Obama prepares order on guns

[LTC8K6]

So, the below defines a dealer, and I doubt the definition will be changing.

18 U.S.C. § 921:

(21) The term “engaged in the business” means –
***
(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;

This is number one on the White House fact sheet:

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.

It is merely a statement of existing law. Long existing law.

Pretty odd...

 

[a_unique_person]

If everyone agrees that Obamas actions won't really do anything, why all the hysteria from the gun lobby and runs on guns and ammo?

 

[Nessie]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

“This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

I am now of the opinion that the majority of Americans are OK with the situation as it is. They can cope with having lots of mass shootings and gun violence. Hence the inertia and feeling there is no point in trying to change.

Add that to the right to be armed is more important than the right to life and a lack of community spirit where the individual wants to protect them self over protecting the community as a whole and the situation is helpless.

 

[Nessie]

...... Sure, you'd save hundreds, maybe thousands of lives a year by strictly enforcing existing gun laws .......

Until it is shown existing laws are being properly enforced, I do not see the point in creating new ones.

 

[truethat]

As someone who supports background checks for gun sales, I actually hope that the president doesn't try to close the "gun show loophole" by executive order. There's a good chance such an order wouldn't withstand judicial review and an attempt at unconstitutional overreach by the president could be great propaganda for the NRA.

If he does anything, it likely won't make too much sense, won't affect criminals at all, and will mostly be for show.

Or, it will be so wrong/illegal/unconstitutional, that even people in favor of gun control will be shocked.

Both good points. If something does happen I'd like it to go through and not be caught up in legalities for years and years.

I do think he's in a position to make a change about this. It's his last year in office and I'm sure he wants to leave feeling he did something.

Just curious to Wildcat and others who seem to resist the legislation of gun control, would you be willing to have Gun Insurance be a requirement to own a gun?

I think that one way to tackle this issue is to encourage regulation. A gun owner should not very likely care about buying gun insurance, the same way have car insurance. And as soon as we have money as part of the issue, it's likely to change the way it's handled.

Or is that just wishful thinking on my part? I've always understood why we can't do away with guns because of the Second Amendment. But the amendment refers to a "Well REGULATED militia." So I've always thought that's the angle we should use to approach the issue.

 

[Nessie]

You mean Iraq, Somolia, Congo, Afghanistan, Columbia, the former Yugoslavia, ... ?

Lets look at the countries with the highest per capita rates of homicide. Lets look at countries which have so called militias 'protecting' the 'common people'.

Do any of these countries have official gun control? All of them, none of them?

Countries where the government is too weak to control the flow of arms in any way often have problems with random violence.

The USA joins Iraq, Somalia, Congo etc in having a government too weak to control the flow of arms in any way. That is a very good point. The USA is actually unique in having a functioning government that has been unable to control the flow of arms and therefore who has the arms. The only place in the entire world where that has happened.

 

[BobTheCoward]

“This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

I am now of the opinion that the majority of Americans are OK with the situation as it is. They can cope with having lots of mass shootings and gun violence. Hence the inertia and feeling there is no point in trying to change.

Add that to the right to be armed is more important than the right to life and a lack of community spirit where the individual wants to protect them self over protecting the community as a whole and the situation is helpless.

You have it backwards. We have a right to be armed because we have a right to life. Removing guns in The name of the community is to deny a person a right to defend their life while members of the community get to maintain it. It is servitude.

 

[quadraginta]

Isn't the NRA always saying we should just enforce the laws already on the books?

They had their fingers crossed.

 

[quadraginta]

It's going to take an act by Congress to change the HIPPA laws.

And while it sounds like the definition of "in the business of dealing guns" might get tighter, it won't be absolute either. And it has current limits too.

So a big zip.

And by extension any law which isn't 100% effective is also a "big zip"

I guess there isn't much point in any of them.

 

[quadraginta]

If everyone agrees that Obamas actions won't really do anything, why all the hysteria from the gun lobby and runs on guns and ammo?

To begin with it is mandatory to be against anything Obama is in favor of, no matter what it is. If Obama came out in favor of unrestricted gun ownership they wouldn't know what the hell to do. Their heads would probably 'splode.

Also any hysteria about gun control, no matter how unfounded or fabricated, increases gun sales.

This is a wonderful opportunity to take some of the sting out of the post-holiday season sales slump.

 

[quadraginta]

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?

Are you asking if it is illegal for the Executive branch to advocate legislation they are in favor of with Congress, or if it is illegal for them to hire someone to do it for them?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He didn't buy the gun online, he bought it in person. Armslist is just a classified site. Obama's statement is false.

Ah, it's not a duck, it's some type of water fowl.

 

[HenryLee]

I think that one way to tackle this issue is to encourage regulation. A gun owner should not very likely care about buying gun insurance, the same way have car insurance. And as soon as we have money as part of the issue, it's likely to change the way it's handled.

Or is that just wishful thinking on my part? I've always understood why we can't do away with guns because of the Second Amendment. But the amendment refers to a "Well REGULATED militia." So I've always thought that's the angle we should use to approach the issue.

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, betterregulated , and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

It was the bureaucracy of the Creeks that made them so effective.

 

[sunmaster14]

Ah, it's not a duck, it's some type of water fowl.

I think it's fair to say that "purchasing online" means contracting to purchase an item via internet communication and then having that item delivered to you by a 3rd party (e.g. UPS, USPS, FedEx, drone) who has no interest in the transaction and most likely has no idea what the item is which is being delivered. Although I have no personal experience with gun buying on the internet (or gun buying in general), it appears that it consists of arranging a personal meet to conduct the transaction. In my view, that does not constitute purchasing a gun online. In fact, I think it would be a lie to say that it does.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it's fair to say that "purchasing online" means contracting to purchase an item via internet communication and then having that item delivered to you by a 3rd party (e.g. UPS, USPS, FedEx, drone) who has no interest in the transaction and most likely has no idea what the item is which is being delivered. Although I have no personal experience with gun buying on the internet (or gun buying in general), it appears that it consists of arranging a personal meet to conduct the transaction. In my view, that does not constitute purchasing a gun online. In fact, I think it would be a lie to say that it does.

Quibble noted.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

I am now of the opinion that the majority of Americans are OK with the situation as it is. They can cope with having lots of mass shootings and gun violence. Hence the inertia and feeling there is no point in trying to change.

It's always a pleasure to see a fellow member emerge from darkness, blinking, into the light. Welcome!

Add that to the right to be armed is more important than the right to life and a lack of community spirit where the individual wants to protect them self over protecting the community as a whole and the situation is helpless.

Hey, who turned out the lights?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Quibble noted.

That's not a quibble, it's a definition to differentiate disparate activities related in function.


Nuance too much this early?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's not a quibble, it's a definition to differentiate disparate activities related in function.


Nuance too much this early?

Still not a duck then. Got it.

 

[HenryLee]

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/



Ranb

So Obama just made it easier to buy machine guns. Heckuva job Bammy. It's almost like he doesn't know what he's doing.

 

[Cleon]

Ah, it's not a duck, it's some type of water fowl.

JFC. No.

When I buy a gun online, I go to a site like AIM, pay with my credit card, and the gun gets shipped to my gun club, who calls me, I come in, they do a background check, and I get my gun.

On Armslist, Person A posts an ad that says "I have a gun for sale." Person B contacts Person A, they make arrangement to meet and trade money for gun. It's no different than if Person A put the ad in a newspaper.