Obama to Announce New Executive Action concerning guns:

[drgrant]

Although I try to stay in the loop with all government stuff, I'll admit a little naivete on the "EA" stuff, so I'm curious: What exactly ARE the "limits" to what a muslim sympathizing/terrorist consorting/ treasonous/disgraceful maggot CAN (and cannot) do via "Executive Action(s)"?.... Is it spelled out CLEARLY anywhere as to what this maggot can and cannot do via the "stroke" of his... pen? (as if he'd even care to read the "spelling").. Cuz there is nothing, literally NOTHING, that this maggot could possibly do that would surprise me at this point....So the question : What exactly, spelled out clearly, is "off limits" to a tyrant via the circumvention of Congress known as "Executive Action"?

There isn't anything spelled out clearly except that I can tell you that most of what he wants will not be reality on the ground after the dust settles, but what he does want is people like yourself to get a stroke from the high blood pressure thinking about it in the meantime. There are a few semi informed posters in here... but otherwise most of this thread sounds like the gun owner version of this....

 

[kalash]

ATF falls under DOJ, making it part of the executive branch, which, in turn, makes it "eligible" to be effected by executive orders (not to be confused with useless executive actions). I think that the proposal at hand wouldn't change any laws but rather direct the ATF to change their policy requiring FFL issuance, in a nutshell.

 

[spt_1955]

there's a lot of confusion between Executive Orders (see Kalash's post) and Executive Actions

EA's are not legally binding....its in essence a wish list of what the president wants

The current law has language that states that individuals who are principally in the business of selling firearms MUST be an FFL (paraphrased)

There's very little Obama can do legally......

Someone who sells a couple of firearms from their collection every year clearly doesnt fall under this requirement......but the general believe is that Obama is going to try to play with semantics and narrow who must be an FFL and who does not need to be.

He cannot by law require everyone to go through an FFL but its expected he will try to set some arbitrary limit of x guns/year or a gun must be owned for y number of years before it qualifies for a private sale without 4473.......utter nonsense

So can some free state person help me understand. In MA I can sell 4 guns per year as personal sales and each transaction must be logged on the MIRCS Gun Transaction Portal. Do free state residents have to file any paperwork on private sales? I know that there are probably 46 answers to this question... let's start with NE Free states.

Thanks in advance.

 

[P-14]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/conservatives-obama-gun-executive/2016/01/01/id/707820/

seems there are calls against this action....

And one of the comments to this article:

In 1865 a Democrat
shot and killed Abraham Lincoln,

President of the
United States.

In 1881 a left wing
radical Democrat shot James Garfield,

President of the
United States who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical
left wing Democrat socialist shot and killed John F.

Kennedy, President of
the United States.

In 1975 a left wing
radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the
United States.

In 1983 a registered
Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United
States.

In 1984 James Hubert,
a disgruntled Democrat, shot and

killed 22 people in a
McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick
Sherrill,a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an
Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough,
a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10

people at a GMAC
office.

In 1991 George
Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a
Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX.

In 1995 James Daniel
Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a
Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry
Ashbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a
church service.

In 2001 a left wing
radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed
attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003 Douglas
Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a
Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered
Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people at
Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally
ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered
Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot
and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew
Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in
Minneapolis.

In 2013 a registered
Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school
in Newtown, CT.

As recently as Sept
2013, an angry Democrat named Aaron Alexis shot 12 at the
Washington Navy Shipyard in Washington, D.C.

Not one NRA member,
Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any
of these shootings and murders. (emphasis mine)

Clearly, there is a
problem with Democrats and guns.

I think we have found the enemy: Democrats with guns!

 

[knoxy]

So can some free state person help me understand. In MA I can sell 4 guns per year as personal sales and each transaction must be logged on the MIRCS Gun Transaction Portal. Do free state residents have to file any paperwork on private sales? I know that there are probably 46 answers to this question... let's start with NE Free states.

Thanks in advance.

Not in NH. Pretty sure ME and VT have no such paperwork requirement for FTF sales between residents of the state..

 

[browncoat]

Not in NH. Pretty sure ME and VT have no such paperwork requirement for FTF sales between residents of the state..

If you need to do paperwork on a private sale, browncoat says you don't live in a free state.

- - - Updated - - -

This article makes a decent effort to explain what Obama is expected to try to demand

In other words, he is going to try to reverse what Clinton did trying to reduce the number of FFL. Hilarious.

 

[browncoat]

No, I think its a continuation of the effort to restrict lawful avenues for sale/xfer of firearms.

I dont see how he has legal standing to eliminate private sales according to US code BUT he may be able to attempt to criminalize a number of people who make private sales and run them through the courts, ruin their lives/reputations and empty their savings accounts proving their innocence.

Lets be honest....if he tries to assert that anyone selling more than 1 gun a month is a dealer does anyone expect that anyone applying for an FFL would actually be granted one?

If course not......ATF would reject them and tell them to use an established FFL.....



I

Does the ATF need to enforce executive orders? If so I'm not sure they would have a choice

 

[GaryO]

How come Fox and CNN are calling it an Executive order not an Executive action?

 

[browncoat]

How come Fox and CNN are calling it an Executive order not an Executive action?

The media gets lots of stuff wrong all the time. They aren't paid for being right, they are paid for getting ratings

 

[larueminati]

Here's a random thought I had, sorry if this was already addressed because I didn't read the whole thread... This is only in regards to an executive action that would require a background check on all private sales.

If all private sales needed a background check, how would that work for pistols that are not mass compliant, or have been modified in a way that makes them no-longer mass compliant (lighter trigger)? I have a feeling dealers in Mass would be skeptical to transfer a gun through their business in which they are not legally able to sell. I understand the dealer wouldn't be in possession/ownership, but they'ed still be putting their neck out (in this state) for a relatively small return. If one dealer has a problem and word spreads before you know it no one would want to do transfers.

 

[Varmint]

Here's a random thought I had, sorry if this was already addressed because I didn't read the whole thread... This is only in regards to an executive action that would require a background check on all private sales.

If all private sales needed a background check, how would that work for pistols that are not mass compliant, or have been modified in a way that makes them no-longer mass compliant (lighter trigger)? I have a feeling dealers in Mass would be skeptical to transfer a gun through their business in which they are not legally able to sell. I understand the dealer wouldn't be in possession/ownership, but they'ed still be putting their neck out (in this state) for a relatively small return. If one dealer has a problem and word spreads before you know it no one would want to do transfers.

I asked that question already. Depends on whether the dealer does the transfer, or the dealer just runs a background check and you and the buyer submit an eFA-10. If it's the former, then yeah, off-list items or Glocks would suddenly be very hard to sell.

 

[GaryO]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-guns-despite-hill-backlash.html?intcmp=hpbt1

I was listening to the talking heads, i should know better.

 

[Cheese_Head]

So can some free state person help me understand. In MA I can sell 4 guns per year as personal sales and each transaction must be logged on the MIRCS Gun Transaction Portal. Do free state residents have to file any paperwork on private sales? I know that there are probably 46 answers to this question... let's start with NE Free states.

Thanks in advance.

In Wisconsin NO paperwork is required for private sales of firearms. Cash and carry, literally (OC is legal without a permit for all firearms)

 

[GaryO]

I'll give Anna Kooiman a pass

 

[Minuteman Armament]

Anyone else own Smith and Wesson stock?

 

[MachineHead]

How soon would these EAs be effective?

 

[drgrant]

How soon would these EAs be effective?

Effective?

 

[fencer]

Anyone else own Smith and Wesson stock?

Sure do.

 

[MachineHead]

Effective?

You know what I mean. [lol]. How soon does the ATF have to change some rules after he signs whatever it is he's signing.

 

[drgrant]

You know what I mean. [lol]. How soon does the ATF have to change some rules after he signs whatever it is he's signing.

I don't think there is anything set in stone, there's also the possibility the whole thing could stalemate somewhat and they could do absolutely nothing. BATFE has some adminsitrative rulemaking capability but even they are bound by things defined in US code. if something obama is braying about is in direct conflict with what the law says, there is not a whole hell of a lot they're going to be able to do.

Also remember that some of the shit Obama probably wants costs more money. I brought this up before in a different context, but to put things mildly, "expansive gun control costs more money." Even if its something within the ATFs purview there might not be money available for it.... guess who the ATF has to ask for more money... Congress. Fat chance of that happening. Obama can't just say "oh I've directed BATFE to have this new program, they're just going to wave their hand and make it happen." If BATFE wants to crank up their budget they have to get congress to
approve it. The money can't just appear out of thin air.

-Mike

 

[Dadstoys]

I don't think there is anything set in stone, there's also the possibility the whole thing could stalemate somewhat and they could do absolutely nothing. BATFE has some adminsitrative rulemaking capability but even they are bound by things defined in US code. if something obama is braying about is in direct conflict with what the law says, there is not a whole hell of a lot they're going to be able to do.

Also remember that some of the shit Obama probably wants costs more money. I brought this up before in a different context, but to put things mildly, "expansive gun control costs more money." Even if its something within the ATFs purview there might not be money available for it.... guess who the ATF has to ask for more money... Congress. Fat chance of that happening. Obama can't just say "oh I've directed BATFE to have this new program, they're just going to wave their hand and make it happen." If BATFE wants to crank up their budget they have to get congress to
approve it. The money can't just appear out of thin air.

-Mike

I'll refer back to the green tip fiasco.
That didn't go swimmingly for the ATF.
He may have a phone and a pen , but he doesn't have the key to the purse.
It would tickle me to no end to see their budget hulk smashed.

 

[snowballs]

This fng clown wants background checks...how ironic.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

So can some free state person help me understand. In MA I can sell 4 guns per year as personal sales and each transaction must be logged on the MIRCS Gun Transaction Portal. Do free state residents have to file any paperwork on private sales? I know that there are probably 46 answers to this question... let's start with NE Free states.

Thanks in advance.

As a full time resident of a free state......ABSOLUTELY NO.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

This fng clown wants background checks...how ironic.

Lets start with him

 

[92G]

Perhaps our King could provide us w a few examples of how his little plan could have prevented some previous crimes. Oh wait a King doesnt answer to anyone!

It's no different than requiring 16 airbags in every car, just be because it must be "safer"

which reminds me, >3k people died in auto accidents in california in 2013 alone.....King Obama let's save some of these lives instead....background checks for all drivers, mandatory breathelizer in every ignition....come on lets "save the children"!

 

[HuntMaine]

Didn't hear anything that was of importance lots of positioning promises and general BS. Back to hoarding ammo

 

[SteelShooter]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/04/here-are-the-specific-executive-actions-obama-will-take-to-reduce-gun-violence/

Didn't see this one here yet

 

[Lank]

I'll refer back to the green tip fiasco.
That didn't go swimmingly for the ATF.
He may have a phone and a pen , but he doesn't have the key to the purse.
It would tickle me to no end to see their budget hulk smashed.

I still haven't received my certified mail card from a nasty gram I sent to them. They probably put it in the circular file.

- - - Updated - - -

His wish has been granted, to the fullest, though perhaps not in the shape he had expected:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/4/background-checks-gun-sales-record-high-2015/

Last year, 23,141,970 background checks were conducted, and the way this is going, even more background checks will be completed in 2016!

I am going to do my part with some of the tax return

 

[Coyote33]

... also the possibility the whole thing could stalemate somewhat and they could do absolutely nothing. ...

Also remember that some of the shit Obama probably wants costs more money. I brought this up before in a different context, but to put things mildly, "expansive gun control costs more money." Even if its something within the ATFs purview there might not be money available for it.... guess who the ATF has to ask for more money... Congress. Fat chance of that happening. Obama can't just say "oh I've directed BATFE to have this new program, they're just going to wave their hand and make it happen." If BATFE wants to crank up their budget they have to get congress to
approve it. The money can't just appear out of thin air. ...

I'll refer back to the green tip fiasco.
That didn't go swimmingly for the ATF.
He may have a phone and a pen , but he doesn't have the key to the purse.
It would tickle me to no end to see their budget hulk smashed.

You guys beat me to it, but it still needs repeating. Congress can fund or defund what they want. This is HUGE.

 

[cfbackrow]

I don't think there is anything set in stone, there's also the possibility the whole thing could stalemate somewhat and they could do absolutely nothing. BATFE has some adminsitrative rulemaking capability but even they are bound by things defined in US code. if something obama is braying about is in direct conflict with what the law says, there is not a whole hell of a lot they're going to be able to do.

Also remember that some of the shit Obama probably wants costs more money. I brought this up before in a different context, but to put things mildly, "expansive gun control costs more money." Even if its something within the ATFs purview there might not be money available for it.... guess who the ATF has to ask for more money... Congress. Fat chance of that happening. Obama can't just say "oh I've directed BATFE to have this new program, they're just going to wave their hand and make it happen." If BATFE wants to crank up their budget they have to get congress to
approve it. The money can't just appear out of thin air.

-Mike

would have helped if they just didn't pass the huge budget ....then there would be more room to defund things