BREAKING: Obama To Mandate Universal Background Checks?

102631359-145124491.530x298

What’s long been predicted seems to be about to happen. If reports are accurate, the White House is about to take the nuclear option, mandating universal background checks by executive order. From the Associated Press: “President Barack Obama’s advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review “in short order.” She says the recommendations will include measures to expand background checks.” . . .

White House officials have said they’re exploring closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.

Not that the “gun show loophole” had anything whatsoever to do with any mass shooting in living memory. But never let a crisis…well…you know the rest.

How they propose to enforce a law mandating NICS checks between private parties is anyone’s guess. But details and practicalities – let alone actually saving lives – never seems to be the top priority where gun control laws are concerned.

comments

  1. avatar NineShooter says:

    That would be the same useless background check that didn’t stop any of the shooters in the last year or so, right?

    Just checking.

    Good job, O! Time for a victory lap!

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      And just like the one voters here in Washington (the good one) approved more than a year ago, which all law enforcement agencies in the state consider unenforceable.

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        Same for the SAFE Act here in NY

    2. These EOs usually happen on Fridays.

  2. avatar Robert W. says:

    So, what is the procedure for starting impeachment again?

    1. avatar Publius says:

      After Bill Clinton was allowed to commit perjury without consequence, the ability to impeachment a politician was removed from the Constitution.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Not literally — just in practical terms.

        At this point, impeachment probably wouldn’t work even if the president walked in and started shooting members of Congress in their seats. The Democrats would just give their dear leader a hug and tell the remaining members of Congress to outlaw the NRA.

        1. avatar california richard says:

          +1

          Although he may have to get that rifle at a gun show through a straw purchaser. Due to his name (which is going to land him on the no fly list), listed residence (hawaii, chicago, D.C….. doesn’t really matter), and his association with terrorists (dohrn, ayres, ahmed mohaned, Malaysian Madrassas, etc) it will be impossible for him to pass an executive mandated Universal Background Check.

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          ‘Not literally — just in practical terms.’

          Not practical, but political terms. If you want to impeach a president you need a 2/3 majority to convict and in the case of Clinton, every single Democratic senator voted not guilty on both charges. To be a Democrat requires that you’re already drinking the Cool-aid, so I don’t see the party turning on their own president no matter what he does. He could nuke Israel and they’d still acquit him.

  3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Wonder how they think they’ll enforce that on private sales…

    People in hell want ice water too.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      True, without universal gun registration, it is impossible to enforce this. Of course the Statists want universal gun registration as well.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        That’s the bassackwards way they do stuff now , fill the pot before they pull down their britches and then bitch and complain about the stink while convincing everyone that the stink needs addressed until one day we all wake up without our pants .
        In my neck of the woods we call this kind of stuff , ‘ CRUSING FOR A BRUISING ‘.

    2. avatar Theo Braunohler says:

      4473 records are archived by FFL’s, so the basic mechanism is already there. Part of the executive order will probably require that you provide a copy of the disposal record from the FFL or something of that nature.

      So, it wouldn’t really be that hard to enforce for new guns. Older guns would be much more difficult, as you could just claim you bought it before the law went into effect.

      1. avatar Miles says:

        EO’s only affect executive department operations. They’re like internal company directives from the ‘front office’. Outside of that company, no one cares.

        Since I’m not a part of the executive branch, Obama’s EO’s only affect me in so far as how much I interact with one of the branch’s subdivisions.

        Since private gun sales (except for firearms defined by Title II of the gun control act ‘NFA firearms’) are not restricted by federal law, no EO can control them.

        Mr. Obama can osculate my gluteus maximus if he thinks I’ll give a good GD about one of his EOs.

        1. avatar Theo Braunohler says:

          You are delusional if you really believe any of that.

          Ask the American citizens who were detained in internment camps during WWII about how EO’s don’t affect people. Ask the people who have been arrested by the Department of Homeland Security how much EO’s don’t affect people. The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order, for crying out loud.

        2. avatar Joel says:

          The emancipation proclamation would not have been worth much without congress backing it with the 13th amendment.

          Just sayin.

          Edit

          I want to go on record as stating I believe the emancipation proclamation was a bold move by possibly the greatest president in the history of the United States of America. And it was morally the right thing to do. But without the 13th…..

        3. avatar Tom says:

          The one case I could find upholding criminal penalties for disobeying a presidential executive order was Korematsu v United States 1944 where his conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was voided however by a writ of coram nobis in 1983 only because the government knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court. I`m citing this because based on case law, the government can criminally prosecute violations of executive orders. It doesnt seem to matter that the separation of power clause nullifies executive orders that is legislative in nature or that it was enacted without the consent of Congress. Franklin Roosevelt paved the way for legislating by executive order.

    3. avatar Jeff says:

      Because people are permission seekers. Look how many people asked if they can use a Sig brace as a shoulder stock. Look at any state that has any kind of malum prohibitum regulatory hoops to jump through by browsing Armslist. Private party transactors say you must show this, or you must have that, you must sign a bill of sale, etc etc etc…even asking for the above and other requirements if they’re not required by local or state law. Most people will abide by Dear Leader’s dictates. It’s what “good” and “law abiding” people do. The criminals? They won’t bother. Nothing will change except the federal government will encroach further in to territory it has no business being in–managing intrastate private party transactions.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1000.

        I’ve never asked for identification and never will.

        1. avatar Timmy! says:

          I usually ask, “You’re a Texas resident, right?” then offer to show my ID to the buyer if they want to confirm my residence. As of yet, no one has taken me up on it when doing a private sale.

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I suspect, through gun owners, terrified of real liberty, ratting out other gun owners who understand true liberty. That’s the way it’s been for the other infringments already on the books.

      Don’t worry, universal background checks will become the new norm and tyranny will seek even more from the free individual. The only way any people can remain free is be willing to fight for it. We will never vote our way to freedom.

      I have never asked to even see identification when selling a gun and I don’t plan on ever starting.

      1. avatar William says:

        I ask to see a drivers licence if they look really young, (like under 16), but only if I don’t know them.

    5. avatar n64456 says:

      It’s easy; they will flood the Armslist sites, FB gun trader groups, and gun shows with ATF and LEOs trolling for someone willing to sell to an individual w/o an NICS background check. Bam!! they’ll make a huge public example of him with 10yrs in Club Fed. That will scare the rest into compliance. If anyone wants to buy a gun outside of an FFL; then get all the guy’s info before hand; google-stalk the guy; find out all you can about him, esp.if he’s a Fed or Po-PO….. If nothing shows up on the guy, then proceed with caution. Otherwise, f’em……..

      1. avatar MIkeP says:

        Maybe … here’s the catch. FDR issued an EO for everyone to turn in their gold to the local branch of the federal reserve, and in fact created a crime for not doing so. But they *never* prosecuted anyone who didn’t – because they didn’t want to argue in court that they thought they could create a crime by the stroke of a pen that in fact was counter to the plain language in the Constitution (i.e. “gold and silver shall be the coin of the realm”). FDR just sat back and watched the sheep line up to do what he said – not really caring about those who didn’t if enough did. This would be interesting to see them charge someone with a non-crime (because it’s a non-law). Although nobody wants to be that Guinna pig. Ask Korematsu.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          Its because FDR wrote into that executive order for that time very brutal penalties; $10,000 fines and up to ten years in prison. A president can pretty much write into a executive order any criminal penalty he or she wishes including the death penalty. There were numerous prosecutions for not turning in gold.

      2. avatar Tom says:

        My solution if there was such operations like this. Post the arresting officers pictures and names all over social media, demonize them, hold peaceful silent protests in front of their homes. They will never be able to function again as undercover officers and we would find out if we still have a First Amendment.

  4. avatar Marco says:

    This will be fascinating. How will they create compliance? What if states actually rebel? Curiouser and curiouser these days.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Does anybody who doesn’t work for the Federal Government or is not in the Armed Forces have to follow an Executive Order?

      Most of us are not in his chain of command.

  5. avatar Art out West says:

    Not even Congress has the authority to mandate background checks on intrastate transfers. The Constitution only permits the Federal government to involve itself in international and interstate commerce. The President has absolutely no authority to take such action. He might as well order the sun not to rise tomorrow. It is beyond the scope of his office.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Since when has that stopped him? He has no authority to modify immigration law or to repeatedly amend a law (Obamacare) unilaterally when it’s discovered how poorly written it is, and yet he does it with impunity.

      1. avatar Myra says:

        Obamacare is illegal. Congress voted it down. He used his magic pen to make it so called “law”. This tyrant recognizes no law. He is like a Chilton County, AL judge who once told a defendant, “This is my court, therefore the law is what I say it is. Federal and state law don’t matter. Only my law matters.” That’s Obama through and through.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Not even Congress has the authority to mandate background checks on intrastate transfers.

      While that is true, that is not how Congress nor anyone actually operates.

      First of all, if I live in Florida and want to purchase a handgun manufactured in Florida, I will have to pass a federal background check before I can purchase that handgun from a federal firearms licensee in Florida … if I want to avoid unconstitutional sanction from the feds.

      Second of all, fedzilla will simply play the trump card of all trump cards, “Commercial firearm manufacturing involves materials and tools that cross state lines and firearm crimes affect business across state lines, therefore commercial firearms manufacturing and sales falls under the purview of the United States Constituition’s interstate commerce clause … which means the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate commercial firearms manufacturing and sales.”

      In reality the United States Constitution grants no such power to the federal government. Rather, fedzilla usurped this power and the U.S. Supreme Court corruptly upheld that type of reasoning. (See Wickard v. Fillburn and the Gun-Free School Zones Act for examples.) Furthermore, even if commercial firearms manufacturing and sales fell within the purview of the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, fedzilla’s power would be restricted to regulating that activity … and the word regulate would have its classical meaning: to make it work well. In other words fedzilla’s power would be to remove impediments, not create them, to commercial firearms manufacturing and sales.

      1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

        The story of the Gun Free School Zones Act and what happened when it was challenged. is interesting reading for those who haven’t heard it before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990#Challenges

        Certainly depressing for those of us who don’t think that the Commerce Clause gives the government unlimited power to regulate….

      2. avatar mark s. says:

        I can’t say how many times I’ve been on here reading stories and comments and run across old
        uncommon_sense and after reading through I say something like , damn straight , wish I’d said that .
        You are dead on .
        Commerce clause all the way

    3. avatar B says:

      The law was twisted back during the great depression. The supreme court ruled a farmer couldn’t grow grain to feed his cows due to it affecting interstate commerce due to him *NOT* having to buy grain from another state. Same with Obamacare’s insurance mandate. You can’t buy health insurance across state lines, yet the Feds have some authority over it? And for the final straw on pot, the supreme’s also ruled that the Fed did have jurisdiction over pot grown in state for local consumption, due to it affecting *THE BLACK MARKET* prices in other states due to them not buying it.

      Not only is the horse out of the barn, the barn burnt down and was turned into a brothel. For horses. A horse brothel if you will.

    4. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Right, which is why the DEA won’t bust you for selling drugs intrastate. Oh, wait, they will send you up the river so fast your head will spin.

    5. avatar MIkeP says:

      You would have to have a SCOTUS decision overturn Wickard v Filburn for what you said to be true. Oh, what you said is true by the plain language of the Constitution, but that’s not how they operate post-Wickard. WvF is the case they use so that it is a *federal* crime to grow your own pot and smoke it yourself, much less engage in any commerce with it, interstate or not.

    6. avatar Matt says:

      I can dream up a way of using the commerce clause, similar to the growing too much wheat one.

  6. avatar Art out West says:

    Bet it won’t happen until after Congress passes a continuing resolution to fund the gov. past the 11th.

  7. avatar William says:

    People will not comply with this.

  8. avatar GuyFromV says:

    Someone needs to audit the man’s personal stock profile for any recent SWHC and RGR acquisitions.

  9. avatar Doktor Jeep says:

    The Bendovercan party will do something about this.
    ha ha ha

  10. avatar GRUMPY says:

    I have to wonder if this is Obama’s Way of simply testing the waters. Gauging the reaction to gun control by executive order

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      This bunch don’t test water , they murk it up so bad with bottom slim you can’t see yourself sinking .
      I don’t think so , this is the sliver , sliver , sliver , slice , sliver , sliver , chunk , sliver , slice , slice , chunk , chunk approach .
      Work a little bit at a time and throw a new cell phone app in between to keep ya busy .

  11. avatar Clive says:

    This type of criminal executive order (if actually made should be met with impeachment and arrest. Sadly, most progressive are similarly evil, and conservatives weak and cowardly.

  12. avatar Clive says:

    If President Obama can make an order like this, there would be nothing to stop a President Trump from making a similar executive order to arrest and deport anyone practicing the Islamic faith.

    We need a President who will actually uphold and defend the US Constitution (and Trump, Hilary, Bush, Christie, Bernie, aren’t that type of people)

    1. avatar Salvatore says:

      Oh yes, Trump is all for banning people on the No-Fly list from their 2A rights as well. So he wants to trample 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Hillary will focus primarily on the 2nd and 5th. What a swell bunch we have running this year.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        No, that is not what he said. Asked cold what he would do, he spoke off the cuff and said he would look into it.

  13. avatar Montana Dan says:

    I will not comply

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Beat me to it Sir.

  14. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

    Go ahead & do it. it will GUARANTEE a Trump victory in 2016.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      who has no more respect for constitutional authority than Obama.

      1. avatar NFAMark says:

        This is why the right will never see the inside of the White house again.

        We don’t want an illegal lover like Cruz, or Rubio, and we don’t want a member of the Bush Dynasty.

        Trump, or we stay home and you suckers get Bernie Sanders.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          I thought Rubio and Bush were the lovers of illegal aliens?
          Actually, I know Bush is, his wife is an immigrant and he just can’t discern the difference between an immigrant and a criminal.

          But, tell me more about Cruz and illegal aliens.

        2. avatar mark s. says:

          I really know you won’t believe this NFAMark so the comment isn’t for you , but if you pull the lever or punch the tab or touch the screen for Trump , you WILL elect another Clinton and this one is for real , she will rock our world . After Cruz takes Iowa and then wins over the moderate NH , Trump will go independent and we’ll end up with the SHTF .
          Cruz is our only hope and only if we can get the Don to go away .
          Up hill all the way ,
          from here to judgement day .
          DLROW NWOD EDISPU

        3. avatar Chrispy says:

          Letting perfect be the enemy of excellent.

          I predict Cruz will get the nomination before Trump.

          I find it interesting though that Carson has disappeared from the radar. Maybe he isn’t extreme enough to win in this political climate.

    2. avatar Steven R. says:

      That is the problem. Trump is the equal and opposite evil. He has no more respect for the rule of law. They are both Lawless men.

      1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        Complete and total horse crap. Trump’s actually been more on point regarding Constitutional law than even Cruz.

        Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code provides in relevant part:

        Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

        The Constitution gives Congress unilateral authority over the issue of immigration and citizenship in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” In Article I, Section 9 we find that until 1808 the individual States had authority to decide which persons were “proper to admit.” After 1808, deciding who was eligible for immigration into the United States was the exclusive province of the central government. Congress has unilateral authority to decide who it is “proper to admit” to the United States, and there are no limitations on that authority.

        There is no constitutional right, of course, to immigrate to the United States. It is a privilege, not a right. And we the people have given to Congress authority to set parameters for immigration for our protection, our cultural unity, and our national security.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          I have $1,000.00 in my pocket that I would put up right now that says I know more about the US constitution , the founding of this country , the writings of the founders , the religious affiliations of the founders , the declaration of our independence , the bill of our rights , scriptural quotes and antidotal quotes and probably even business law , than Donnie Trump .
          I would not place that wager against Cruz . I know I would lose .
          Trump knows the art of the deal , how to put his finger in the air and sense what you want to hear and the give a ‘F ‘ attitude to say it .

        2. avatar Joel says:

          Cruz will be my vote. But I’m thankful for Trump.

          The bodies were still warm in San Bernadeno when our current leader started his ‘ban assault weapons’ diatribe. Then the Trump card was played. Most of the media and all of the presidential candidates are now talking about an issue that actually needed to be discussed.

      2. avatar Silver says:

        Hate to say it, but I support Trump because he’s a lawless man in my favor. Freedom is gone and it’s never coming back. We can never again attain the days when the majority of Americans believed in true equality and Constitutional rights. The best we can hope for now is a tyrant who’s opinions align with ours.

        And frankly, I’m fine with that. The left deserves it.

        1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin) says:

          You assume in your favor because he tells you what you want to hear. I suggest you go over to Hotair and read up on what Wendy Davis said the other day. She lied about guns. Trump is HRC with Penis and he is lying to you about guns and immigration. When you guys put Hillary in the Oval Office you are going to see some favors being granted to your hero.

        2. avatar Silver says:

          I’m not an absolutist, I’ll vote for whoever the R’s put up. I’m not a “Trump or no one” type. I’d actually prefer Rubio.

          That said, I still consider Trump the lesser of two evils. Hillary has absolutely nothing but evil in her soulless husk.

        3. avatar PW in KY says:

          I won’t vote for Trump. Not if he’s the R nominee. Not if he runs independently. Not if a gun were to my head. He is not the answer.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Neither are you. Get over yourself, you are one vote in tens of millions, your tantrum does not cause any crisis here.

    3. avatar br says:

      hell yes i can only hope so!

  15. avatar Shire-man says:

    Wholly unenforceable and according to the FBI and ATF totally inapplicable to any recent noteworthy events.
    Sounds about right for this government.

  16. avatar RDK says:

    Are we sure this isn’t the extension of defining people who sell X or more guns a year as “gun dealers” that was talked about earlier by them? Someone I don’t think he’s gonna try to say everyone has to do this…there is absolutely NO basis in law or any power given him to do this…period.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      This past weekend in my town, a non-FFL gun seller was told by the ATF that if he set-up his tables at the local gun show, he would be arrested if he made a sale, as he was “dealing without a license” (later explained by the ATF, under questioning, as selling more than 50 guns in a year without a license).

      He packed-up and left before the show started.

      Perhaps our local ATF folks just “jumped the gun” (heh) on enforcement a bit (or Obama’s announcement was late again, as usual).

      Selling >50 guns a year = dealing without a FFL — you heard it here, first.

      1. avatar Albert says:

        Perhaps your county sheriff should have informed the ATF agent that he would be arrested if he tried to make good on such an illegal threat. Fedzilla gets away with things because the States let it.

      2. avatar Anon in CT says:

        I have to admit, I would have assumed that at 50 guns / annum you’re at least in a dangerous grey zone.

        I think that’s what this EO will be – providing “guidance” to the ATF on how to determine who is a dealer.

        1. avatar pod says:

          There’s usually inklings of what an EO will entail, in this case, the inklings point to establishing a firm, and very low number of gun sales in a given year by a person in order to consider him or her a dealer. Your Uncle Bob who moves ten guns or so a year around on Armslist might just be busted for dealing without an FFL.

          It could be enforcing UBC by a different method if you think about it.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I can agree, to a point. That point would be “shall not be infringed”. Where does the authority come from to make fine tuned decisions which ALL “infringe”? 50 guns? 5 guns? 5 freaking MILLION guns? Where is the government’s authority to play anywhere here?

    2. avatar JT says:

      That is the only thing to me that seems even close to legal. US Code says “any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail” so theoretically he could give an executive order stating that selling a certain number of guns per year would be considered engaged in the business of selling firearms. There is really no way to enforce it though.

    3. avatar AnOregonian says:

      I think you’re right, and I’m sure that they will try to portrait this ‘universal’ background checks.

      I think the fun part will be the contradictory cheering for having implemented background checks while simultaneously demanding background checks be implemented.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        I just hope some well-heeled and articulate (NRA/GOA – hint, hint) news outlets point out in very public and painful ways that it was the Dems who created this “problem” back in the 90s by raising the FFL license fee to astronomical heights and making various other “improvements” that drove many small kitchen-table FFL dealers (who would otherwise be subject to all the Federal provisions, such as doing background checks) to give up their Federal Firearms Licenses (which was the point of the new regs, as was said publicly at the time).

  17. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    If he attempts this it will result in multiple lawsuits from the states and perhaps from Congress, though if Congress was worth a damn they would shut off funding.

    1. avatar Bob209 says:

      Unfortunately, it will probably wind its way through the courts for a few years before it is reversed. I think the red states need to make laws making it a crime to enforce laws, orders, regulations, and whatnot that conflict with the original meaning of the 2nd amendment. I think it ought to have a minimum sentence of 10 years with an explicit clause to forbid federal courts from overturning a conviction.

      1. avatar B says:

        We need Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution punishing UnConstitutional actions by those in power. We could make a word up for it. Something like treaty, but because they did it for political reasons. Treatyreasons? Treasons? Meh, I’m sure someone could come up with a word for someone who purposely uses their political power to usurp the Constitution, and the appropriate instant punishment. Maybe a short walk off a stool.

      2. avatar Mike says:

        Exactly! Of course the States should and must sue the Feds over something like this. But they must also criminalize it under state law, and refuse to participate with any Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. They must also arrest, take to trial, and incarcerate any agent of the Federal government engaging in such lawless activity. If a dozen or so states flip the bird to the Feds. (like many states are doing now with pot) then the action of the Fed is nullified.

  18. avatar AnOregonian says:

    I’m intrigued at how do they propose doing that?

    Without an accompanying law it seems they’d have a writ of habeas corpus problem where the courts would be required to release anyone arrested.

  19. avatar AaronW says:

    They don’t care about compliance, efficacy or anything else other than the appearance of “doing something.”

  20. avatar ADM says:

    How are private sellers expected to perform these background checks, even? This will be a huge expense.

    1. avatar Ladd Boid says:

      That’s likely in the EO mandating the use of an FFL for any transfer.

      1. avatar ADM says:

        I’m sure it will take no time at all for the list of people that need to be involved for what was previously a two-party transaction to reach Kafkaesque levels.

  21. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “This will be a huge expense.”

    I’m sure they share your concerns…

    (That’s dripping with sarcasm, BTW…)

  22. avatar Fuque says:

    An EO cancelling an EO sounds in order..

    1. avatar B says:

      EO’s should expire at the end of every white house residency, and the new guy must go through and add his name to every single one, publicly with a statement why, for it to continue.

  23. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    WE pretty much have this BS in Illinois NOW…and…nothing much different. Just a pain in the azz. No change for Chiraq carnage either. The repubs are too p###y whipped to try for impeachment-or much of anything.

  24. avatar BigBoy says:

    There is no “law” to enforce. The Congress deliberately choose NOT to require the anyone who is not an FFL conduct background checks. And they recently reaffirmed that position by refusing to change the law.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      At the time that Brady/background checks were being debated by Congress, the FBI said that allowing private sellers (read: anyone) to use the background check system would rapidly overwhelm is with non-critical queries as people would run checks on new babysitters, employees, their daughter’s newest boyfriend, etc. It was limited to FFLs only by design, and at the government’s request.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        Sliver , slice , chunk , chunk .

  25. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Can’t wait to see the full details of this when it’s released at 11:59 on Christmas Eve.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Based on that statement, your name is highly appropriate.

  26. avatar Mark N. says:

    An EO cannot create a new crime; only Congress may do so. Consequently, this rumored EO would have to fall within the scope of an existing statute (and within the authority of the Executive Branch to enact regulations effectuating the law). Current federal law requires that back ground checks are required to be performed only by persons “in the business” of selling firearms. The only thing the Fed may do is redefining “in the business of”, perhaps redefining it (contrary to the clear intent of the statute) as including all sales.

    Obviously private sellers have no access to NICS, so the net effect would be to require all sales (other than those currently exempted under federal law) to be conducted through an FFL, as is done in California, Oregon and Washington. If a firearm is not registered under state law, there is no way to know that a transaction occurred, or to enforce the law, except on the later discovery that a sale was made, in which case the seller (but probably not the buyer) could face a federal firearms charge. (For example, if the buyer were to be arrested with the gun, and the feds do a trace, or the buyer admits where he purchased it.)

    1. avatar foo dog says:

      +1. Many people are going to ignore this for private sales, in those states where it isnt already required by state law.

      In the meantime, this gives the LeftWingMedia plenty to obsess about, conveniently obscuring Obama’s complete failures in Obamacare (hmmm…wasnt that just repealed?), the economy (30% out of the workforce?), foreign policy (Putin’s Bit$h), and take the heat of HRCs felony national security lapses and perjury.

  27. avatar Greg smith says:

    It’s a step towards gun confiscation,that’s what he really wants..

    1. avatar Roger Cain says:

      There will be no such thing as gun confiscation. Attempts to do so would be suicide.

  28. avatar Tim says:

    I’m a little confused here… An executive order is not a law, so what law will I have violated if I ignore the President’s order to perform a background check on any private intrastate transfers?

  29. avatar samuraichatter says:

    As the bumper sticker says, “ain’t skeert”. Remember the red line on Syria?

  30. avatar RatInDaHat says:

    Is anyone else confused by the “online” gun sales loophole? Last time i purchased a firearm online i still had to ship it to an FFL. Maybe they are talking about the CMP, but then it would be a USPS loophole as all order must be mailed in.

    1. avatar DrewR55 says:

      You’re letting reality get in the way of their delusions.

      That said, the ‘loop hole’ they are referring to involves private in-state transactions initiated by an ad on a trading forum such as ArmsList.com or a Facebook trading group. Either way, it is still a load of something foul smelling.

    2. avatar NineShooter says:

      No they are (as near as I can tell) talking about online classified ads, where folks can sell guns to other local/in-state people (like folks have been doing in classified newspaper ads for decades). However, I’m sure they encourage the confusion with interstate sales, to make the “problem” seem far worse and more dangerous than it actually is (and the deliberate shorthand naming/reference to the “problem” helps boost confusion among the low-info voters and other sheep).

      I don’t consider you as part of those last groups, by the way; it’s just the people that the talking points are aimed at (pardon the pun).

      DrewR55 beat me to the draw by being a faster keyboardist. Kudos!

      1. avatar RatInDaHat says:

        I didn’t think you were throwing me in with that group at all. My question was mostly tongue in cheek.

        I actually had a conversation with my firearm averse sister about the “loopholes.” She didn’t know anything more than what the pres and media have spewed. At the end of the conversation it was the same old “we have to do something” line. Hopefully she can actually think for herself and realize that the “something” won’t end any of the recent or future events. She also supports Bernie, so that says a lot.

  31. avatar James in Florida says:

    ASSAULT EXECUTIVE.

  32. avatar DerryM says:

    No matter how you cut this “Executive Order” it will not work to prevent gun-involved violence as done in San Bernardino. Obama knows this full well. He’s only doing this to prove it is ineffective so the anti-gun tyrannists can claim that more drastic measures are justified. It will come down to successively banning certain types and calibers of firearms to civilian ownership and mandatory surrender, which will be massively ignored. The Government won’t come after them because once they are outlawed we will not be able to use them for any lawful purpose anywhere, so they will remain locked up in our homes for the rest of our lives, or flow gradually into a gigantic and uncontrollable Black Market.

    I would bet it would cost more to deal with outlawed firearms, even without forcible seizure involved, than it would cost to repeal all gun ownership infringements and enact National Carry (your choice open or concealed at your discretion). In fact, I would bet the latter would spawn thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in new businesses related to firearms, while the violent crime rate would plunge to unprecedented lows.

    My bottom line is that whatever Obama does by Executive Order is just a straw man to set-up the argument for more stringent infringements on our Second Amendment Rights because nothing he, or Congress for that matter, can do will stop gun-involved violence except an open and freely Armed Citizenry who isn’t going to put-up with this criminal, crazies with guns, and most certainly, god****ed Islamic Terrorist sh*t any longer.

  33. avatar BDub says:

    What? The Executive is poised to hi-jack powers of the Legislative Branch to satisfy a personal political agenda?

    SHOCKED FACE!..this is my.

    The POTUS has lost his shit – Congress should begin warming up their Impeachment pens now, if they haven’t already.

  34. avatar ButtMunch says:

    IMO, if the President does this, I consider it an open declaration of war on the US citizens. Let’s see what then happens.

    1. avatar Right to arm Bears says:

      Buttmunch (great handle BTW), this POS POTUS declared war on US citizens day one in his “fundamentally transforming America” speech. We haven’t been the same since, and I don’t expect we will return to any of our former pride and glory any time soon. With the SCOTUS black robe progs whittling away our civil liberties at every turn, and denying recent opportunities to strengthen our 2A rights, look for a bloody civil war here, when the jack-booted thugs start going door-to-door collecting our firearms “for the safety of the greater good.” I for one will be resisting that effort and it may turn ugly if they show up at my door. Molon Labe.

  35. avatar Joe R. says:

    Chuck this little piece of the Constitution. . . we get to chuck the rest.

  36. avatar Dave says:

    That sounds like a violation of separation of powers. In any case, how in the name of 8 pound 6 ounce baby Jesus do they expect to enforce such an order?

  37. avatar FedUp says:

    Is it wrong for one to walk onto the White House lawn, drop his pants, and scream “Blow Me, you C@(&sucking POS!”?

    It would be awesome if 1000 people would do it at the same time.

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      Probably a good way to end up shot with your pants down!

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        That’s why there’s safety in numbers. Find me 999 co-conspirators and I’ll buy my own airplane ticket.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I already bought my own ticket once, and went through all manner of shit before I finally got to DC days later, planning to march on Congress, only to discover that all the assholes promising to be there were full of it, instead of a party of thousands I was an idiot almost alone. I can’t do that again. Next time I drive. And my guns are with me.

  38. avatar Defens says:

    In Denver, the day their magazine restriction law went into effect, activists gathered on the capital steps to swap mags back and forth. The day that I-594 went (UBC) went into effect in Washington State, activists gathered at the capital to swap guns back and forth, while the State Police looked on, commenting that the law was not really enforceable.

    Makes one think that some sort of Million Gun March protest could be arranged.

  39. avatar Silver says:

    God, can people just get the civil war going already? Anyone with a brain and a history book always knew that America would eventually devolve into either slavery or war. Which side are we picking? The POTUS and his administration have gone full tyrant, they have media declaring war on innocent people, and Republicans refuse to enforce the rule of law.

  40. avatar Sumyungguy says:

    I will not comply.

  41. avatar michael nieto says:

    is there any provision in the GCA(1968), the NFA or the brady law that gives the white house this kind of discretion? i thought that private sales were specifically exempt from from background checks in those laws if this is the case wont an immediate injunction be put in place due to lack of legal athourity?

    1. avatar Silver says:

      You’re assuming we live in America still, and that the rule of law still applies. Both are false. The tyrant can do whatever he wants, the vile insects that inhabit this nation will cheer, Republicans will do nothing, and keyboard commandos will humph and turn on Netflix.

  42. avatar Gary says:

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/executive-orders/

    Good information but to no avail. I’m just waiting for the day we have to arm ourselves and fight to get our country back. That day is rapidly approaching.

  43. avatar Lurker_of_lurkiness says:

    but but, the antis said compromise, and no background check between private parties was the compromise! Are you telling me antigunners are fork tounged liars? This is my shocked face.

  44. avatar Bill says:

    What idiots, you would hope that anyone who has the authority to throw an excutove order in place would know the law well enough to understand that you cannot purchase a firearm directly off the internet. The firearm must be shipped to a FFL dealer so you complete the background check when you go to pick the firearm up. Same for gun shows, if you purchase from a dealer they MUST complete the background check.
    He should be removed from office for atacking the constitution, he took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. Kick this big eared basturd to the curb and elect a real leader who loves America.
    Further, the constitution is for American citizens, it does not legally apply to anyone who is not a citizen of the United States of America.

  45. avatar Snug says:

    Curious George at his finest!

  46. avatar Warlocc says:

    This could be a good thing. If we use it to justify free, unrestricted access to the background check system for all citizens (how else are you supposed to use it during a private sale), we could justify access to all the other secret government no fly lists.

  47. avatar JasonC says:

    This is the perfect way for the Libs to spin the ever-increasing number of monthly NICS checks (and the massive increase that will inevitably result from this announcement) in their favor:

    “OMG, look at that! Obama mandated UBCs and the number of firearm sale background check submissions skyrocketed! It must be working! We did something!”

  48. avatar Fuque says:

    Gun show background check Loophole and online gun sales…… anyone know what in theee hell they are talking about?.. Every gun Iv ever bought at a gun show has a 4473 attached to it… and Online gets sent to FFl… what the hell are these loopholes they keep spouting about??

  49. avatar Ted says:

    I am trying to make sense of this. I understand the “gun show loophole” or at least what the liberals think the “loophole” is. First off I have been to several gun shows and correct me if I am wrong but I have never seen Isis there buying firearms. Obviously the White House must think either terrorism isn’t worth dealing with or they think radical Islamist are at gun shows. More confusing is the “online loophole”. Several of my firearm purchases were made online and not a one was completed without a background check. Is there any website that will allow me to purchase online and ship directly to me and remove my local FFL from the equation? Maybe Isis has this capability of ordering online and having them shipped directly? What is the magical “loophole” they speak of?

  50. avatar notalima says:

    Any bets on if the release will be timed with the anniversary of Sandy Hook (Dec 14)? “Today as we mourn the anniver….”

  51. avatar Tom RKBA says:

    Under what statute can the President mandate universal background checks?

    NONE!

    EO’s cannot exceed statute. EO’s also only pertain to government. They do not apply to the average citizen.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email