Previous Post
Next Post

President Obama (courtesy cnn.com)

The White House has just released a “Fact Sheet” outlining the President’s Executive Actions on guns. Click here to read the full document. Minus the blather, here’s what’s in it:

  • The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process background checks.
  • The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce gun laws.
  • ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
  • ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.
  • The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.
  • The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons
  • The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.
  • The President has directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
  • [New regulations will] clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
  • Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation.

Previous Post
Next Post

318 COMMENTS

  1. No. I do not like it. Can’t wait to see all those federal agents lining up for their smart guns, though.

      • I don’t like it either. A thought was running through my head…I’ve been an antique/art/whatever dealer for more than 20 years. Every now and then local authorities/show promoters and feds would try and enforce dealers collecting sales tax(at shows). Very few ever do-and if they charge “tax” they don’t sell. I’ve been waiting for the proverbial hammer to drop-never has. Yeah I know federal gun charges are serious but from my point of view so is tax evasion. THIS will do more to promote massive non-compliance(READ:a new enormous black market) than even Conn./NY gun/mag/Ar limits. And it may dwarf the “flea market loophole” LOL…

    • The AG order to change NFA is here:
      https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

      The have eliminated the need for CLEO sign off on NFA firearms, but no mention of change on silencer procedures.
      Instead of CLEO sign off, there is a duty to notify and require fingerprints for “responsible” persons of trust.

      • Never mind my comment on silencers:

        The NFA defines silencers as firearms. 26U.S.C.5845(a)(7). TheNFAdefinesthe word “silencer” by reference to section 921 oftitle 18, see id, which defines the terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” to mean “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report ofa portable firearm, including any combination ofparts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.”

      • For the purposes of the NFA silencers/suppressors are called “firearms”.

        Interesting that they removed the requirement to sign and downgraded it to merely notifying the CLEO. Guess they figured with all the CLEOs who won’t sign that a lawsuit would eventually come out of it. Makes me suspicious of what else might be hidden there.

        • How is that a big win when you now have to provide fingerprints and photographs with a trust?

          You were always able to avoid a CLEO signoff by using a trust that many sellers provide for free.

        • They probably figured the CLEO requirement would fail a SCOTUS or lower court challenge and removed it preemptively.

      • So, am I getting this right? If I want a silencer or an SBR I no longer have to have my local sheriff sign off on the forms? If that’s right, this is great news!

        • Yes, you are correct. Once this order is in effect you will only have to notify the CLEO. A new term “responsible person” of a trust will have to submit fingerprints and undergo a background check.

        • You never had to do that in the first place. That’s what trusts were for. Now, you do, even with a trust. This is terrible news.

        • @Sian – Do you have a source for that assertion that I can check out? If so, I need to set up my trust ASAP. If not, I still need to…one good thing about trusts is simplifying transferring your NFA items to someone if something happens to you.

          • THAT is the PRIMARY reason to have a trust. What everyone seems to get NFA trusts for are secondary porposes/benefits. The PRIMARY purpose still stands as the best reason to have a trust.

      • They haven’t signed it yet, still “finalizing” it. This may mean that I get class III items under my own name instead…. having to get photos and fingerprints for everyone on the trust? yikes.

    • Suposedly AK-74s and AR15s and blocks with 40rd mags are the Left’s biggest concern, all these, or about 99.9% of these are sold by ffl holding gun dealers. The only guns being sold through online auctions by non-ffl holding private individuals, (yet still requiring background check for final firearm transfer), are older used SXS shotguns and hunting rifles that are highly sought after and no longer in production! Firearms that are currently in production-(that is all the evil black rifles and pistols) are sold by dealers that the average non-ffl holding individual can’t compete with the dealer’s pricing. However dealers more often than not won’t have for sale used many used masterpieces of manufacture of bygone days, these are the manual hunting rifles and double barrel shotguns whose ONLY PURPOSE is to hunt quail or pheasant! Yet these fine sporting firearms will no longer be found for sale online because who the fk will want to get an ffl to do so!!! This exec has not a damn thing to do with black rifles, ar-14s, ak47s, vast majority of handguns etc, this exec order is aimed directly at sportsman out west (yeh probably majority are white males) who hunt deer and elk and upland birds!

  2. That’s far more reaching than I expected. This moron can’t lose his job soon enough.

      • I make no assumptions as to who will take over for him, nor do I make any assumptions as to what party they will belong to.

        The point is his time is limited and I can’t wait for it to end.

        • He will join that exclusive club of presidents who were lame ducks even in their first term.

    • Really? I think it is kind of tame and I am ok with about 50% of those.

      The ones that bother me are the mental health, for fear they can just put you on some list and the “safety” tech, which could lead to some really gimpy firearms for everyone but cops and bad guys.

      I was worried about force 15 day waiting periods, ammo tax, magazine limits, gun type limits etc. None of that is in there.

      • Our side should make it an article of faith that cops and military go first on all of these “smart gun” and “safety features” requirements (and then oppose them anyway when the gov’t tries to force them on us). If we could just make that happen, it would be a huge barrier to all of that crap, because I suspect it will be a very long time before any of it will be ready for police/military prime time. That stuff will just get people killed.

      • When government seeks to limit personal freedom, and you agree with whatever particular measure does not immediately inconvenience you, government has achieved its goal. More will follow once you are comfortable with the latest removal of liberty.

        • Spot on. Tyranny doesn’t need everyone to sell out at once. It’s a series of little sellouts by different people over time that can enslave a people.

  3. – Expanding the definition of who will be considered a dealer in firearms. Key factors that will be considered is if you advertise on the Internet, have formal business cards, rent tables at gun shows, and the number of firearms sold.

    This might be bad, otherwise its mostly just wasting money?

    “Sound and fury signifying nothing” hopefully

      • Doubtful. The reason they’re being so vague is that A) they still haven’t figured out what will likely stand up to even modest scrutiny in the courts, and B) because they want to make this ‘victory’ seem as sweet as possible for as long as possible. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but the commerce clause likely prevents Barry from blocking all private transfers whether they’re initiated online or not, and section 230 of the CDA should still protect Armslist from liability stemming from illegal activity conducted on the part of their users.

        • Actually, the commerce clause does nothing to prevent the government from doing anything. Even SCOTUS ruled that a farmer was required to put his product up for sale to the public because not doing so was a restraint of trade and violation of the commerce clause. The commerce clause is THE nuclear option. The entire constitution can be neutered via that clause (a fact that bothered the founders a great deal). Simply, if anything you do includes any article or service that crosses state lines, the government can regulate it out of existence.

    • Sorry but fear the worst, if you sell anything online you are very much doing so illegally if you personally don’t have an ffl! The reason for an ffl was to make it easier for someone to sell a lot of firearms without the hassle of going through another dealer. Whereas for the average joe who has a nice Winchester 75 22lr target rifle to sell, its less of a hassle to pay a dealer to ship to another dealer, for another person receiving! Also a requirement of an ffl is that you have to sell a minimum number of firearms or else loose the ffl! So you have to get an FFL to sell even just one firearm online, and than you better sell many more firearms or else loose that ffl? Its something about online sales no matter that they ALREADY REQUIRE FFL BACKGROUND CHECKS that is the problem for this president, or his handlers specifically, and it has nothing to do with the millions of ARs being sold through dealers!

  4. “– Department of Health and Human Services will instruct states that HIPAA doesn’t apply when reporting mental health issues.”

    Ok, I’m no legal scholar, but this doesn’t seem legal. Otherwise, this list of “executive actions” is mostly flaccid.

    • Yeah you are exactly right. I do not see this being legal at all because of HIPAA regulations… Doctor’s office: “Remember your health information is private. Please sign this form indicating we gave you the information on HIPAA and how we can’t disclose any information about you. Oh, unless the government asks for it…”

      Obama, take your constitution america hating head and shove it up your everlovin ass!

      • That’s so funny– people believing HIPAA gave them medical privacy. Uh– no. Just like the Bank Secrecy Act eliminated bank secrecy, HIPAA eliminated your medical privacy.

        If you don’t want everyone at your employer, any/every government employee, and any teenage hacker so interested to know your medical details– do like the wealthy. Go offshore.

      • Yeah you are exactly right. I do not see this being legal at all because of HIPAA regulations… Doctor’s office: “Remember your health information is private. Please sign this form indicating we gave you the information on HIPAA and how we can’t disclose any information about you. Oh, unless the government asks for it…”

        Obama, take your constitution america hating head and shove it up your everlovin ass!

        Health care and doctor lobbies could wind up shredding this one for us. They are extremely powerful lobbies. Doctors, at least, won’t like having their position compromised like this. Because that’s what this will do – compromise doctor’s ability to elicit trust in their patients. They’re smart enough to know that their patients will simply begin disclosing less.

        • apparently doctors have a general leftward bent, and believe guns are evil things. wasn’t there a big deal in florida recently where doctors were suing the governor because prohibitions on asking patients about gun ownership was interfering with a doctor’s ability to provide accurate and proper healthcare? seems doctors there believe they need to know if you are a gun owner in order to decide which surgery you need, which prescription medicine you need for the flue. that sort of thing.

    • Most people don’t know that HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) is the withered vestige of what was to be Hillary Care. A costly, administrative behemoth that makes it impossible for me to exchange a few discreet and muffled words with a colleague in a hallway as we rush between our respective patients/obligations/appointments. And those signs and floormats at the pharmacy. And countless, inane hours spent in training sessions. And little zealot compliance hall monitors who only have a job because HIPAA exists.

      • Makes it impossible does it? Maybe for someone with ethics which I assume you have but that assumption does not carry over to all other doctors. Not by a long shot.

        I have had more than one doctor smirk as he told me he and other doctors “talk”, as in they had talked to doctors about ME that I did not agree to and they gave him information without my approval. Reporting to the proper authorities results in nothing. So it may not be legal (even though no action is taken against them) but it is very far from impossible. It is done routinely and they think it is funny stuff.

    • “Flaccid”–Excellent description. “Clarify” that location doesn’t matter?? Hell, we all knew that–the only people that didn’t were the hysterical sheeple that bought Everytown’s lies about the “gun show loophole”.

      • Well, now he can claim that he “closed the gun show loophole,” although, in fact, he did absolutely nothing.

        • I think he may have done just that. We will have to see how restrictive they are going to be and if the restrictions kills off all gun shows.

          • Some of the FFLs in my area stopped doing background checks for private sales. Couldn’t prove to the ATF and state boys that the sales were not straw purchases. Which is odd because the same two people could legally purchase a new gun at retail. But businesses will do whatever to keep the cops off their backs. Can’t blame them.

        • Actually, I would like for him to claim he did just that. It gives them less of a leg to stand on.

        • He closed gunshow loophole, no! Stopped back alley transfers, No!
          Destroyed the best thing since the internet started- that being gun auction sites from individuals, to individuals via ups to your dealer, 4473 and background check, YES!
          Muthaofgouda WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lame raisin wrinkled up weed-lung POS!

    • I sure hope I can get former Iowa Senator Tom Fing Harkin (Mr HIPPA himself) to tackle this, Har,

    • I can see these guys cross referencing ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for billing, and then using those codes to determine ineligibility for firearm usage. Screw Doctors voluntarily releasing information, they will pull it straight out of reimbursement packages.

      Ladies and genetleman, do yourselves a favor and visit your Primary care provider and ask to see your medical record. When I switched providers I was shocked (as was the MD) to see that a single 15 minute visit with a known POS Nurse Practicioner had me coded for depression, anxiety, PTSD, and possible Bi-Polar. This was from a visit after I got injured when a 5150 assaulted me in my emergency department resulted in the perpetrator getting put in the police taco restraint, and I was a little shaken. Perhaps I should not have mentioned that I am a veteran eh?

      Make sure that any of these diagnoses are removed from your medical record, especially is there is not sufficient evidence from a qualified and unbiased mental health provider. This info alone can be pulled to potentially screw you over. The VA is already doing it.

      • As a mental health nurse I fully agree. Make sure your medical records are accurate. Even with electronic charting all it takes is a Dr, Nurse or tech to start charting on the last person they seen but forgot to switch charts and your records could be wrong forever.

      • About the medical thing, don’t ever go to the doctor for any reason, try damn hard not to be in a situation of possible emergency. If you do STAY CONCIOUS AND SAY NO PARAMEDICS! State repeatedly that your fine and need no doctor! No dentist either for that matter unless its out of pocket. Hell even then they have charts that are catalogued! Also in case you might find yourself unconscious and wake up in an emergency room, don’t leave the house wearing anything but gay-azz trendy clothes, tight pants, goofy tight button up shirts, wear a baseball cap sideways, have a wild oats or sprouts frequent buyers card in your wallet, no gun cards or NRA cards etc. Look like a fuzzy panzie wherever you go out so that when you find yourself in a hospital the doctors think you are another fruit and granola cake. As to medical records, the Constitutionalists are always proven right with their warnings! The evil of the progressives is always just such an easy playbook to read 6-10 years in advance! When bozzocare was first promoted in 2009 and I heard about sharing of medical records, I immediately knew it eventually would become a reason to confiscate or disallow ownership even though legally that can only occur with court with jury to adjucate against your specific 2nd amendment rights, as any Constitutional right to be taken away requires a jury trial to prove it! But we are post Constitutional now thanks to PAul happy hunter Ryan and drunken sobbing guy before him! No fly lists? That’s a temporary precaution not intended to have any effect on rights, but always abused so its from its outset an abuse of power wholly Unconstitutional!

    • Sounds to me like “see a shrink, lose your guns”.

      “Keep guns out of the wrong hands” sounds good to the uneducated, but the list of “wrong hands” is growing faster than Bill Clinton’s penis in Monica’s mouth.

    • HIPPAA has never prevented doctors from sharing medical information for purposes of law enforcement, and to comply with other laws. For example, there is no right to privacy in a Workers Comp situation. The case worker has total access. Doctor is still required to report suspected child abuse. Holmes’ psychiatrist reported him to the campus police — she was also covered because she thought/knew he would commit a crime. Obama will “cover” this expansion by claiming the law enforcement exemption applies. Having been involved in health care since well before HIPPAA came about, I believe the courts will uphold his plan if a challenge is filed, as the intent has been there from the beginning. On balance, this is far less odious and onerous than I would have expected/feared, except for the “smart gun” stuff. That one is their next plan of attack and will be another governmental boondoggle for the consumer like CFL bulbs that have propelled the Chinese economy, low-water-use toilets that don’t flush, and the many car safety overkill requirements. Every one of these previous idiocies was propelled by a do-gooder one-issue pressure group, and “gun control” is of course exactly the same, but with Mr. Moneybags Under the Eyes bankrolling it. The idea of a smart gun that can read a palm print is not necessarily bad — but a pre-emptive requirement when the technology will not be ready, the usual .gov way of regulating, will be literally deadly. My iPhone 6 is maybe 95% accurate in reading my fingerprint and too slow. Technology just is not ready, but that won’t stop .gov.

      • Aaahhh, you caught on pretty quickly. Smart Guns will be the undoing of just about everything gun-related. NJ is the model (whenever a Smart Gun is available at retail outlets anywhere in the country, all guns sold in NJ must be Smart Guns). Not much of a stretch from NJ to USA, and via EO. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the constitution (being convicted of an action that was legal before the passage of a new law, which is different from being convicted for committing a once legal act after a new law is passed), but it is not impossible to declare that once a Smart Gun is sold anywhere to the public, all guns possessed by the public must then be rendered Smart Guns prior to next use. Evil never relaxes

      • The problem with smart guns in general is that they don’t really address any current issue for gun owners, which ostensibly *should* be the market for driving change with gun manufacturers.

        The only time I can see a smart gun beneficial would be protecting kids from their parents’ (or family members, friends, etc.) guns. Of course, this can be done through safely securing your weapons with locks/ safes/ etc. and through educating your kids, which is why many gun owners see smart guns as being pointless.

        I really do kind of wonder why gun control folks care about smart guns at all. Aside from the aforementioned situation, I can’t think of any mass shooting that would have been prevented with even theoretical smart gun technology, let alone what’s actually available currently.

        Not to mention the fact that there are a virtually interminable number of “dumb” guns currently in circulation.

        Like many of the other readers, I worry about the mental health provisions. I sought out treatment for my depression after (largely failing to) deal with it for the past 20 years or so. If I was aware there was a chance to lose my access to firearms I might have just not bothered.

        I think a lot of folks who could potentially benefit from seeing a therapist/ shrink probably won’t bother now for fear of ending up on a list. That’s unfortunate because it’s really made a huge difference in my relationships with my family and my work performance. And let’s face it, it’s tough enough for guys especially to finally admit they have a problem and go see a therapist for something like depression- attaching the possibility of losing access to being able to visit the range with buddies, protect oneself and their family, and hunting could just be another excuse to not try and get some help.

        • You are falling for the tactics of the left; attack everywhere, simultaneously. They are intent on gun confiscation. Meanwhile, they have you running to stop the leak made up of tighter restrictions on gun shows. Then they have you running to stop the leak made up of claims that mass shootings happen daily in almost every neighborhood (certainly at every school). Then they have you running to see if there is a leak caused by changes to NFA.

          You get the picture.

  5. So he’s going to pay for these things with what, his personal budget? Or they will re-distribute their existing budgets? Right…

    Also, if we open up the definition of ffl to those people, will this reopen the doors to more small, home based ffl’s? The opposite of what Clinton (?) Did?

    • That is an interesting – potentially unintended consequence – in that the rationale for treating someone as a gun dealer may dramatically increase the number of dealers… I don’t like it, but I’m not against El Hefe shooting himself in the foot with his EOs in this case.

    • Table Top FFLs for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I love stupid liberals and unitended consequences.

          • forget it you will not be getting a license. Number one you must be zoned for business. No. 2 the ATF has cut back on issuing licenses because heretofore they did not have enough agents to inspect the books and actually several years ago just went around shutting down legitimate gun shops that had been around for years. The new agents being hired will supposedly be hired to man phones on the instant back ground checks and or be sent out as storm troopers to monitor gun shows. This will not leave any new agents to process and interview prospective people who want to secure licenses which is in line with Obama’s anti gun agenda because the last thing he wants is more f.f.l. dealers.

        • @JLP….sounds ripe for a lawsuit if they make changes that forces many people to be classified “in the business” but then refuse to provide timely response for FFL licenses.

          • Try suing the Feds some time, if you are 20 years old you will be 65 years old before you find out your case will not be heard anyway.

        • @jlp – Fully two-thirds of all FFLs are home-based. You don’t have to be zoned for business as far as the feds are concerned. Local ordinances and state laws and regulations, however, may vary.

          • 100 per cent wrong. In my area the ATF used this excuse to deny some dealers their continued business. One dealer had been in business 30 years.

  6. $500 million to increase access to mental health treatment.
    That’s NOTHING. That’s a slap in the face. That’s like kicking someone in the nuts and calling foreplay.
    The only reason that’s there is to address the people who recognize the problem is mental health.
    God I hate the guy.

      • I read it again, it’s a PROPOSAL to spend it. So that’s even more worthless!
        Now I hate him even more than I did 10 minutes ago!

      • Yeah. He’s going to find $500M of your money to publish a phone book or something equally useless. No guarantee he gets the money either.

        • Not to mention the 230+ people added to the FBI? That’s going to cost 15 million at least. Oh, and that’s per year. Where’s the money for that coming from?

  7. Hahahahaha ‘HIPAA doesn’t apply when reporting mental health issues’ – like medical professionals will fall for that BS!! I’m sure none of us would be sued for those violations. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  8. Honestly, everything regarding mental health, such as the new $500 million dollar allotment towards mental health treatment and the dissmissal of HIPAA are something we should all support, as that could have possibly prevented the Colorado shooting. HOWEVER, the provision regarding ” if you advertise on the Internet” will absolutely destroy armslist. You can still sell/gift guns to people you know as it appears.

    • This is exactly what raised flags for me. You could be considered in the business with as few as one or two sales when combined with other factors. Despite not being explicit as to what the other factors are, you can certainly connect the dots and know that if you advertise your gun online, they are going to put the screws to you.

      • What a bunch of vague, unenforceable bullshit; a defense attorney would have a field day with this….. And, I hate lawyers!

      • Judging by the actions of the IRS and other agencies, other relevant factors will include which causes you support, the political party to which you belong, and whether you support or oppose the agenda of the current administration.

    • Hell no! This is one of the reasons some of us have avoided the VA. I was fortunate enough to find a private mental health professional who understood when I said to him, “My G-d, my guns, and my children. The first can take care of himself, don’t screw up the other two.” He did excellent work and promised at the outset that if there was anything in the process which was going to jeopardize the last two, he would warn me ahead of time. As an impoverished single dad, sole parent of four minor children with little extended family support and as a gun rights activist, I appreciated that. If he hadn’t said that and I felt I couldn’t have trusted him then I wouldn’t have sought treatment. He has long since retired and we became very good friends. He recommended I be armed during sessions because that has been my life throughout adulthood and I was more relaxed while armed. Even today, he expects me to be armed everytime he sees me and has told me that if he ever noticed me disarmed, he would figure something was terribly wrong.

      If allowed to stand, this mental health edict will be a disaster for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. It is likely to make criminals out of many of us.

  9. “– BATFE will finalize Rule 41-P which will force background checks and chief law enforcement officer checkoffs on trusts and corporations.”

    This one is a killer. Our CLEOs won’t sign off on any NFA items.

    • Indeed. Only way forward is Republican majorities in both House and Senate and a pro-gun Republican President, and then maybe, just maybe repealing the parts of the NFA that apply so suppressors and SBRs (which are legal in freaking CANADA, for Pete’s sake!).

      Through the bums out and then start whittling away. Or take off and nuke ’em from orbit. One of those two options should work.

      • They (SBRs, not suppressors) are legal but we can only use them at government approved ranges. I’m not sure you’d want that. Any Semi-Auto with a barrel of less than 18.5″ is classified as Restricted and must be registered. Also any AR is Restricted regardless of barrel length. Enjoy your freedoms my American comrades. It could be worse.

      • The fallacy of partyarchy… You can’t vote your way back to freedom. One party sells out your freedoms in one area while the other sells out your freedoms in another. Sometimes they both find common ground on selling out your freedoms. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Keep fooling me and I’m just an idiot.

        The voting public is like an abused wife anymore. “Oh, I just know he’s going to change this time! It will be different.”

        • But all the pundits, and all the establishment operatives say you must vote for their version of the slow death of freedom, because if you don’t, you will get the fast death of freedom.

    • I know man it’s a Bummer. Me and my father are still awaiting approval of 6 forms 4’s and 4 more form 1’s from the past 6-7 months. Good news is they are still currently approving them. I got an approved form 1 back just before the Holidays on an AK pistol I have. Wish I had bought and Form 1’d that MPX and Scorpion I was wanting tho lol.

    • If, in some crazy world 41P changes the CLEO requirement to a NICS check, I’m all for it.

      • The 41-P rule will not effect NC residents as CLEO’s must sign in 15 days but will cause all types of issues for residents in other states, now if the change is only a background check for all persons listed in the trust that won’t be so bad.

        • There are many NC sheriffs taking the position that they will not sign regardless of new law. The lawlessness of the POTUS is infectious and insidious.

  10. Meh, could have been worse. We expected some of it. I do not like the smart gun stuff. Maybe with the additional NICS personnel it will help with the high volume of sales, and the mental health funding is positive. I still disagree on the premise of it, but there are positives.

    • Stealing more money from the People to fund another government charlie foxtrot that will ultimately further tyanny in our nation is somehow a positive?!? Please, give me some of what you’re smoking or a lobotomy. Both would apparently have the same result.

  11. The money for this comes from? The house budget powers mean what?

    HIPPA doesn’t apply on mental health issues. Who in or not in their right mind will talk to a mental health provider? Does it apply retroactively? When you thought you were assured of privacy?

    • ” The house budget powers mean what? ”

      That Paul Ryan’s beard tickles the inside of Obama’s thighs, and they both love it.

  12. “BATFE will finalize Rule 41-P which will force background checks and chief law enforcement officer checkoffs on trusts and corporations.

    All those people with NFA trusts looking to commit mass murder better…. What’s that you say? Never happened before? Really?

    • If they actually FORCE CLEO checkoffs on trusts (bad) perhaps it will also force checkoffs on individuals – which would be good for states like Washington, where the CLEOs will categorically not sign a government permission slip to own a suppressor or SBR.

      • Ha, Obozo would NEVER force a CLEO to sign off on NFA items… Because they are “the most dangerous ” in the country……

  13. Unless they actually come out and state how many guns a person has to sell to be considered a dealer it will just be another return to what it was a decade or so ago when ATF agents regularly arrested people at will selling guns at gun shows that rented tables there. It was up to the agent if he wanted to arrest someone irregardless of how many guns the table holder may or may not have sold. What is still murky is the question of whether it will be mandatory or voluntary (through terror tactics) in regards to whether table holders will be required or not required to only transfer guns through a licensed dealer or not. Another question is when will it go into effect (as if we do not already know).

  14. The core of the EO is this:
    – BATFE will finalize Rule 41-P which will force background checks and chief law enforcement officer checkoffs on trusts and corporations.’

    People who register trusts don’t commit crimes. They are rich guys who buy overpriced toys. But guess why full-autos are a concern for the government…

    – $500 million to increase access to mental health treatment.
    That is the only reasonable measure. I’m surprised they’ve included it.

      • I wouldn’t go so far as to say rich necessarily, but you certainly can’t call someone who has the scratch to pay a lawyer a few hundred bucks to draft up some legal docs that allows them to more easily buy a metal tube that costs $600-$1,500 poor either.

        • Rich or poor, you put your money where it does the most good for you. A trust is important to me to protect my property for my heirs. Doesn’t mean I’m rich.

    • People who form trusts are more common than you may think. In states where the CLEO won’t sign off on a form to buy a suppressor or SBR, trusts are the only available route to purchase. And you don’t have to be rich to buy one a suppressor, although they are overpriced.

    • You think that only rich guys would ever spend $200 to shorten a barrel less than 16″ (rifle) or 18″ (shotgun) or buy a suppressor (some of which are less than the price of the tax stamp)? As inflation continues, that $200 will be no barrier to entry. Of course the Hughes Amendment of FOPA continues to keep the ever-shrinking, slowly deteriorating pool of fully-automatic weapons priced out of reach of most citizens. But in the future, the tax stamp will probably not be a large proportion or even the majority of the cost of buying a suppressor.

  15. So a bunch of crap that he needs funding to implement, which he knows damn well will not be authorized. The only real problem is the lack of clarity on what it means to be in the business of selling guns, but as stated it shouldn’t be a massive problem. Weak brew overall based on this summary.

  16. I like how they casually drop the half a billion dollars for the access to mental health.

    The problem that I see with mental health services and expansion is that those who are in need of it often do not seek it voluntarily. So I feel that this will head in the direction of more emergency custody orders issues, which require police to take that person against their will to be evaluated. As a police, I can tell you that it’s a long and tedious process. I’m not complaining from the LEO point of view, but from that of the individual being placed into emergency custody.

    The way it works in VA is that an Emergency Custody Order (ECO) can be effected one of two ways. The first is that a family member or someone of that ilk can go to the magistrates office and try to obtain one. If issued, the PD are dispatched to try to pick the person up. The second way is if on a call for service or other type of citizen contact, if the subject demonstrates a substantial threat to harm themselves or others, the police can, usually after consulting a Crisis professional, place the subject into emergency custody under what’s referred to as a “paperless ECO.”

    During the ECO, which is good for 8 hours from the time it’s effected, the subject is evaluated by a mental health professional, and if the determination is made that the subject is in need of treatment, he or she is placed under a temporary detention order (TDO), which is issued by the magistrate upon recommendation from the mental health Worker. The TDO cannot be granted unless a bed at a hospital is found. Often times this requires us to drive halfway across the state, as the mental health facilities are nearly always at maximum or near max capacity. While I have no problem doing this, once the person is dropped off we leave, and it’s up to them to get a ride back unless the hospital will help them out. Note that all the above is done regardless of consent.

    My point is that it’s a slippery slope. If it becomes easier and easier to do this, citizens may find themselves subject to a long and frightening process that they may not truly need. While it works and is beneficial for those who truly need it, I fear it will begin to become abused if the federal government try to expand mental health.

    Gun control isn’t the answer, but I’m not so sure that throwing money under the vague title of “mental health access” is either. I can see the .gov trying to impose mandatory mental screening for anyone trying to buy a gun, which is definitely a 2A no-no.

    Just food for thought.

    • Quote:”Often times this requires us to drive halfway across the state, as the mental health facilities are nearly always at maximum or near max capacity”. Quote:

      Hopefully as you revealed in regards to what little mental health facilities we have and are insufficient we do indeed need to spend vast amounts of money like we did before the Moron Reagan defunded Mental Health facilities because he wanted to use the money making war rather than help the American people. Many times people do want help especially when a mother seeks help for her son and the son agrees but there is either no room or no money for treatment or a combination of both. This is were America should hang its head in absolute shame as compared with more human Socialistic Countries that believe in taking care of people when they are in need. Of Course as you stated if funding must pass Congress (not sure if Obama can also bypass Congress on this one too) that you can bet the tight wad Republicans will refuse to fund it and then scream mass killings would not be taking place if we had more mental health care. Are the Republicans in full control of their own mental faculties when it comes to this one. I think not.

      • You blame Reagan for “defunding” this or that, but you say nothing about the Democrat controlled Congress he worked with at the time. You know, the branch of government who are Constitutionally empowered to draft and pass spending budgets. Not the President.

        Now, if the Modern Liberal left-wing Progressive Democrats were really interest in mental health funding, as you implied, they would have done it when they had full control over both houses of Congress and the Presidency after 2008. Yet they didn’t, despite blowing up our budget and increasing our debt and deficits with little to show for.

        I also have no idea with what Socialist Utopian government you want us to emulate, because all the funding to health services has not eliminated violence, firearm or otherwise, in any Socialist country. In fact, most just monopolize violence to the state or criminal level.

        • Quote:You blame Reagan for “defunding” this or that, but you say nothing about the Democrat controlled Congress he worked with at the time. You know, the branch of government who are Constitutionally empowered to draft and pass spending budgets. Not the President.Quote:

          First of you are giving the impression that the Democrats controlled Congress when Herr Reagan was Der Fuhrer. Actually the Republican’s controlled the Senate for all of the Der Fuhrer’s reign. Therefore it would have been useless for the Democrat’s to have introduced legislation to increase money for metal health care because it would have never passed the Senate and even if it had Reagan would have vetoed it. Your post is non sequitur.

        • So the Democrats controling the house for all the 1980s has no bearing? So the dems just rolled over on budget items because they had no Senate majority for 6 of 8 years? Yes you don’t like Reagan but try not to let so cloud your judgement. Both sides went along with cutting back on mental health Republicans for budgetary reasons and Democrats because they thought institutionalizing people was inhumane.

    • You are correct, this will not prevent (gun) crime but it needs to be noted that it is walking the line (or crossing into) a Constitutional crime. Unfortunately that will not be reported by the Democratic AV Department that used to be known as reporters and the independent press. It is a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

      • You are correct, this will not prevent (gun) crime but it needs to be noted that it is walking the line (or crossing into) a Constitutional crime.

        Constitutional crime? In what way? These EOs are a complete nothing-burger.

        • Chip, kinda disappointed old chap. The EO results in agency regulations, which must be complied with. If Big O issues an EO that all vendors and visitors to a gunshow must pass a background check every time a person enters or leaves the location, the EO itself has no effect on the populace, but the ATF enforcement actions will be law.

          • If Big O issues an EO that all vendors and visitors to a gunshow must pass a background check every time a person enters or leaves the location…

            But Big O issued no such EO, nor anything like it. If he had, I’d be commensurately concerned.

            • EOs lead to implementing regulations, which are laws. While absolutely correct that no citizen is affected by an EO, the result of issuing the EO is that the citizen is effected. There is no logical disconnect in using shorthand to describe the process. That is, the president issues an EO, and citizens pay. Standing on the distinction that there is an intervening process between EO and implementing regulations is a distinction without a difference. That you declared, essentially, that EOs are moot for the populace is what I thought disappointing. You usually cut to the heart of the matter, not rely on semantics.

              • That you declared, essentially, that EOs are moot for the populace is what I thought disappointing.

                While I have seen that argument articulated in the comments here, I have not personally asserted that argument.

                You usually cut to the heart of the matter, not rely on semantics.

                Obama’s EOs did not establish any new regulations, nor empower ATF to establish any new regulations. Obama does not have the statutory authority, and therefore cannot delegate to ATF the statutory authority, to require that every gun show entrant pass a background check as a condition of entry.

                Obama basically told ATF: “hey, by the way, you know you can consider these other factors when determining if someone is ‘in the business’ of selling firearms.”

                Until ATF actually attempts to prosecute someone based on some of those factors, and that attempt is validated by a conviction in a court of law, there is no discernible impact on any individual.

              • Chip,

                Just one small correction for you… it was an Executive Action, not an Executive Order. As I’m sure you already know, the EA is even weaker.

                Otherwise, you are spot on.

                Too many people seem to confuse the fact that this was political theater with the egregious parts of what is already happening. Example: the SSI reporting is something that was already in process. It was not something that he just began. It does not make it any less wrong. It does, however, deflect criticism. Now rather than actually looking at the content and potential abuse of such a regulation, the attention is on the conservative meltdown to something that appears reasonable on the most superficial level.

                Yes, the EA’s are dangerous, but not for anything they directly do to the Second Amendment. First, they additionally chip away at congressional power and make the executive more dominant. Second, it defects attention away from other things he’d rather like a break from, such as the Middle East.

                The most dangerous thing about the EA, though, is that Obama takes control of the conversation on the Second Amendment. While we maintained control of the conversation, he could do nothing. If there was a legal option via regulations, do you really think he wouldn’t have done it by now? While they have had some victories at a local and state level in some progressive location, at the federal level Progressives have lost. Their only hope is to control the debate because the one who has that control has the power.

                By getting our collective panties in a wad, we are simply helping him. A better response would be to:

                * Thank him for finally doing what we’ve asked for years and enforcing the laws.
                * Chastise him for trying to sneak in the Progressive parts like the SSI bits and remind him they are essentially DOA.
                * Challenge him to look at the root cause of the violence if he’s really serious about doing something. Tell him to not let his tears blind him to reality. Use that emotional appeal with reason.

                He’s just as repudiated, yet we have kept control and thus power. This isn’t much more than a Hail Mary that only has a chance if we miss a block. We missed the quarterback sack with the meltdown, but we can easily intercept it and increase the lead.

              • I think you must have been asleep at the switch for the last 20 years. The ATF has prosecuted individuals before during their reign of terror under the Clinton Administration. And yes people did get convicted of selling only 1 gun without a license. This is nothing new its simply resurfaced with the green light given them now by Obama. The ATF in the past when they were given the green light they simply changed rules and regulations with the usual dog and pony show of a public comment period and went ahead and outlawed many firearms just because they looked evil such as the Street Sweeper Shotgun and the Spas Shot gun to just name a few. A new reign of terror has now begun and the ATF will relish it with the same gusto they have before. I am sure they cannot wait to start arresting people for selling just one gun and just try defending yourself against the government. When F.F.L. dealers lost their licenses a number of years ago by the hundreds when the ATF due to budget cuts could not inspect their books often enough horrified ex-gun Dealers found that the very people who took their licenses away conducted the “courts” that determined if they would ever get them back. You can guess the outcome. It reminded one of the Nazi courts under Adolf Hitler. This Obama decree should not be taken lightly as it is far, far more serious than the average gun owner is aware of, until of course the axes start to fall on peoples necks which will start to occur far sooner than you think.

                And remember the new 200 ATF agents will be internet paper pushers, not agents that go out in the field and conduct interviews to determine if you are eligible to get a “dealers license” this will result in long waits for a license that could stretch into years and when interviewed the person will still likely be deigned a license, again because the ATF does not have enough agents to police the books of dealers. Of course all this plays right into the hands of “cutting down on the number of gun dealers” and the number of gun purchases through legitimate gun dealers which will result in more people buying under the table with more arrests for the ATF and more calls for yet more restrictive gun bans.

              • An error of the first order is to assume the lack of legal precedent (authority) is any kind of inhibitor to action by a corrupt president and/or other politicians. Big O can do whatever he wants. Who will stop him? Remember, Obama once declared he is no king and can’t just do what he wants. The suddenly he started doing what he wanted. Where was the authorithy? Only in his pen and his phone; he admitted it. Vague EOs provide the desired vagueness in the implementing rules that follow an EO. The notion that somehow “in the business” is now defined and contained is not supported. Vague rules about who/what is a dealer already lead to Gestapo-like actions against individuals (one sold gun, plus “other factors” ?) Obama didn’t just tell agencies to just do their job, he told them to do whatever they liked.

                Point is, EOs result in regulation, regulation impacts people, ergo, EOs impact citizens.

        • * Thank him for finally doing what we’ve asked for years and enforcing the laws.

          You’re on your own with that one. There’s no “we” about it, pilgrim.

          Never double down on the terrible strategy of encouraging infringement.

          • John,

            It’s pure politics. Single out the bit about enforcing existing law – which is actually doing his job.

            You’ve put him in the position of
            – ceding control of the conversation.
            – implicitly taking the blame for “gun violence” if we want to push that in him.
            – set us back in control of the conversation and that means.
            – gives us a better moral high ground. NRA’s “up yours” to the dog and pony show would have even more weight.

            Sun Tzu, Machiavellu, Dale Carnegie. They were smart people.

        • It paints the person or group into a corner of supporting the infringement. I stand by what I wrote. I cannot call for better enforcement of what is immoral, unethical, unjust, and unconstitutional. That’s what the NRA has done to themselves and everyone that backs their strategy.

          Politics got us into this mess but it’s going to take hard work an honest people to get us out.

          Edited to add: Look at how many gun owners buy into these political moves and really believe that background checks are not an infringement. It is a huge mistake to use this tactic!

  17. This is weaker than I expected. I guess even Barry recognized the limits to his authority but in other news Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to start WWIII.

  18. More dog and pony show, no solutions on that list.
    500 million for mental health won’t buy new letterhead.

    …Amd exactly what does “in the business” mean?

    • “…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.””

      Emphasis mine.

      They get to decide what qualifies.

      I have a serious problem with that. If they can say YOU sold this one gun and you only had two at your table then you aren’t ‘in the business.’ But I sold only one gun but I have ten at my table I AM ‘in the business.

      Arbitrary rules lead to arbitrary enforcement and they get to set the penalties for any enforcement and when enforced means you lose your rights for life. What could possible go wrong with a system like that?

    • The devil is in the details…and these aren’t details. Obama’s earned about as much trust as a hired team of highly skilled (and paid, of course) lawyers could throw him.

  19. Spend more money, hire hundreds more federal employees at 80k/year salaries, and research smart guns. This is just bloating already bloated gov’t.

    I notice there’s nothing about the specific amount to determine who is and is not in the business of selling firearms. Am I to take this as anyone selling a gun as “in the business?”

  20. Some of it sounds like a good idea, the NICS having longer hours and more employees sounds good. Some of it sounds like a waste of time and money, like giving more money to the exact same system that Maryland just scrapped for ineffectiveness.

    Some of it is laughable, like how is mental health NOT a HIPAA issue? One would assume FFL dealers already report thefts as a way to cover their own asses.

    Some is scary. Saying that if you advertise on the internet you are a dealer could essentially cover every Facebook group or auction site. The blanket reporting of people by the Social Security Administration is simply creating a class of prohibited citizens without due process. And I don’t think there is a person on this website who thinks the BATFE needs more employees.

  21. If anyone is potentially “in the business” can I claim capital/inventory losses when I sell a gun for less than I paid?

  22. This is absolutely ridiculous. If you go to the link, it talks of how the NFA is outdated and allows people to use trusts and corps to not have background checks on “the most dangerous weapons such as… Sawed off shotguns”??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Isis is out there throwing pipe bombs and he is saying a sawed off shotgun is the biggest concern? Not to mention how NFA trust items still not only go through class 3 ffl’s but get reviewed and approved by the ATF itself. This is ridiculous and the only thing any of this crap does is add yet more money to our debt. STOP THIS MAD MAN

    • If sawed-off shotguns are so lethal, why don’t military and police use them? And exactly why do we need this additional hoop to jump through to exercise our rights when there has been no significant amount of crime committed with NFA weapons registered to trusts and corporations? “Should we wait until someone is murdered?” They say. Completely illogical. You could say that about anything harmless. “No one has ever choked to death on their own hand, but should we wait until it happens before adopting intrusive government controls to make it less likely? That’s negligence!” Perhaps in the future they’ll be saying that the presence of gun owners, conservatives, and libertarians (excuse me, “insurrectionists, traitors, and terrorists”) poses a risk to national security and they cannot wait until we turn to violence to secure our life and liberty before murdering us “pre-emptively” while shouting “self-defense!”

      • “If sawed-off shotguns are so lethal, why don’t military and police use them?”

        Because the military and police don’t have to hide their weapons. The point if a sawed-off shotgun is to hide a powerful weapon. Yes the effectiveness is decreased but the concealment is greatly increased.

        I am not agreeing with the law, but I understand the logic of it or at least the base or initial logic behind it.

        • An SBS is not exactly easy to conceal on the person. If it’s cut down to the kind of “sawed-off” common in the movies that can be more easily concealed, pistol size with no stock, it’s much less effective than a handgun as a weapon. I say let the bad guys use weapons like that, they’ll be less likely to harm their victims.

  23. This will effect regular gun guys the worse. Ffl holders and people who sell guns for a living, dislike armslist, etc. because it takes customers away from their shops. So they arn’t too upset with this idea of banning private sales. I for one will miss armslist. Ive met alot of good people who share my hobby(firearms), & have forged lasting friendships as well. From law enforcement to disabled vets off of armslist. So sad.

  24. When will 41p go into effect; thats the real question. Glad my state/town doesn’t have d-bag LEOs for signoffs. Will this be the end of e-file for Form 1s??

  25. Joke. I still love how they’ve push the farce that is background checks…stopping really dangerous people from obtaining guns from dealers, with a list of really dangerous people that have nearly no other restrictions on them.

    I wonder how many sheeple would be terrified to know that the really dangerous people on the NICS list can be standing in with you at the grocery store. Or following you to your car in a dark parking lot.

    If they are as dangerous as the govt thinks they are, they should be sharing a hole with a bag of quick lime.

    • If they were that dangerous, they’d pick them up when they fail a background check. It’s not like they couldn’t call the local police and just go arrest the guy at the gun store, with the signed 4473. But they don’t, which tells me that those supposed 2.4 million dangerous people trying to buy guns at gun stores aren’t felons; they’re delayed. That’s just a question I have to ask when these bozos claim that background checks have kept 2.4 million felons from getting guns. Seems like it’d be pretty easy to round ’em up…

      • “That’s just a question I have to ask when these bozos claim that background checks have kept 2.4 million felons from getting guns.”

        John Lott addressed this in an interview in 2014.

        He had several comments about the NICS denials. One was that over some period of time (I don’t recall if it was one or multiple years…), there were 13 arrests + prosecutions made that originated with the background check machinery.

        13.

        Out of the claimed “millions” of denials that the anti’s claim stop all these felons from getting guns, only 13 merited arrest and prosecution.

        Further, Lott said that some large majority percentage (I don’t recall the number, sorry) of these millions of denials were just INITIAL denials that were overturned when the individual pushed the issue.

        In other words, MOST of those millions of felons being denied are FALSE POSITIVES.

        Lott has the numbers; I could try to look them up myself, but the point is this: the anti’s are lying (big surprise) that NICS is stopping millions of felons from buying guns illegally.

        The whole system is a colossal waste of time and resources. It does very little, if anything. Expanding this system is just more waste, which is every bureaucrat’s wet dream.

        • That’s my whole point. IF (BIG IF) their numbers were even close to true, they’d have no problem picking these guys up right there at the gun shop. I mean, they’re RIGHT THERE, WAITING. It’s not happening, though. That doesn’t keep these idiots from spouting the lies, though.

          • If you are an eternal child, the world is just really scary, and you will run to anyone who will tell you that they can make the scary things go away. Over half the country is comprised of third generation adult children, who insist on maintaining belief that bad things should not happen. These children cling to the illusion that the government will make scary things go away.

              • The comment you responded to referenced imaginary numbers of prohibited persons prevented from buying firearms because background checks work. The question was essentially, “who would ever believe these quickly refuted numbers?” My add-on was that children will believe anything that makes them feel safe…that is who would believe imaginary numbers allegedly keeping them safe from bad guys getting guns because background checks are so effective. The anti-gun people are essentially children of children raised to be children throughout their adulthood. Children live in a fantasy world, and it is nearly impossible to get them out of it.

              • Oh, no problem. I read it very quickly and kinda went “huh?” I read it again and it makes sense… perfectly true. That’s one reason I bring it up, because these libturds keep touting how these background checks work so well, and they stop so many people, let’s see them. Or admit that the VAST majority of them are false positives, and report the real numbers. They never will, as it’ll destroy their entire argument (that they’ve never had in the first place…).

  26. Well, this is a bunch of meh, crap and why the f*ck weren’t you doing that in the first place.

    The Social Security stuff will get abused.

    The mental health stuff will probably discourage folks from seeking help.

    The new trust rules are just stupid and pointless.

    And the we’ll consider who-ever we want as a dealer rules will probably get abused as-well.

  27. This will effect regular gun guys the worse. Ffl holders and people who sell guns for a living, dislike armslist, etc. because it takes customers away from their shops. So they arn’t too upset with this idea of banning private sales. I for one will miss armslist. Ive met alot of good people who share my hobby(firearms), & have forged lasting friendships as well. From law enforcement to disabled vets off of armslist. So sad. Also what classifies a dangerous weapon? An ak, an ar15,a 9mm, a semi auto 22., that wording is pretty broad.

    • What really sucks is how little variety you’ll now have. You’ll now be limited to only what your local stores carry, so forget anything other than whatever the current popular guns are.

      • As a collector of fine old guns this is a death knell for me. Places like gunbroker, if you were willing to spend the money you could find eventually what you were looking for. Now they have turned back the clock to the bad old days when it took me years to find collector guns I was looking for.

      • With the ability of the ATF and IRS to declare even one gun sale (“when other factors are considered”) can result in being declared “in the business”, the effect is likely the same as an outright ban. The government famously issues conflicting restrictions such that you either go bankrupt trying to comply, or you simply stop whatever activity the governments wants ended. Indirect, but the result is the same, and public opposition minimal.

        • They’ve been able to do all of that since 1968. In all the decades since, private sales have continued.

          The sky isn’t falling. This doesn’t really change anything.

          • Yes, erosion has been evident since the ’60s. However, the people pushing then were not as numerous, dedicated, virulent, anti-liberty. The players have intensified, the government agencies have loosed all their restraints, We have never before seen such dedication to government control of just about everything. Oh, and yes, the lefties do learn and adapt, Devious rule-making by government was pretty primitive in the ’60s/’70s,

            Two things one should never forget:
            – Cassandra was right
            – There was a wolf

    • I just don’t see this. Will any of this stop crime? Clearly not. But I have purchased through Gunbroker. Almost all the sellers are FFL’s and they only ship to FFL’s. There are more and more obvious full time dealers advertising on Armslist — at least the ones whose ads I read are FFL’s and will only ship to an FFL. I can occasionally pick out someone who might be “in the business” but is not an FFL. These are few and far between. It does not say that an individual who occasionally sells one gun because he is looking to try something new is magically a dealer. I do wish that they would have specified a number, though. For example, here in NC, you are a used car dealer if you sell more than 4 cars a year. Agreed this might make things difficult for some collectors, but as others have said, if more collectors got FFL’s, that would not be necessarily a bad thing.

    • Take a bow, ROHC. “Clarify” that the location doesn’t determine whether you are “in the business”. Who didn’t already know that? Except for the box-wine-bibbing moms?

  28. Wait, on that last point, didn’t he already issue an EO about firearms trusts? Isn’t that what 41p is? If so, does this mean that the ATF has to do it all over again, i.e. propose rule and accept/read comments? Unintended consequence or am I reading that wrong?

  29. Meh… This is pretty tame. Didn’t really even change anything. This dude is nuetured. Thankfully. Here’s to the NRA, SAF, GOA and all the other pro gun orgs, as well as the real conservatives in the GOP. For all that bluster from him we might as well consider this his swan song.

      • Please explain how gun broker is banned. Nothing in there prohibits online sales. Nothing. You already need to transfer firearms via FFL online.

        • For out of state sales; just clarifying…….. It gets gray for in-state sales; proceed with caution if selling more than a couple a year. Geez, it sure would be really helpful to have a concrete number………

        • Noted, but again, screaming thr sky is falling and that gun broker is doomed is simply lying. That’s not what happening here. If anything I’m sure gun broker will now boom as the great panic of 2016 gets kicked off tonight.

        • He said any “advertised” online sales are banned unless you’re an FFL. That means only FFL’s can now use Gunbroker and Armslist, which they have no reason to if they actually have a brick & mortar store.

        • Key words are “in the business of selling firearms”. The devils is in the details of what that actually means. Anything after my 2nd local sale off armslist; and I would push it to an FFL until the dust settles. In some states, a buyer’s CCW permit can be used in lieu of a background check. i think that is the case in Arkansas.

          • Again not true. I have seen many people come right out and say meet me at such and such a place for the sale. Now technically in the past if you were both residents of the same state and the guns were not stolen it was legal but now it looks as though everything has suddenly changed as this is a way the Government will prevent even more formerly legal private sales from happening. You could even get nailed by posting a paper advertisements on a bulletin board at your local club if one of the members just happened to be an ATF agent and saw it. He would say you were dealing in guns without a license and heaven help you if they pressured anyone to tell them it was the second time you did this. And do not even think about putting your gun up for sale in your local newspaper or trade em sell em type paper. I think you can already begin to see how difficult or impossible it may soon become to sell any gun without going through a dealer and paying tax, transfer fees etc.

        • Um… No their not. And the BBC has no clue what it’s talking about. Read the list. The BBC is notoriously horrible at reading US law.

          • Not true many often say, I will meet you at such and such a place and the deal takes place. These are the people although they may not be breaking any law previously who will be pounced on by the ATF. It will be interesting to see what trumped up charges they bring against them but then again the Government does not uphold any laws they make them up as they go along. Remember a few years ago when a guy at a shooting range had a malfunction with a broken dis-connector on an AR15 an ATF agent who just happen to be there arrested him for owning a machine gun (which it never was) and he got convicted in court. This was later even on TV and it still did no good as far as freeing the man. The last I heard the guy went to jail. If the government can do that and get away with it they can do just about anything they wish.

  30. So: It claims to “clarify” whether someone is “in the business of selling firearms” by including “other factors” and “other evidence.”

    But no info on what the factors or evidence might be.

    I’m not yet seeing how this is going to “clarify” much of anything.

    • My take is he’s just restating what the law already is, but he wants the news outlets to report that gun show vendors, etc are indeed covered (if they are “in the business”, just like they always have been) for the benefit of all the Kim Kardashians out there who actually believe there is a “gun-show loophole”.

      • This is exactly it. I suspect what happened is, he went to the ATF and said, “How do we close this gun show loophole where 40 percent of all gun sales don’t go through a background check?” and it was patiently and slowly explained to him that there’s no such thing and that the vast majority of gun show sales are through FFLs with full NICS checks already. Then they explained it again, because the confused look on his face made it clear he didn’t get it. But eventually they got through, and he said, “Well, how do we make it LOOK like we closed the loophole to stupid people, then?”

  31. So if I want to sell a gun. Since I am now in the business, do I get an FFL. Wait now I can buy for myself and have it shipped to my business, my home. As long as I follow the rules, how cool is this.
    Am I missing something?

    • I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. He didn’t change anything as to who is and who isn’t in the business. He referred to cases that are already past history to illustrate what we already knew, that people who sell at gun shows and such may still be deemed to be “in the business” and require a licence. We knew that already. He isn’t saying anything new. At least not in the “fact sheet”.

  32. $500 million for mental health? Good. King Hussein might finally be able to get the help that he needs.

  33. Many of these are a violation of law. You can’t just arbitrarily change a law to fit your whim. The rules changes to HIPAA are a major no-no. Privacy is kinda required for people seeking mental help. Or many won’t seek help. And that will cause more deaths as people who could otherwise have a treatable mental illness that may not even require medication, will simply avoid getting the counseling they need. rewriting the rules for Trusts will hurt many security firms. Many of which are contracted to securing wealthy folks. Only CONGRESS can allocate new cash. He can’t just say, “I want more cash for this.” There’s a reason for the separation of powers.

    • You forget that Congress has spent decades allowing the President to usurp their power so that they can spend more time at lavish parties instead of having to do their job.

  34. My question is how are any of these things going to prevent or reduce gun violence……yeah that’s what I thought. NONE OF THEM! At least he can say he did something. Thank GOD the liberals don’t control the congress.

  35. To borrow some old military jargon I heard/saw in a movie, “Do not, I repeat, Do Not” underestimate these people. Their profession is creating ways to trick the citizenry, corral the citizenry, subjugate the citizenry. This is what they do all day, and on the weekends. They are sly, devious, cunning, and full of good intentions (their definition). The law of unintended consequences has a analog, the law of unexpected consequences (the citizenry are on this side of the equation). Preventing people from making their own free-will decisions at the expense of “the many” (thank you, Spock) is the energy source for government agents; they actually “get off on it”.

  36. You’re missing the point… They are registering people (anyone in the business of selling firearms)… Number of items sold was not specified… Nor was type i.e. hand gun, long gun, etc… You can extend the progressive logic and see where it takes you…

      • Except the old definition was selling for profit. I have bought, sold and traded guns in the past. I am usually lucky to break even, but often have taken a loss. So now if I buy a firearm I don’t like more than once or twice a year and try to sell on armslist, even below my cost, I could be identified as a dealer by the FBI or ATF.

  37. Not one of these will stop any of the type of attacks we have experienced in the past or in our future if history serves as a guiding light.
    Law makers gotta make laws, never enforcing existing ones.
    Making government bigger and bigger and bigger…got to spend more tax money instead of just responsibly paying the bills we already have.
    Want to save lives?
    Start with making quack doctors accountable to their patients, nearly 210,000 people a year die from malpractice…….so? What about those numbers mr. President?
    But its all about saving lives right?

    • When your only tool is a hammer, your only solution to problems is beating on them. When you are a politician, your only solution is to pass another law.

  38. The devil is in the details. Comments from “administration officials” suggest that selling one (1) gun may make you a “dealer” that is required to be licensed and do background checks. They stated in other articles elsewhere that people have been prosecuted for as little as two (2) sales with “other circumstances” present. It is therefore entirely possible that they have made private sales and transfers de facto illegal or that they will be “interpreted” that way in relatively short order.

    Also, hidden issue: if it’s no longer legal to use trusts for NFA items, are they going to go back and make trust beneficiaries re-apply? Sounds like that’s what a lot of those new BATF agents may spend their first year or two chasing. Plus, of course, there are still a LOT of CLEOs who will not sign for suppressors or SBRs so what happens then?

    We already saw what happened when some states attempted to use Veteran’s Administration records to take veterans’ guns. Now this new wonder decree says they’re going to use Social Security Administration information for everyone nationwide? Whoops, you’re past 70, no need for a gun anymore!

    This maneuver is rank with deception and hidden agenda and is obviously open to abuse. It needs to be hotly contested and made a key issue in the upcoming election. I sincerely hope the Democrats take a trouncing at the polls and learn such a hard lesson that they don’t try again for another hundred years. But for that to happen, everyone here and all of their like-minded friends needs to get out and vote. Pick up your old family members and grandchildren of legal age, all your friends, buy them a cup of coffee, pack them in the truck and get them to the voting booth. It has literally never been more important.

  39. So if Obama is going to make everyone get FFLs doesn’t that mean we can and should all start buying new automatic weapons? As long as we sell them to each other we are “in the business” right?

  40. The only one I’m worried about is EO about “smart gun” technology; but I wonder how much that will cost

    • It doesn’t bother me a whit that he is telling the military and LEOS to look at “smart guns”. I’ve said all along that they should go first as far as adopting “smart guns” goes.

  41. From what i have just seen on cnn, selling even 1 gun, a background check must be done, and go through ffl.

  42. Nope. Entirely unacceptable. I won’t be jumping through any hoops to sell an old deer gun to my brother or friends. And as for “smart gun” technology…pfft! President Osama can take his smart gun tech and shove it right up his butt. The “president” and all of his little minions can just go suck a fat one.

    • Tough talk but in reality people will begin to realize that if they do such a thing and just one person spills the beans and it gets to an ATF agent you will get a knock at the door in the middle of the night. After you disappear everyone of your neighbors and everyone who ever knew of you will know they better go through a dealer or the same thing will happen to them. The Nazi’s in WWII were masters of this.

    • I would say most if not all of the 200 new agents will be sent out into the gun shows as storm trooper agents to pounce on anyone and everyone. Do not even think about walking around with gun in your hand and then selling it to someone without going through a dealer.

  43. Nice photo of Mr Obama; I hope he realises the significance of a circular halo as opposed to a square halo – and no, i’m not laughing out loud, or otherwise.

  44. Straight from whitehouse.gov

    “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.”

    So basically if you sell 1 firearm on armslist they can come after you because they “feel like it.” F* Obama. F* him right in the goat ass.