lol you're cute

1/5/2016 7:42:50 AM

Quote :

"Seems like the rules are meant to target sales at gun shows that skirt the bg checks, which I recall that the community college shooter for his gun through, and possibly others. We have studies that demonstrate already that a large number of gun sales that end up in gang member hands originate from the private sales loophole."

that's not at all what this is targeting, or if it is they missed the target

1/5/2016 7:51:23 AM

Kant be taken R Gunzzzz derp de derp de derp!

1/5/2016 10:44:50 AM

From https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our:

Quote :

"The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. ... ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation."

The trustees have always been background checked. The White House is straight up lying.

Quote :

"A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. ... Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store. Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present. There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale."

So when am I breaking the law? It's seems like they're purposefully not defining the requirements so they can arrest and charge people under whatever circumstances are convenient.


If they want to go after private-party sales, open up NICS to everyone.

1/5/2016 12:36:43 PM

Oh well, guess I'll have the keep all the guns I have and not sell any

1/5/2016 12:56:42 PM

I love these ideas, as if the people who want to do harm using guns are going to follow them.

Muhammad can't sell his gun to Abdul without having a license. So he just gives it to him.

1/5/2016 12:58:46 PM

^ Any transfer is treated as a sale. Money doesn't have to change hands.

1/5/2016 1:03:10 PM

Quote :

"I love these ideas, as if the people who want to do harm using guns are going to follow them. Muhammad can't sell his gun to Abdul without having a license. So he just gives it to him. "

That's part of the point... if someone chooses to illegally launder guns, this gives law enforcement authority to arrest them and a way to charge them.

1/5/2016 1:48:27 PM

these fucking asshole

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-tweets-image-bullets-pictures-lawmakers-article-1.2484861

1/5/2016 4:15:43 PM

^Dude even taking away that I'm Pro-2A, the fact that people are getting upset at that picture is ridiculous. It'd be the same as putting photos of some anti GMO lawmakers next to some GMO corn.

1/5/2016 4:33:05 PM

Quote :

"I love these ideas, as if the people who want to do harm using guns are going to follow them."

In addition to giving law enforcement a means to better enforce transfer laws, it does help to prevent accidental straw purchasers. And many states, such as NC, still don't require any type of NICS check for private long gun sales. Add in checks for those, and you certainly will have a decrease in sales to those ineligible to own a firearm.

And you state the idea that "people who want to do harm using guns are going to follow them", but year after year, thousands of ineligible persons are denied a firearm due to a NICS check. So yeh, background checks do work. They aren't perfect, but the stats don't say 0 denials have occurred.

It's a reasonable step in the right direction to require background checks on all sales, as long as valid permits remain acceptable as representation of a background check having been performed.

The bigger issue is what will constitute "in the business of selling firearms" and the required FFL. That's a huge grey area that will create felons instead of catching real criminals.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2016 4:49:32 PM

but guiz, these actions don't solve literally every problem so they are pointless!!

1/5/2016 6:19:48 PM

Quote :

"They’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons."

Why are these terror suspects free to buy anything?

Quote :

"We’re going to hire more folks to process applications faster."

Maybe we should hire more folks to round up those terror suspects.

[quote]Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying./quote]

This is an admission that what he is going to "execute" wouldn't have done anything.

1/5/2016 7:39:15 PM

Quote :

"And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day."

This is the same Chicago that has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.

1/5/2016 7:45:08 PM

Quote :

"^Dude even taking away that I'm Pro-2A, the fact that people are getting upset at that picture is ridiculous. It'd be the same as putting photos of some anti GMO lawmakers next to some GMO corn"

Tell me more about people killing politicians with ears of corn.

1/5/2016 7:47:17 PM

^Tell me more about bullets laying on a table killing people in pictures

1/5/2016 8:08:31 PM

why are the photos polaroids taped with masking tape? are you telling me that aesthetic is accidental?

1/5/2016 8:15:20 PM

1/5/2016 8:17:02 PM

definition of dealer and "in business"... they have defined it as doing it or the principal objective of livelihood....

obama is pounding his chest in victory for show!

(11) The term "dealer" means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling
firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing
firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to
firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term "licensed dealer" means
any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

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;


So this really changes..... Nothing.

1/5/2016 8:21:20 PM

Quote :

""Even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is 'engaged in the business,'""

that's actually a pretty big change, and since the code is vague it might stand up to scrutiny. Applying that standard will cover a lot of people who buy and sell online or privately

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is-obamas-executive-action-on-guns-legal-lets-break-it-down/

1/5/2016 8:37:37 PM

Read what I wrote. That is the text of the law.
He can't change the law by EA.

It changes nothing.

1/5/2016 8:43:16 PM

^^no, that is not a change. the very next sentence says:

"For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present."

this has happened before. nothing new. if you didn't legally need an FFL before, you don't need one now.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 8:49 PM. Reason : ads]

1/5/2016 8:45:07 PM

Also, these online sale points need to stop.
A true online sale would be illegal already.
Making the sale online, then sending to a dealer that runs a check already happens.

Or

The item is sold online, then individuals meet up and transfer the item in accordance with the laws of the state they are in.

Anything else is illegal.

1/5/2016 8:51:00 PM

Quote :

"obama is pounding his chest in victory for show!"

and how is he doing that, exactly?

1/5/2016 8:55:21 PM

So what happens when the next mass shooting occurs?

1/5/2016 8:57:13 PM

At least they are doing away with CLEO sign off for NFA items. 41P still is an inconvenience but not the swift kick to the nuts that it appeared to be previously.

1/5/2016 8:58:43 PM

wasn't the primary reason most folks went with a trust was to avoid the CLEO approval? i mean, i understand the other benefits, but i'm thinking a lot less folks would've set up trusts if CLEO approval wasn't required.

1/5/2016 9:04:58 PM

That is certainly true, however, the other benefits make it worthwhile in my opinion. That way, anyone on the trust can be in possession of any NFA item whereas otherwise if I left the house my wife could be charged with a crime. Also, if something were to happen to me they stay in the trust and you don't have to worry about transferring them.

1/5/2016 9:08:08 PM

Quote :

"if I left the house my wife could be charged with a crime"

this is true, but are there any examples of it actually happening?

1/5/2016 9:15:52 PM

Not sure because it would be a pretty random occurrence but if she was in possession of an NFA item then she technically could.

1/5/2016 9:28:13 PM

Quote :

"The item is sold online, then individuals meet up and transfer the item in accordance with the laws of the state they are in. Anything else is illegal."

and now they will crack down if you do it a few times

1/5/2016 9:31:40 PM

^^most of us commit multiple felonies every day. if the fed wants you, they will get you.

^BATFE has made it very clear that simply selling multiple times does not make you "engaged in the business of dealing firearms"

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 9:36 PM. Reason : adsf]

1/5/2016 9:34:46 PM

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

1/5/2016 9:41:59 PM

^^ that's the change

1/5/2016 9:49:50 PM

Quote :

"David enjoys hunting and has a large variety of hunting rifles. He likes to have the newest models with the most current features. To pay for his new rifles, a few times a year David sells his older weapons to fellow hunters for a profit. David does not need to be licensed because he is engaging in occasional sales for enhancement of his personal collection."

from the mouth of BATFE. a few times a year. for profit. still no FFL needed.

an executive action cannot change what is and is not legal.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 10:10 PM. Reason : adsf]

1/5/2016 10:08:03 PM

so basically obama is telling the justice dept to prosecute people even though there is an exemption in the law for what they did. that's pretty sadistic

1/6/2016 7:33:35 AM

Not really. The law itself is vague. We really have to go off BATFE's interpretation and precedence. It seems like he was just running his mouth to scare private sellers, especially those not familiar with the actual law, into going through an FFL and/or make the uninformed public think he has actually changed something. It's just a typical political dog and pony show.

1/6/2016 8:22:28 AM

dude said that before this, Obama just changed it

1/6/2016 8:31:55 AM

The BATFE document I linked to was released yesterday.

1/6/2016 8:34:43 AM

and it includes examples of people casually buying guns at gun shows etc... who now need a license

1/6/2016 9:32:59 AM

So why is it the pro-gun party line/talking point to say that Obama's actions change absolutely nothing? I figured instead they'd be complaining about overreach or unconstitutional...but instead it's "this changes nothing"

1/6/2016 10:10:43 AM

Those same folks in their examples would've needed a license last year. They are clearly "engaged in the business of dealing firearms". Whether or not you are "engaged in the business of dealing firearms" is still what determines whether or not you need an FFL and the litmus test for being engaged is still the same. If you need a license today, you needed one last year. If it was legal last year, it is legal today. I can still go sell a firearm to another individual without an FFL as long as I am not engaged in the business of dealing firearms. I can meet that person at a gun show, find them on Facebook, post it for sale on an online gun forum, etc. The criteria for determining whether or not I am EITBODF has not changed.

I'm not sure whether you don't understand what was and was not illegal last year or if you do not understand what is and is not legal now, but they are the same. The ATF released a document in conjunction with the executive orders to clarify what is and is not legal, but it didn't change the language of the law. "Engaged in the business of dealing firearms" is still the test. They even mention that courts have upheld convictions when just a few sales took place when there are "other factors". They are specifically citing convictions that have already occurred. That means that these things were already illegal. Nothing is new here.

1/6/2016 10:23:33 AM

^^ I thought the same thing. The politicians are definitely going for the overreach angle but seems like most gun owners are saying it's nothing.

NRA, too http://fusion.net/story/251356/nra-obama-executive-action-guns/

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

1/6/2016 11:27:03 AM

Certainly isn't an overreach. There aren't many real actions in the executive actions, but what he did is within the law. A good chunk of it was begging for funding from Congress. Some more was reminding other parts of the executive branch to actually do their job and enforce the law. And the piece everyone is so tore up about pretty much amounted to "hey guys, the majority of the non-gun -owning public thinks this is legal, but it's actually illegal and has been all along, so here's a reminder that it's illegal that the uninformed will interpret as a change in the law".

1/6/2016 11:42:30 AM

From the NY Times:

Quote :

"Instead, Mr. Obama will merely clarify that existing laws require anyone making a living from selling guns to register as a licensed gun dealer and conduct background checks. White House officials said the president would note that criminal penalties already existed for violating those laws."

1/6/2016 11:46:07 AM

I generally don't think anything Obama did will have any preventative effect on mass shootings but FFS I hate people who act like Chicago is some smoking gun about gun regulations.

NYC has restrictive laws too and doesn't see anywhere near the levels of violent gun crime..

1/6/2016 12:24:48 PM

So, a question for the TWW legal scholars and historians. If this were enacted on Obama's first day in office, how many of the mass shootings would have been prevented due to this executive action? I am guessing none, but I am not a TWW legal scholar.

1/6/2016 5:18:58 PM

Considering the large number of mass shootings that have occurred since he was elected, and the fact that these initiatives haven't been implemented, that would be close to impossible to answer.

Also the goal of his actions is to reduce gun violence as a while, not just reduce the number of mass shootings.

1/6/2016 5:34:37 PM

^the ironic part is he may have actually INCREASED gun violence due to the fact the gun sales sky rocket every time he cries about it

S&W stock is up 165% over last 12 months!

1/6/2016 6:09:43 PM

I don't recall the stats exactly, but haven't gun sales been soaring for like 20 years while the various crime rates have almost all generally fallen? I.E. I don't know if ^ would hold.

1/7/2016 8:48:54 AM