Obama prepares order on guns

The Fool said:
Obama wants to crack down on Internet and gunshow sellers who do not have an ffl.


If they have an ffl then the background checks would be required. Do you have an issue with firearms dealers being required to have a licence?
Click to expand...
No issue at all with firearms dealers being licensed.
The question is "what constitutes a dealer"?
Let me guess. Your definition is anyone who wants to sell a firearm,right?
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
No issue at all with firearms dealers being licensed.
The question is "what constitutes a dealer"?
Let me guess. Your definition is anyone who wants to sell a firearm,right?
Click to expand...

That's good. Obama needs more supporters for what he is trying to do so its good to see you support all firearms dealers requiring licenses.

What constitutes a dealer? Well, a dealer is someone who does it for profit...as a commercial activity. The definition of what is commercial activity and needs to be declared for income tax and all that stuff is generally handled by taxation people so if you are not sure what constitutes being a dealer in your location you should talk to the relevant govt department.

Sorry about your guess. These things happen
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
We've been down this road before, and the last time your reply was found lacking. Do you really expect to do better this time?
More guns = more bullet holes, less guns =less bullet holes, isn't that how it goes?
Your theory hinges upon an unproven assumption, however:
Correlation = causation.
And we're still waiting on your evidence to prove that assumption.
Click to expand...


Firstly, I don,t expect my arguments to be found anything other than lacking as you appear to have appointed yourself as the judge on that question.

May I suggest a pair of hand puppets? You could use one for me and the other for your victorious replies and my participation wouldnt be required saving me a lot of time.
 
The Fool said:
Obama wants to crack down on Internet and gunshow sellers who do not have an ffl.


If they have an ffl then the background checks would be required. Do you have an issue with firearms dealers being required to have a licence?
Click to expand...
If they are a dealer they have to have an FFL.

Non-FFL holders do not have access to the NICS background check system. If background checks are the goal why not devise a mechanism for that? IMHO the reason the Dems don't is because they really want registration for later confiscation once they get enough votes to outlaw whatever guns they declare are inherently evil. That's how it worked in Australia, right?
 
The Fool said:
What constitutes a dealer? Well, a dealer is someone who does it for profit...as a commercial activity. The definition of what is commercial activity and needs to be declared for income tax and all that stuff is generally handled by taxation people so if you are not sure what constitutes being a dealer in your location you should talk to the relevant govt department.
Click to expand...
That's already the law.
 
WildCat said:
That's already the law.
Click to expand...

Sure, but let's be fair. There's a lot of grey area there. There are people who essentially run a side business dealing guns without getting an FFL. There's no legal dividing line to determine when someone is just selling stuff from his collection and actually running a business.

I don't think it's a bad idea to have that clarified. Supposedly, Obama's EO does exactly that, but I can't find the specific details on the criteria used. (I've seen "one gun a year" floated, but that seems ridiculous, and the sources are suspect.)
 
The webpage on recent executive actions is updated; https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions

I'm not impressed. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/memorandum-promoting-smart-gun-technology

Nothing about at least one state attempting to prevent smart gun tech from coming to the market by making it the only available feature allowed for use by civilians. Perhaps he should have addressed the shortcomings of the stupid NJ law which has hindered bringing a good smart gun to the market.

Nothing new posted on the EO website though; https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

Anyone got better info on what the EO's/EA's actually say? Depending on the mass media for accurate gun info is like going to Silvia Browne for medical advice.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
The whole "smart gun" thing is just pissing in the wind, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. Including Obama.
 
Cleon said:
Sure, but let's be fair. There's a lot of grey area there. There are people who essentially run a side business dealing guns without getting an FFL. There's no legal dividing line to determine when someone is just selling stuff from his collection and actually running a business.

I don't think it's a bad idea to have that clarified. Supposedly, Obama's EO does exactly that, but I can't find the specific details on the criteria used. (I've seen "one gun a year" floated, but that seems ridiculous, and the sources are suspect.)
Click to expand...
It's not a EO, it's an "executive action", which has no real effect on anything. And I don't think they want to define a clear line, because then it gives the unlicensed dealers an easy legal out. It would also possibly lead to court action that would require the BATFE to issue dealer licenses to people they won't now. IIRC they won't issue a dealer FFL unless you move at least 200 guns a year.
 
quadraginta said:
Once you break out the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories there isn't much room left for rational discussion.
Click to expand...
Hardly a conspiracy theory when many gun control advocates admit that's what they want, every new law is a "step in the right direction" and in fact California already did just that, where a law was passed requiring registration and afterwards another law was passed that outlawed the guns that were registered.
 
WildCat said:
Hardly a conspiracy theory when many gun control advocates admit that's what they want, every new law is a "step in the right direction" and in fact California already did just that, where a law was passed requiring registration and afterwards another law was passed that outlawed the guns that were registered.
Click to expand...


Are you sure it is as simple as you describe.

I'm sure there is no chance you might be misrepresenting the facts to your advantage.

Can you tell me specifically whose guns are being confiscated under the new law directing the confiscation?

It wouldn't be people who were not supposed to be in possession of firearms because they were convicted felons or deemed to be mentally unstable as a result of having been committed, or any other groups that are not legally supposed to have firearms in their possession in the first place, would it?

Nah. That's almost like enforcing existing gun laws, and we know you wouldn't be against that.

Would you?

So explain to us. Exactly whose guns were being confiscated as a result of this new law.
 
quadraginta said:
Are you sure it is as simple as you describe.

I'm sure there is no chance you might be misrepresenting the facts to your advantage.

Can you tell me specifically whose guns are being confiscated under the new law directing the confiscation?

It wouldn't be people who were not supposed to be in possession of firearms because they were convicted felons or deemed to be mentally unstable as a result of having been committed, or any other groups that are not legally supposed to have firearms in their possession in the first place, would it?

Nah. That's almost like enforcing existing gun laws, and we know you wouldn't be against that.

Would you?

So explain to us. Exactly whose guns were being confiscated as a result of this new law.
Click to expand...

This was the SKS sporter in 1998. People were not grandfathered. California changed the law such that the weapons had to be turned in.
 
WildCat said:
You do realize this doesn't do anything at all towards that end, don't you?

All he did was reiterate existing law.
Click to expand...

I dont have any illusions on how much this really does, however it's a terrible idea IMO not to have at least some checks, or as in this case consistent standards of vetting people. Why bother having background checks if you're going to leave easy loopholes get around them? Much as I support the second amendment, we should still ensure to the best of our ability that guns dont get into the wrong hands. I have no problem trying to find a balance between that and maintaining the right to bare arms

Obama is just wasting executive orders on the stuff to insert into the campaign, near as I can tell
 
Last edited:
The Fool said:
Firstly, I don,t expect my arguments to be found anything other than lacking as you appear to have appointed yourself as the judge on that question.

May I suggest a pair of hand puppets? You could use one for me and the other for your victorious replies and my participation wouldnt be required saving me a lot of time.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you directly, then:
Is it, or is it not, your position that less guns=less bullet holes?
 
BobTheCoward said:
This was the SKS sporter in 1998. People were not grandfathered. California changed the law such that the weapons had to be turned in.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's exactly what I was referring to.

"Conspiracy theory" indeed!

Australia followed the same pattern.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Why bother having background checks if you're going to leave easy loopholes get around them?
Click to expand...
Not a loophole. When the CGA of 1968 was passed requiring a license for interstate sales, everyone knew private sales in the states were still legal and the usual type of sale. When the Brady bill created NICS and purposely restricted it to FFL's for obtaining bkgd checks, private sales were still legal and the norm. In WA prior to passage of I-594 I had an easy way of verifying a bkgd check was performed on a buyer for a private sale; check their ID and CPL (carry permit). That is no longer permitted as a dealer has to be involved which curtails 2nd amendment rights for certain law abiding adults in WA.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom