Executive Action

[Brandon Pattison]

Obama executive action on guns to require background checks for more sales
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...require-background-checks-for-more-sales.html

 

[go4thegusto]

Seem reasonable to me. I would not sell to a private party these days without meeting at a shop for a background check. Sorta proud that I can pass any check and NFA permit requirement.

 

[BroodBuster]

Good news for Republicans. Hillary must be pissed .

 

[dotman]

Well never knew you could buy a gun online from a dealer without a check, only media hype for the ill informed liberals. Really this does nothing but make him feel good and get media praise for nothing. Didn't see what the definition of a dealer is but if your a law abiding citizen I see no change. Guess maybe a few gun shows will need to have enough phone service for dealers to make the 5 min call?

Really closing the gun show loop hole doesn't bother me, I have yet to buy a firearm without getting a check and really don't see that changing. With today's environment it is probably smart to do either way if your selling or buying.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Seem reasonable to me. I would not sell to a private party these days without meeting at a shop for a background check. Sorta proud that I can pass any check and NFA permit requirement.

So you sell a gun to your buddy or give one to a relative and you have to go to a shop for a background check? BS. Sorry, but this crap just pisses me off. Once again, the only people that this will affect will be the responsible person who is willing to bend over. It WILL NOT stop one mass shooting. They, you, them or whoever can pass all the background checks in the world and it is NOT going to be able to tell anyone if you are nuts or not.

Randy

 

[Matt W.]

So you sell a gun to your buddy or give one to a relative and you have to go to a shop for a background check? BS. Sorry, but this crap just pisses me off. Once again, the only people that this will affect will be the responsible person who is willing to bend over. It WILL NOT stop one mass shooting. They, you, them or whoever can pass all the background checks in the world and it is NOT going to be able to tell anyone if you are nuts or not.

Randy

I'm with you Randy.. Confusing part will be when borrowing weapons. My buddies and I, and my brothers are always borrowing rifles and experimenting with different optics and loads. Sort of a group collobaration. If one guy is headed to the range he might take several weapons and let us know how our loads worked out. Would the guy taking another guy's rifle on such a trip now be subject to some sort of penalty, or worse be committing a crime? How could you argue you were borrowing a friend's/relative's rifle if an overzealous prosecute decided he wanted to go after the two of you for an illegal sale??? On more than one occasion I have installed a scope and sighted in a friend's rifle. If that rifle is my position, what will the law think of it? Weird one...

I also see this a step toward registration. How can you enforce this between two close friends and family members without either a registration or more formalized federally regulated paper trail? Aren't FFLs supposed to destroy their paperwork after 20 years?

IMO, this is a bigger deal than first glance make might make one think....

With that said, the Fox News Article on mentions sales performed at a dealer, and those already always require an FFL form. ??? No dealer in their right mind (who wants to stay in compliance) will do a sale without a form. Right? My worry is that there is more to this than the article states and that this pertains to in-person sales between in state parties. All out out state sales (and mail sales) already require an FFL form on the receiving end. Either this is nothing but political grandstanding, or a deeper stab we have not yet figured out. ???? I guess if two in state parties shipped to an in state FFL they might not have to do the form, but all of the shops I have been to would.

 

[MuleyFever]

Seems reasonable to me too. I am sure a lot of people wont like it. I am pretty sure this will keep some guns from some people that shouldn't have them and it will do it without keeping any guns from those that can have them. Sounds good to me. The majority of gun deaths are not from mass shootings they are done mostly one at a time I imagine, no source on that though.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I'm okay with this. I also think people who own or use firearms should be licensed. We don't allow people to drive w/o a license, why should guns be any different?

/puts on flame suit

 

[mtnwrunner]

I'm with you Randy.. Confusing part will be when borrowing weapons. My buddies and I, and my brothers are always borrowing rifles and experimenting with different optics and loads. Sort of a group collobaration. If one guy is headed to the range he might take several weapons and let us know how our loads worked out. Would the guy taking another guy's rifle on such a trip now be subject to some sort of penalty, or worse be committing a crime? How could you argue you were borrowing a friend's/relative's rifle if an overzealous prosecute decided he wanted to go after the two of you for an illegal sale??? Weird one...

I also see this a step toward registration. How can you enforce this between two close friends and family members without either a registration or more formalized federally regulated paper trail? Aren't FFLs supposed to destroy their paperwork after 20 years?

This is bigger deal than I think some folks think..

Then again I'm just a crazy Alaskan wearing my tinfoil hat, and hiding from black helicopters while sit on my front porch nervously watching Russia...

Must be the same helo's flying over my place.......... How's the tinfoil working out for ya???

All of these "extra measures" mean gun registration which ultimately means gun confiscation.
"Oh that will never happen" say some folks. Really? Start looking at all the "extra measures" "they" want to do. It is flat scary.

Randy

 

[Matt W.]

As I re-read this I keep editing my post.. Probably edited it 10+ times... Not good for the old blood pressure!!

 

[adventure907]

I'm okay with this. I also think people who own or use firearms should be licensed. We don't allow people to drive w/o a license, why should guns be any different?

/puts on flame suit

Driving a vehicle is a privilege. Owning a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. BIG difference.

Should we also be licensed to exercise "free speech?"

 

[MuleyFever]

Driving a vehicle is a privilege. Owning a firearm is constitutionally protected right. BIG difference.

Should we also be licensed to exercise "free speech?"

Well we do have to register to vote.

 

[jmden]

This does nothing to solve the problem.

Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. So, who then, does this affect?

Do you folks that are so glibly OK with this realize that you are like the frog in the slowly heating pot of water. Oh...a little bit more heat...that's OK, I guess...OK with that...a bit more heat...ouch...OK...now I'm used to that...until the frog is boiled. One degree at at time...and pretty soon we are on to registration, which is historically, right before confiscation.

Ever heard of the concept of mission creep? Same idea. A little at a time...until you've lost your rights because you weren't aware, informed and fighting for your freedoms! And don't sit there thinking oh the 2nd will protect us. Baloney. Wake up before you give up your freedoms. Folks on this site should be some of the most informed and freedom loving and fighting this.

Much blood has been spilt to give us these freedoms that we then give away again. The cycle continues...

The problem is the condition of the human heart. And this culture is doing everything it can, it seems, to steadily degrade any kind of moral compass it once had.

 

[Craig Van Arsdale]

One inch at a time adds up to a mile sooner than you think! Living in CA is an absolute joke for gun laws!

Everyone keeps on allowing them to take from us and we never gain an inch back. Not going to solve anything just another political move.

 

[adventure907]

Excellent post jmden!!!!

 

[MuleyFever]

Yes, very good use of the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[COlineman78]

Some of these have been implemented by states anyways, such as the gun show loophole. The private sales is annoying, however while an FFL can't be held liable for sale of a weapon used in a crime, you can. So when selling to someone I don't know it certainly is well worth the $25 (going rate here in CO) to remove the liability. Hell, even people you do know, like this neighbor who loaned his ARs to the terrorists; granted it sounds like there is evidence that he knew they were terrorists, but even if he didn't he could've been held liable. The important step here I think is the mental health funding. The real problem is a social one in that we don't properly diagnose, treat and restrict the mentally ill. Also, the fact that our society is one in which no one is held accountable anymore. Somehow it's the cops fault that some parents bought their kid an airsoft gun that looked like a real gun and let him go out and point it at people in the park? No! Hold the parents accountable; throw them in jail.

Having said all that, I don't think that any of this is within his executive power. While I agree that it is a slippery slope and the give and inch take a mile mentality is a dangerous one. As many of the sheriffs here in CO have pointed out, some of these laws are unenforceable anyways.

A buddy of mine came up with a ridiculous idea today, but it shows the absurdity of the laws. He suggested starting a booth at gun shows where you could marry the gun seller (gay marriage is legal now), complete the transaction and then get a divorce. To which I pointed out that you must obtain a marriage license in person at the county clerk's office, so that wouldn't be feasible.

 

[dotman]

So you sell a gun to your buddy or give one to a relative and you have to go to a shop for a background check? BS. Sorry, but this crap just pisses me off. Once again, the only people that this will affect will be the responsible person who is willing to bend over. It WILL NOT stop one mass shooting. They, you, them or whoever can pass all the background checks in the world and it is NOT going to be able to tell anyone if you are nuts or not.

Randy

I don't believe you have to, from what I saw in the news, could be wrong. If you buy and sell a certain number and don't own them for more then a year then you would be a dealer and either need to be an FFL or get a check.

Ok flame away but if you make a living selling guns at gun shows you should have to be an FFL and do background checks, all the brick and mortar vendors are required to and they do the same thing, sell guns. Now if you want to sell a handful of guns at a few shows to reduce your personal supply then I don't think this will be a requirement.

 

[Rizzy]

I don't think he is done with executive orders...this is bad news

 

[dotman]

I don't think he is done with executive orders...this is bad news

Yeah I think he is just starting and really going to get bad. I see him trying to make due on every promise he made to the far left. The only good that will come out of it is that it may really backfire with next years election and keep another far left president out.

Similar to the CO officials getting the boot after having stupid gun laws shoved down their citizens throats.