of a long-promised toughening of rules on guns, the Obama Administration is lifting the requirement for Chief Law Enforcement Officer certifications.

The updated rule, signed by U. S. Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch and announced late Monday, is the final version of controversial ATF 41P, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) originally published in 2013.

In its earlier format, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives proposed 41P to require all transfers of items covered by the National Firearms Act such as suppressors, machine guns and short barreled rifles/shotguns to undergo a certification by the CLEO in their area — even for transfers to legal trusts.

This, warned firearms industry groups and NFA item advocates, could have resulted in de facto bans on NFA items for those who lived in areas where local police chiefs and sheriffs declined to process applications. This led to a series of “shall-sign” laws being passed across the nation mandating that, as long as an applicant was not prohibited from possessing a firearm, the local CLEO had to sign off on their application within a certain period.
Click to expand...

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I think you're watching too much TV. It's not the wild west in the USA at all.
Click to expand...
Well, I know my language was a tad obtuse, but having some perspective does make things look rather bad over there.

Can you name just one federal gun bill that actually had the support of a majority of citizens polled? While people like to trot out polls that suggest a majority of Americans want bkgd checks or some other scheme, there has never been any such bill sponsored lately, unless you count those bills which were loaded down with other crap to ensure a great majority of people were against it. After all, what is the anti-gun politician to do if their anti-gun bill is passed? They'll not have a platform to run on the future.
Click to expand...
Nope. But I didn't suggest there were any. In fact my point was that if most people want to keep the Status-Quo, then so be it. I mean if the vast majority of Americans don't mind or care or assert that there's a principal at stake despite the gun violence or some other reason to keep their guns, then that is just fine and dandy.

I'd like to see you explain your sexism.
Click to expand...
I was being ironic and using satire to ridicule a quite obvious Gun Nut stereo type.
Ranb
Click to expand...
I think, if the USA sorted out their Gun infatuation and developed a caring universal health care system which they could well afford, and became a little (lot) less religious, it could be one of the best places to live in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom