“President Obama will begin his final review of new executive actions on gun control within ‘weeks, not months, a senior aide said,” thehill.com reports. “White House communications director Jen Psaki said at a breakfast hosted by Bloomberg News that the administration is weighing a ‘range of steps that can be taken as it relates to the people who have access to guns’ and ‘how people gain access to guns.'” Note: people. Not criminals, crazies and terrorists. In the meantime, salivation/speculation’s running rampant. thehill.com reckons . . .
Obama is reportedly considering one measure that would classify more gun sellers as high-volume dealers, which would close a legal loophole that allows many sales conducted online or at gun shows to skirt existing background check provisions.
But such a measure would surely prompt a legal challenge from Republicans and groups like the NRA, who argue Obama does not have the legal authority to take such a broad step on his own.
The Department of Justice is reportedly crafting recommendations on how the president could issue new actions that can survive a lawsuit.
Psaki declined say which action the president is leaning toward taking.
“I’m not going to take anything on or off the table” she said of potential policies, including closing the gun show loophole and banning people on the government’s no-fly list from purchasing firearms.
Just how the President could “close the gun show loophole” or create a federal ban on gun purchase and ownership for Americans on the government’s secret “Terrorist Watchlist” without running afoul of the United States Constitution is anyone’s guess. The best guess: he can’t. The question is, will he? Watch this space.
Obama’s Last Day 01.20.17 Mark Your Calendar !!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but gun sales are never completely “conducted online”; a face-to-face meeting, either with an FFL or with the private seller, has to be done to complete the transaction. If the “news” media were at all interested in accuracy, I would say the proper phrase would be “gun sales arranged for online”, no?
You are correct, but neither the media nor the Democratic Party care. As far as they are concerned, you can arrange a gun sale on line and have the firearm delivered to your door. The image that they want to project is that on line sales (and gun show sales) are conducted without a background check–which they can be if it is an intrastate transaction that allows private sales, but not otherwise. That which they want to accomplish,as has been done in California, Oregon and Washington (among others) is to ban private sales, thus accomplishing universal background checks without the consent of Congress.
Does the Post Office–or UPS or FedEx, for that matter–deliver guns to a non-FFL, even intra-state? I am under the impression that they won’t, as a matter of policy.
I have C&R firearms delivered to my home all the time. Sure, I have an FFL 03, but how would UPS know that?
How are you assuming they would know it was a gun?
If a firearm has been repaired or replaced by the manufacturer it can be sent directly to you without another background check being conducted even if they replaced the complete firearm with one with a different serial number.
DCM weapons used to be delivered
CMP……..shhhhhhh
The one and only exception I know of is CMP. You can mail order (well, they ship by FedEx) your M1 Garand right to your door.
But you do have to complete and get notarized a form containing everything they need to perform a background check; that gets sent in and processed before they’ll process your order. And there are some other requirements, too.
But it’s the closes thing I know of to the “guns through the internet” theme unless you’re downloading and 3D printing.
…”downloading and 3d printing”–which is what Kim Kardashian thought was going on, I guess–and not just her, apparently
Brings up a good point. Why can’t I fill out a 4473 online and thereby have the NICS check done and the gun delivered by mail (UPS, etc)?
Because the database is top secret, cosmic, double-dare ya, cross my heart restricted to “authorized” personnel. meaning any high school grad with a badge can access it, but you cannot.
Because packages are delivered to addresses, not individual persons, and the companies/delivery folks don’t want to get into the business of checking IDs, I assume.
It perhaps could be made to work if you went to the delivery hub and presented ID to pick it up.
Could you maybe skype with the person, show them your ID online, then arrange a drop-off with a designated escrow person holding the money, the seller locks it in a case you have the key to and the escrow person holding the money gives it to them? I haven’t conducted sales like that, but would that be legal?
But such a measure would surely prompt a legal challenge from Republicans and groups like the NRA, who argue Obama does not have the legal authority to take such a broad step on his own.
ROFLMAO worthy quote right there.
Legal challenge from the Republicants!!!! Oh that’s rich.
How about The Annointed One passes whatever he wants, and Patriots and Citizens say
NO. We Will Not Comply!
At least that has a realistic challenge to it.
It’s true; at this point, Obama could declare all firearms contraband and the Republicans would probably do nothing concrete to challenge it, and the only thing that would save us is 1) there is no longer enough time in his term to accomplish any such sweeping policy 2) there would be almost universal refusal to enforce, if enforcement is even possible, and 3) the next guy (or even, gal) would reap such enormous political points by reversing the order that it would not stand for very long.
This is why we should have cast out the Speaker and all his cronies when they said, adamantly, that they would never pursue articles of impeachment against Obama, regardless his lawless actions, and would never fail to pass any spending bill (code for “not shutting down the government”) regardless what horrors it funds. At that point, our leadership abdicated whatever political authority had been granted them by the landslide elections, and by default put Democrats back in the driver’s seat. Otherwise, articles would have been drafted the instant Obama illegally defied a federal judge pursuing his amnesty stuff, or for his defense of criminal overreach in any/all of his other scandals.
I don’t think private citizens have to follow Presidential executive orders. We’re not in his chain of command.
Executive Orders do not direct private citizens to do anything. Those orders direct agencies to take certain actions, or take actions designed to implement the details, or merely the outline, of the Executive Order. Private citizens would be liable for failing to follow the regulations and directives published by the Executive Agencies.
And you can take it to the bank that private citizens will be fines and/or prosecuted, no matter how “illegal” an Executive Order proves to be.,
Man I thought Bury Soetoro would do “something” yesterday between bragging on his year and annoying grieving folks in San B. We’ll see-I see panic buying and hoarding on the rise. I’m only focusing on my shotgun and doing a bit of prepping so I’m good…
Words used in this will be redefined by EO.
Which ones and exactly how is what all the intense meeting are about.
I’m trying to think of any other “thing” that requires government permission and a background check to buy or sell.
Health insurance.
Children
Puppies
He only has a year left to “fundamentally
destroytransform” America, so only god and Obama (but I repeat myself) know what’s coming next.Unless he has someone to continue his policies, that’s not nearly enough time to do anything significant, apart from ‘burning down Atlanta’ as the saying goes. Even then, he’d probably end up having to do it himself, since there would be so much refusal to enforce anything significant, and I’m certain he is far too lazy for such an undertaking.
I’m sure he gets 90% of the satisfaction of a ‘win’ simply by causing a ban-panic at this point. The guy has never been anything more than a troll, to everyone he’s dealt with.
“executive” action that takes place in the context of a failure to pass laws in the congress is nothing less than a usurping of power.
“executive action on guns” is literally the raison d’être of the 2nd Amendment.
+1
Operative word there is “literally”. Spot on.
Afraid it is worse, and it doesn’t matter.
If congress willingly (and they do) tosses legislation to the executive branch to interpret and define, then it seems logical executive orders are accepted and preferred (so congress can claim they had nothing to do with executive actions.
“RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)”
Sie kommt !
I see two possibilities. First, they will redefine (by regulation) “in the business of selling firearms” to be more inclusive, perhaps anything more than five or ten firearms a year. Second, over the howling protest of the intelligence community, Obama will release the terror watch list to state governors who pass laws banning those on the list from buying (and/or owning) firearms.
Can’t change the definition by regulation – that would require going through the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Their failure to do so is why the 5th Circuit has enjoined (stopped) their attempt at essentially granting blanket amnesty to Dreamer families. The APA requires that any proposed regulations be published, a comment period, and all comments be read (and hopefully, but often not, considered). This would likely take years to accomplish.
Yes, I am aware of the APA requirements, but the process can be completed in 90 to 180 days, as demonstrated by the attempt to ban certain “military grade” AR food. And I have no doubt that if the order goes out, the attempt will be made. After all, the federal statute does not define “in the business” of selling guns, and thus it is the Administrations right to “clarify” the meaning.
An agency can claim to not be issuing rules, but refining. Only issuing new rules requires notice.
i.e. The nation’s highest legal department will tell the administration how far it can go. You know, common sense.
What the DOJ is helping BHO look for is a non-existent “loophole” that he can use to close the non-existent “Gun Show Loophole”.
“The question is, will he?”
Answer: of course. Why not? Obummer has nothing to loose and, no matter what, will not face any fines or prison time. Meanwhile, the ensuing controversy will suck resources, time, energy, and attention from other matters of significance.
Beyond all that, the way our corrupt federal courts are functioning, I am extremely confident that at least half of the federal U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal will uphold any executive orders that he creates. Remember, “public safety” and “national security” trump everything … all his legal council will have to do in the courts is wave their fingers and mention either of those two magic incantations and they will get a favorable ruling. And when the split in the circuits gets to the U.S. Supreme Court three years from now, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case, allowing the Appellate Courts’ rulings to stand.
Yep. The tyrants in black robes. That “old white guy”, Thomas Jefferson to be exact, said that to have the final arbiter of all that is constitutional in the body of the judiciary would encourage the out right tyrannical abuse of such power. Or the same end result by not acting at all.
What do you know, he was right.
It’s interesting how they’ve changed the definitions so we’re all “gun dealers” now and what I thought were gun dealers are now “high-volume dealers”? Damn, I should be getting discounts directly from the manufacturers.
If everyone’s an FFL now, does that mean I can buy new machine guns?
Yep. The tyrants in black robes. Those “old white guys”, Thomas Jefferson to be exact, said that to have the final arbiter of all that is constitutional in the body of the judiciary would encourage the out right tyrannical abuse of such power.
What do you know, he was right.
The Administration is quite limited as to what they can do at this point in time. They cannot issue new regulations (see my discussion above about the Administrative Procedures Act), which leaves Executive Actions. The problem with Executive Actions is that they only apply to executive branch employees. Compounding this, the laws that involve selling and transferring firearms, including those that pertain to federal background checks are fairly explicitly drafted – so, for example, the President cannot legally do anything about the fact that if they can’t find something (in the statutes) that disqualifies someone from owning a firearm in three days, the transaction goes through. He can’t extend this to five days, or waive the time limit, etc.
My point is not that the Administration cannot do anything, but rather, they cannot do much through Executive Action, and what they can do that way will most likely be immediately negated at the inauguration of the next Republican President.
“The Administration is quite limited as to what they can do at this point in time.”
I believe you are mistaken. It is very limited as to legal or intelligent things it could do, but the boss is a moron. He may decree that all firearms be converted to .38 Spl. And only ammunition for .45 ACP be produced. On penalty of death by a thousand cuts. A moron.
NEVER underestimate your opponent.
Obama and his advisors are far from stupid, they just have an entirely different agenda than that of true Constitution loving Americans and so, to their advantage, their actions appear moronic to many of us. Do not be deceived.
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be correctly shown to be conspiracy.
Yes, and if he does something that brain dead, what happens, since he doesn’t have the legal authority to do that? The guys who make the ammo? Why should they obey? Why should the rest of us? The Administration can’t waltz into court, claiming that we are violating that Executive Order, since it doesn’t apply to us, but rather, just to people who are Executive Department employees, which most of us are not.
I had heard that the EO would set the threshold for “dealing” at 50 gun sales a year. I have to admit that if I were selling guns, I would have assumed the the currently ill-defined threshold is somewhat lower than that already, if only out of an abundance of caution.
yeah, somehow I had managed to get the impression that a half-dozen or so in a calendar year qualified.
Yes, the ATF folks like to leave that sort of “impression” if anyone asks, but as far as I know, there has never been a red-line number used in the past. The most-often-used definition of “being in the business” of selling guns (which means you had to have a FFL) had to do with how much of your income was gleaned from selling guns, and that is obviously a rather subjective measure.
I think many folks on the gun show circuit would actually welcome a hard number definition of a “licensed gun dealer” (less than 50 sales a year, no problem; 50 or more, get a license and do background checks), AS LONG AS THE NUMBER WASN’T VERY LOW, like 5 per year. There should also be a “one-time exemption” so a surviving spouse could clear-out all the dead partner’s firearms in a one-time estate-type sale without worrying about being branded as an unlicensed firearms dealer.
We also need to watch for any tricky language like “12 or more guns bought or sold per year” which would be a backdoor way to get a one-gun-a-month ruling implemented on every person, nationally, without debating or passing a Federal law on the subject.
How do they plan to find out how many a person buys *or* sells? I have never sold a gun by doing anything but “here’s the money”, “OK, here’s the gun”.
That’s going to be the sticky part, and will define just how difficult it will be to “make” a case.
That’s also why I am concerned that they will set a very low number; it will be MUCH easier to build a case if the max is selling 5 guns a year, vs selling 50.
Money aside, I usually ask to see ID and request a written receipt including ID # (unless I know the person well), and I always offer a receipt if I’m selling.
I heard the same number (50), (third-hand) from an ATF agent that had just told a person that was setting up at a local gunshow that if they sold any more guns without a FFL, they would be arrested (the person had been selling guns at gunshows without getting a FFL). The guy packed up his stuff and left the show.
The agent confirmed the conversation the next day to a friend of mine (second-hand confirmation), and I trust all of the people heard/passed-on the information/sound-bites.
That does not make sense to me. How did the agent know how many guns this guy sold? Did he watch every minute? Does an ATF agent or two watch every transaction at every gun show? I consider that unlikely.
In this area, there are people who constantly run classified ads to buy guns, and then occasionally run other ads to sell guns. You know it’s the same person because the phone numbers are the same (and our newspaper’s Classifieds section isn’t very large/full).
I suppose you could build a case (once you have been tipped-off by advertising or other means) by using bank deposits as evidence (checks, especially) and observing/recording activity at gun shows.
be interesting to see how a private individual keeps records of sales in order to prove not being a “high volume” dealer (or a dealer of any sort).
Well, this is still America, so (in theory) you shouldn’t have to prove that you DIDN’T break the law; the prosecutor will have the burden of proving you DID.
i agree, but the fact that gun sales can occur without records, without proof that one side of the transaction or the other ensures prohibited persons do not get firearms is what is considered a “loophole”. that is, some gun sales must follow a set of government rules that constrain illegal sales, and some gun sales are not subject to the same regimen. guns are guns, sales are sales, transfers are transfers. what is the moral justification that some gun sales are exempt from perceived safeguards? if one type sale is exempt, all sales should be exempt (not gonna pass muster with half the population). if one type sale is required to endure perceived safeguards, all sales should be covered (not gonna pass muster with half the population). once the people’s legislators were allowed to setup required background checks for retail gun sales, but not for other types, the argument for absolute, unfettered RTKABA went out the window. the left is consistend: control/ban all gun sales. the opposition says it is OK that some sales are regulated, but somehow there is logic claiming not all sales should be regulated. consistency is a strong banner regarding deadly weapons.
ATF won’t go for it; makes it harder for them to nail a person for dealing only 49 guns without a license 😉
I think he wants congress to do it so any embarrassment or blame from it doesn’t fall solely on the democrats. At best it still becomes a drawn out legal battle while the rule stands.
As an executive order it would probably be short standing. It also would call into question exactly what kind of authority an executive order has.
Almost none. The first was so Martha Washington could buy plates for a dinner party.
I was wondering why all the LGS are out of guns, ammo, reloading supplies, and have waiting lists.
The gun grabbers are floating trial balloons again.
Barrack Obama, Salesman of the decade for all Gun manufacturers world wide.
So Obama is pretty much asking how can I ignore the constitution without making people mad enough to sue me or just infringe on their rights a little bit so judges I put appointed will allow my orders to stay?
Isn’t this the whole reason we have the second amendment to stop stuff like this from happening?
Here is an example of upstanding US citizen that has had to deal with a name mix up for over 8 years. His son attended USAF Academy. The guy who he shares the same name is missing an arm and a leg, is Irish, guess his IRA bomb he was building went off a bit early.
He’s not a gun owner but is concerned that if he wanted to purchase a firearm the hassle it would be. I think that would be most people way of thinking.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local/right-name-wrong-man-knoxville-veterinarian-cant-get-off-no-fly-list-26f4d248-2e52-111a-e053-0100007-362692771.html
There are two types of gun control proposals with liberals. Proposals that they like, and proposals that they haven’t though of yet.
It’s all an incremental agenda to completely disarm Americans.
On a side note, most countries who ban guns see an increase or a same number of overall murders. Then they start arresting people for carrying knives. This is already happening in NYC. No lockback folders or “gravity knives”.
The game here is to recognize the game. This administration (they all do – these guys do it harder) likes to pre-leak stuff to test the waters on what they might get away with, let the opposition spend their outrage in drips, and get a read on the counter arguments / opposition.
So, the game is to 1) register what’s acceptable and not, (“H-e-double-toothpicks, no.”) and 2) get prepared, but don’t “pull the trigger” so to speak.
On the first point, “No, that’s not OK.”
On the second point, t-ed up: legislation, the counter-arguments, quotes of the other side’s marvelous inconsistency, and similar. The message is “Well, we’re stopping this legislatively. And, BTW nonsense. And BTW, allow us to burn you on this. And BTW, this is an election year, so thanks.”
Really, along with “legacy” for the current administration, this is a base-mobilization issue / wedge issue. The thing is, as an issue, it seems much more get-out generating for their opposition. And it can be a wedge issue for their own side (although that would require some competence from The Stupid Party, so, never bet on that.)
To wedge-ify the gun issue do this: “Listen, climate, abortion, edu-funding, green-jobs-ing, common-core-ing, ACA-backing, close Guantanamo-ing, Title 9-ing, no-prayer-within 1,000 yards of a school-ing, that officer in Cambridge “acted stupidly”-ing, pipeline-halting, What’s wrong with Kansas?-ing folks … there’s enough mobilized and single-issue voters on this, it’ll swing elections in droves.
If you back up this nonsense, you don’t get to play any more, and every other thing you care about won’t just get stopped, it’ll get rolled back. Is Kabuki administrative ‘gun control’ the hill you want to die on?”
If they attempt this, people will die.
He doesn’t have the authority, plain and simple. Executive orders are as old as the Constitution itself and even good ole George Washington issued them, FDR holds the record at over 3,000. However, they do not have the force of law unless they derive their authority from the legislative power, meaning Congress. Congress makes the laws – executive orders must remain within those laws to have any legal force behind them. Most of the time executive orders are only used to set policy within agencies. The only thing Obama could possibly do with an executive order is to order the ATF to not process any background checks from gun shows.
I am fairly certain that every one knows the mess that would cause and how quickly it would be knocked down.
The Presidents, whether it is Obama, Bush, Clinton,Reagan etc. need to understand that they only have the authority to operate within the Constitution and the laws that Congress have passed. Executive orders were never meant to be dictatorial decrees. The next President needs to understand fully that they are SIMPLY the head of ONE branch of the U.S. government, and in comparison, a rather unimportant one at that.
I can name 2 candidates, 1 from each party, whose ego is so swollen that they would never be able to accept that fact.
The media most certainly needs to stop glorifying the President as if he is the ruling dictator. Whether it is Fox News when a Republican is President or MSNBC when a Democrat is President.
In other words the Office of the President, as important as it is, needs to be brought down a level or two – or three. Too many people, especially young people in my age group, see the President as a ruler who runs the U.S. government and dictates law instead of what he actually is, the head of one branch of our three seperate but EQUAL branches of government. The media is very much at fault for this perception and it needs to change.
If Congress passes a law directing the Executive Branch to set policy and procedure to “appropriately regulate the commerce of firearms in the States” (I made this up), and provides no more structure in the legislation, anything the president decides to do will be under color of the authority to regulate. Just because the legislation/law doesn’t specifically call-out all the intricacies of how Congress intended the law to be implemented doesn’t mean the president/executive is acting without authority when directing the agencies to construct implementing regulations.
“In 1937, Luther Gulick, an important New Dealer and leading proponent of the professionalization of public administration, advocated restructuring American government to reduce the typical law enacted by Congress to “a declaration of war, so that the essence of the program is in the gradual unfolding of the plan in actual administration.”
[…]
[L]iberalism promotes “policy without law” by having Congress delegate real governance, and vast discretion, to administrative agencies that go on to regulate with “a vigor that is matched only by its unpredictability.” The consent of the governed, expressed through elections that let the people turn unsatisfactory officials out of office, is trivialized.”
Link.
Yepper.
Unless I actually know a person has been adjudicated mentally unfit to own a firearm, or underage, or a convicted felon, is an illegal alien, I can sell one of my private firearms to just about anybody I want to, and mr. stampy feet can do anything about.
Obama will likely get away with infringing on our rights, but how about those in the federal government who obey his unlawful orders? The Eichmann Defense of “I was just following orders” is not supposed to work in the US. In my opinion, when this crap is all over with, when we have deposed these prospective tyrants, these federal employees that conspired to shred the Constitution should be arrested and jailed for their crimes.
Bloomberg and his sockpuppets have been largely neutralized, and Obama’s “threats” as communicated via Talking Point Memos, about top-down executive action are just that- a head fake designed to take your eye off the real and more powerful effort- the same list and more of executive actions that Soro’s CAP is spreading to activists and lobbyists in each Statehouse.
The message in The Rise of the Anti-media, about what worked in the 30 year fight for CCW movement, was that horizontally integrated grassroots groups (Soro’s CAP) beat a top down effort (Obama/Bloomberg).
Follow the money, if you cant follow the facts- partly because the activity is designed to be “under the radar” and partly because the ReliablePartyOrgans have been ordered to re-broadcast the FUD spread by Bloomturd. This is a very sophisticated and proven network, that has gotten a lot done in Europe and continues to wreak havoc and mischief here in the US, on various efforts.
That CAP, led by John Podesta, is doubling down on gun control, at the same time as Podesta taking over as Hillary’s fund-raiser, is no coincidence.
Since the StateRunMedia WONT talk about this, its an excellent place for a few 2A rights journolists to dig up facts and break a story.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/krauthammer-unconstitutional-gun-confiscation-would-cause-insurrection-in-the-country/
You cannot buy a gun online in new York unless say buds guns for instance, sends it directly to your local ffl dealer. Then they do the background check.
That’s true in all the states if you are buying from an out-of-state licensed gun dealer (FFL) like Bud’s.
The anti-gun folks are whining about individual private sellers (they call them “unlicensed dealers”) using online classified advertising, like Craigslist, Backpage, and local newspaper classified ads. It puts local (or in-the-same-state) buyers and sellers together, and because they are both residents of the same state, in MOST cases (some states like CA require all private sales to transfer through a FFL), there is no requirement for a licensed dealer to get involved (or any paperwork/paper trail to document the sale). Also no need for a background check (although the anti-gun folks ignore the fact that many of these buyers have already been background checked for previous retail purchases, or to get a CCW permit).
He not going to come at us directly. But the new regulations will make it extremely more expensive to do business in all forms and fashions. I think the greatest possibility for Obummer to mess with us will be by regulating the support institutions that we as gun owners rely upon, making it harder and harder to sustain gun ownership. Increased regulation on shipping firearms by manufacturers and to and from repair shops, increased regulation on ammo manufacturing and shipping, putting more strong arm pressure on the banking industry that deals with firearms in all circumstances. The companies that are required to deal with the regulations are the ones going to be targeted. Just a back-door method of getting at us as individuals while allowing his minions and talking head prostitutes in the media to claim that “you can keep your gun if you want it” and that “he’s not coming for your guns”. He’s done it before with the EPA and FDA.