GB_BulletLogoTag_Large-1200x950-2

You may have heard that the President had a few things to say about guns last week. After much anticipation, the gun-controller-in-chief announced a series of new executive branch measures designed to accomplish on his own what he knows he can’t via the traditional, separation-of-powers-as-the-Founders-intended legislative method. After hearing that the ATF’s placing new emphasis on what constitutes being “in the business” of selling firearms (and necessitating a federal firearms license), the Attorney General opined that could mean as few as one or two guns. That lead some People of the Gun to worry about how that might affect on line services like Gunbroker. But as the following statement from Gunbroker head honcho Steve Urvan makes clear, despite all the hype, nothing has really changed . . .

As many of you are aware, the President made a big production of “taking action” on gun control this week. What is not as obvious, and has been missed by much of the mainstream media, is that the President’s actions are smoke and mirrors with no legally binding changes.

After reviewing the White House statement, I found that no Executive Orders were issued. Keep in mind that the President cannot create domestic laws; that privilege is constitutionally delegated to Congress. The President can issue Executive Orders which are legally binding instructions to federal offices and employees, but Executive Orders still cannot change underlying laws. The President’s actions took the form of guidance documents which have no legally binding effect and are merely the Administration’s opinion of what the laws state. USA Today was one of the few publications I have seen that got the story right in its article, Chastened by immigration, Obama shows restraint on guns.

The President’s guidance documents are largely just a restatement of existing laws and a wish list of actions that would need to be passed by Congress (and likely will not be). The definition of who is “enaged in the business” of firearms has not changed and is firmly established by both law and case law. Unlicensed persons are still allowed to sell firearms from their personal collection provided all Federal, state, and local laws are obeyed.

The firearm industry has long said that we do not need more guns laws; we need better enforcement of laws already on the books. Data from the Justice Department shows a sharp decline in Federal Weapons Convictions under the Obama Administration.

As we clearly state on our website, all transactions on GunBroker.com are made in full compliance with all federal state, and local laws, using licensed federal firearms dealers as transfer agents. Federal law requires those dealers to run a background check on the buyer. There is a strict compliance system in place and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms audits dealers for compliance.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, of which GunBroker.com is a member and supporter, has issued a statement that summarizes the firearm industry’s views.

Sincerely,

Steve Urvan
CEO, GunBroker.com

Recommended For You

32 Responses to Gunbroker: Obama’s ‘In the Business’ Emphasis Changes Nothing

  1. No no no, push back should be 150%. Not just ~ meh.

    Call your governors and demand executive sanction of the President if your reps won’t do it.

    • My Governor is Dannel P. Malloy who during the State of the Union will be pointed out a shining example of what can be done at the state level regarding gun control and other Left Liberal ideals. You think he will listen if I gave ol Dannel a call?

      • Dannel would say all these gun owners calling me gives me an idea. Lets tax them to make up for our budget problems!

        • If it comes down to “Revolution” your state is your problem. When / if, it comes down to being my problem, your state will be handled like a problem.

          Sound inflammatory? That’s only because what the prez did doesn’t sound enough like a revolution to ya.

          btw / tax away. We got rid of King George for a 3% tax on tea, and he was a whole ocean away.

    • Sanction the president for what? Cutting and pasting the existing statutes and then pretending like he did something?

      • Sanction the Prez for anti-Constitutional activity.

        It was a ratified thing you know. Prez wants to chuck little pieces here and there, whole states can chuck the rest, without succession.

        Call it the “YOUR F’D IN THE GOAT A_ _ AND WE’RE CALLING YOU ON IT. FIX YOUR SH_T OR
        YOU
        ARE OUT OF THE CLUB” clause.

        • Cutting and pasting existing statutes and pretending that it amounts to some kind of epic gun reform is not unconstitutional. It’s silly and deceiving, but since it’s not actually an exercise of any power, so the Constitution doesn’t limit it.

      • Then at least they should issue THAT statement.

        Something to the effect of, “Due to the limitations on State’s due process, I am limited in my ability to Sanction a sitting President or Congress of the United States, but you are hereby notified that you are all FTARDS, and your actions are not just less than worthy of your respective offices, they are dangerous and risk our fine Republic.”

  2. Take another bow, ROHC. I have seen a lot of unnecessary caterwauling from various 2A and conservative forums about gutting the 2A and so forth, and the current crop of Repub presidential candidates have naturally played up 0’s non-actions as a political tactic. I understand eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but a lot of this stuff has been, in the words of one of my law-school professors, “unedifying”.

    • “Unedifying” is will not be a reason for avoiding a coming Civil War.

      I’m not saying I’ll start one over this. Your whack if you think I’ll telegraph that, but I call out this president’s activity as a cumulative slice of a request for one.

  3. The President’s guidance documents are largely just a restatement of existing laws and a wish list of actions that would need to be passed by Congress (and likely will not be). The definition of who is “enaged in the business” of firearms has not changed and is firmly established by both law and case law. Unlicensed persons are still allowed to sell firearms from their personal collection provided all Federal, state, and local laws are obeyed.

    Finally: a voice of reason.

    • POTUS accomplished two things:

      1) He allowed conservative pundits to spout BS to agitate the uninformed base
      2) He rallied his uninformed, “emotions > facts” progressive base to make believe “he did something” So he could start a “National conversation” about his tears.

      The reality, he did nothing but create a media circus. Nothing has changed but uninformed left will believe he is tough on guns and the uniformed right is causing a run on guns and ammo for absolutely zero reason.

    • Chip, I know what you mean. I’ve said as much here and elsewhere and have been castigated by the knee-jerks.

      However, people shouldn’t underestimate how extremely dangerous Obama’s executive actions are. The danger isn’t from the legal impact but from the political impact. The person who controls the conversation has the greatest power. For years, we have held control of the conversation on guns. With the reaction of so many talking heads, we are getting dangerously close to ceding that control to the enemy. At worse, we have given them a window of opportunity due to the division cause by the reaction to the EA’s.

      Progressives play the “long game” and that is the lens through which this must viewed. First he’s grooming the younger generations, much as a pedophile grooms their next victim. Second, he’s paving the way for a hopeful Democrat win this fall.

      It seems that the Progressives/Democrats are trying to base the election on gun control. Perhaps they are desperate and need to distract from all the other negatives on their plate. Perhaps they have erred again and have moved too soon. Perhaps they feel they have nothing left to lose, so they might as well go for it. Any way, it’s a Hail Mary play that will only work it we allow it.

      • For years, we have held control of the conversation on guns.
        No, for years the mainstream liberal media has had control of the conversation on guns.

  4. “shows a sharp decline in Federal Weapons Convictions under the Obama Administration.”

    But of course. You can’t make a crisis of criminal activity if you are reducing the criminal activity by keeping the people who will commit those “politically valuable” crimes behind bars.

    There is always a method to the madness no matter how mad the madness is.

  5. Impeach the clown in chief! He can’t change anything with a positive aspect! His Parent taught him to hate America because they thought that the USA was freebie villa! Clown should be prosecuted for lying on Federal documents, he said he was an immigrant, if that’s the case send him back too Kenya

  6. “…we do not need more guns laws; we need better enforcement of laws already on the books.”

    Utter fail. We need the repeal of all prohibition type “laws,” especially regarding guns. The only laws that should apply are those against fraud, rape, assault, theft and murder.

    But then, most government employees would be in jail.

    I could live with that…

    • A big Amen!! to that!

      As when the Christ sent the demons that were Legion into the herd of pigs that stampeded over a cliff into the ocean.

      The relief from the demon spawn cannot come to soon. I speak not from hyperbole. The definition of Satan is the Prince of Lies. And what comes from the lips of almost all politicians?

  7. Well…I would look long and hard at buying on Gunbroker from “some guy”. Something comforting from buying from a dealer with 140000 transactions and a 100% rating. Not saying an occasional seller is a criminal. I like to know who I”m dealing with. Like face to face…but that’s just ME(an antique/art dealer). What does my random musing have to do with this? Bury Soetoros’ “orders” affect me very little…

    • When the government acts against the liberty of the people, it is never benign, regardless of appearances; there is always a hidden fist. In the case cited (referenced link), National Review points to government encouraging states to act independent of federal rule-making. Subtle, but that is where evil normally lurks. One thing not noted by National Review is that the central government is turning our own arguments against us: states rights. The US constitution was predicated on states being sovereign, doing for themselves as they need in response to their populations. Encouraging states to do what the federal government cannot do is a prime example of ever believing governmental action has no effect (nothing new here, move along).

      Discount government malevolence at your peril.

  8. From this article:

    After reviewing the White House statement, I found that no Executive Orders were issued.

    From the Blaze:

    “Let me warn you about another danger. The president keeps referring to this as executive action rather than an executive order,” Napolitano told Beck on The Glenn Beck Program Monday night. ”Executive action is when he tells someone in the executive branch to do something and he either doesn’t tell them in writing or he keeps the writing secret.”

    “When he did the immigration shenanigans, he put everything in executive orders, we all saw it, we all analyzed it,” Napolitano said. “Then-Attorney General now-Gov. Greg Abbott, saw it, his team of lawyers analyzed it, challenged it, and they won.”

    “Without a document in writing, we haven’t seen one yet, this came out seven days ago, it is more difficult to challenge because they’ll start this before there’s anything in writing for us to look at,” Napolitano concluded.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/11/andrew-napolitano-warns-of-little-known-danger-of-executive-action-versus-executive-order/

  9. I am not sure it matters if these current executive orders have any teeth. It matters that no one trust Obama to respect the Constitution. It matters that Obama cannot be trusted to be truthful. The American people have learned to expect this, and they are surprised during those rare times when Obama follows the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

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