“President Obama will meet with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch on Monday to finalize a set of executive actions on guns that he will unveil next week, according to several individuals briefed on the matter.” Considering the Washington Post‘s support for civilian disarmament, you gotta believe a WaPo reporter was one of those “several individuals” the Prez nominated to receive word of the sacred tablets. I mean Executive Orders. Here’s what’s coming down the presidential pike . ..
According to those familiar with the proposal, who asked for anonymity because it was not yet public, the president will expand new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.
High-volume gun dealers, eh? Is that like “high-capacity magazines”? If so, it’s only a matter of time before they become “assault gun dealers.” Anyway, this is the not-at-all-secret change in the ATF rules to define who’s “in the business” of selling guns. Anyone who sells more than a certain number per year – I’m thinking 20, but it could be ten – has to run a background check on anyone who buys from them.
Again, not the biggest of big deals. A PITA and an added expense for a lot of folks, but they don’t represent a high percentage of gun owners. You might even say this is/would be a damp squib for the gun control industrial complex.
The president will also use his executive authority in several other areas, these individuals said, but the overall package has not yet been finalized.
THAT’s the scary bit. The President could sign an EO that says to the states, “Send us the name of each prospective gun buyer. We’ll tell you if their name’s on the [super-secret, completely unaccountable] Terrorist Watch List. If you ban them from purchasing or owning firearms, well that’s not unconstitutional. And if someone wants to say it is, that’s your problem. Not ours.” That doesn’t seem to be on the table . . .
Other proposals the administration has been weighing include requiring federally-licensed gun dealers to report any lost and stolen guns to the National Crime Information Center; publishing aggregate background check denial data for guns sold by unlicensed sellers; clarifying that convicted abusers are prohibited from having guns regardless of their marital status; and instructing federal law enforcement to identify and arrest criminals who attempt to buy illegal guns.
You mean they’re not doing that already? I’ll leave you with this, from the President’s weekly radio address:
“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” he said in the recorded address. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.”
“Because I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids, to sit around and do nothing,” Obama continued. “I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen; who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms; and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.”
Divide and conquer? I don’t think so. You? [Nick’s thoughts on the immediate future of gun control follow at 11am EST.]
It will all get undone after the election. C’mon people; we can do this!
and the countdown begins….365….364…
Which elections? 2016? Or the 2017 “election” that will be reconvene after Trumps 2016 win is declared illegitimate by the Democrats, who will refuse to hand it over.
Heh I used to think the above was tin foil hat territory, until the Obama administration started openly “warning” US about Trump, thereby meddling in the elections process in a way never seen by any outgoing administration.
Trump is your answer? Lmao too funny. He reminds me of someone, weird guy with a funny mustache. What was his name again…Oh, Hitler, that’s what it was.
Except he’s really not all that much like Hitler. At all. Nice try, though, but Godwin’s Law is inapplicable here.
Be realistic. Even if Trump were to be elected it will be long after Obama passed his gun ban laws and Republicans talk tough but will not ban Executive orders on anything because it would subject them to have their Executive orders banned in later retaliation by the Democrats. So you can see its all a corrupt Political game. I would also remind people that all Politicians seldom come through with more than 1 per cent of their promises anyway especially when it comes to guns.
That’s the hope…..
….and the change….
Just like his immigration EO this will be tied up in court till he’s out of office it’s going to be a pretty hard sell to arbitrarily redefine the meaning of the background check law
C’mon people, it’s an election year. This is all smoke and mirrors and dogs and ponies. The whole point of constant meetings and discussions with the Attorney General is to fashion EOs that will impress the hell out of the low-information voters since the Progs have decided being against the Second amendment is their path to a win this year. At the same time the strategy has to be that the EOs will go into effect, the Conservatives will go all out in opposition and the Progs will get miles and miles and minutes and minutes of media time and space to scream about what heartless bastards the Conservatives are while the Progs are at least “Trying to do something to end the gun violence epidemic!”
There is nothing these people do that does not have a political motive of keeping them in power over their subjects.
(yawn). Barry Soetoro knows he’s impotent and wears mom jeans. But I digress. SCOTUS already has smacked him for trying the creative recess appointment route, so I guess his EO’s are next. Plus, if he tries something really screwy, he is just motivating the single issue voter base on the other, I mean right side.
+1. If he had anything more significant than the one thing he described, he would have described it too. And I don’t think he’s going to be too draconian in his definition of “in the business”, too many gun-rights orgs that are ready to actually do more than just “like” a facebook page (as in ready to file lawsuits).
Dirk, let’s not begin the year by demeaning Mom Jeans with such a slanderous association. As any lawyer demonstrates, no matter how expensive the suit it can’t do anything to mask the stench of elitist slime ball underneath.
It’s just awful that he get more mail than he wants.
Maybe he should sign an EO stopping people from sending him mail. It may violate that constitution but it’s not like he cares about that.
According to the nature of Executive Orders I do not think he has nay authority (not that that matters to him) to tell the United States Postal Service not to deliver these letters to him, but he does have the authority to tell the White House mail room to burn them before he sees them. That is the nature of EOs – you try to govern by forcing government bureaucracies to do or not do what the Congress or the Constitution has legislated that they should or should not do.
Like you said, they’re not doing some of these already? This is his way of “doing something” so he can not feel like a failure in a year when he clears his desk out.
Like that EO from the last round telling ATF to pick a permanent “deputy director”. That’s kind of part of their regular activities, filling personnel vacancies.
More gum-flappery from the impotent windbag.
This being led along waiting for him to find enough courage to release this EO is a bit frightening, it makes me wonder how unlawful it was worded to start. If all of his legal team and now the AG have to review it. He is either leading the country along to keep our focus on him instead of Assault Ban 2.0, or he needs to pull his clankers out of mommies’ purse.
So he’s going to pen an EO to have the government do what the law already tells the government to do, but this time, they mean it.
“… the president will expand new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.”
Still trying to figure out how they plan on tracking the sales that aren’t tracked already. Without a registry every single sale is the first sale of the year and I challenge them to prove otherwise.
Yes, this. If Im going to be the one keeping track of how many guns i sell, how is this enforceable or effective on ANY level? Just another avenue to slap a felony on somebody who did nothing wrong but now finds himself on the wrong side of legal.
The answer is simple, they did this about a decade or so ago. They would watch people at local shows and keep track of the “regulars” since there was no admitted level of selling it was up to an agent on whether he wanted to arrest someone. I knew of a lot of people back then that quit selling at shows. We called it “the reign of terror” which is exactly what it was.
America voted for change, twice. You got it, now live with exectutive orders circumventing congressional process. The next Democrat President has a phone, pen, Muslim aid, and a private server ready to remove your second amendment.
Muslim aid? And what exactly does that have to do with anything?
What I think is funny, in a tragic way that is, is that POTUS, MDA, HRC, et al…all say that Congess is afraid of the NRA and doing nothing. The reality is they are in fact, doing something. Both houses are GOP majority and they have been responding to the people that elected them, refusing to yield to the hysteria, fanned in no small part by the Divider in Chief. The NRA isn’t powerful because of gun manufacturers, it’s powerful because it has millions of members. Not Everytown/MDA millions, but millions of real people who support by paying dues and contibuting to NRA-ILA. That doesn’t included SAF, GOA and state/local organizations like TSRA.
So Mr. President, and those who share your view, Congress in doing something, which is representing the districts that elected them. So with all due respect, I hope 2016 leaves you just as frustrated as the previous 7 years.
It is time to use the 2nd amendment as intended.
Everybody has their line in the sand.
Enough already with the “Breaking! Obama’s maybe thinking about releasing an executive order sometime in the near-to-mid future” articles please. I’ve heard too much about how he’s getting ready to do something. That isn’t breaking news, especially at this point having heard the same basic things oh, four or five times now?
I wrote my congressman and senators asking them to be ready to legislate back anything he pens. Not a whole lot more to be done until then, and until he actually releases the orders all we’re hearing is rumor and speculation. I’ve about had my fill of it, thank you.
Somebody wake me up when he actually does something or tries to.
“i claim this grassy knoll by placing the national flag of jackarta.”
If Republicans are such great friends of gun owners why did they not pass the Rand Paul bill that bans the President from using executive orders on gun ban laws? The sad fact is that Republicans have used executive action far more times than Obama has and they know it. That is why they have not and will not move against him whenever he issues an executive order as they themselves want the privilege of executive order when they come to power. Politics makes strange bedfellows and the common man gets it right up the you know where every time on every issue.
It may become a lot more expensive to buy a gun at a gun show if the gun shows survive this new executive order depending on how severe it is. Paying a dealer to do paperwork at a show not only drives up the very high price guns are already selling at these days but also may result in no purchase at all considering the fact that the Background Check system will be so overwhelmed it will simply shut down on weekends during big gun shows or weekends with numerous shows all going on at the same time. This is exactly what the Government wants. When people pay huge amounts to rent a table and they have no sales because the system is shut down they may just not rent a table at the next show at all and when people must pay a dealer for a transfer when the price of the gun is already beyond their reach they may not even attend shows anymore.
I can see you have never attended a gun show.
Apparently never attended a civics class either. Congress can’t prevent a Pres from lawfully issuing appropriate EOs on any subject. And if the proposed legislation merely said “the Pres can’t issue any unlawful EO’s”–well, no, we already knew that, so what’s the point?
…and reducing/eliminating sales at Gun Shows is not a “bug”, it’s a “feature” to this president (and most hardcore lefties/Dems).
And the president will not be able to ensure compliance with his BS EO on guns period!
…which will be cold comfort to the few folks who DO get convicted of violating this absolutely useless law/regulation.
I am from Ohio, perhaps your neck of the woods is different. I have been to thousands of gun shows and here in Ohio it will drive about 95 per cent of the table holders out of the shows for good. If the law would have read you simply must go through a dealer it would not have closed the gun shows but putting a limit on the number of guns one can sell and then not being able to or wanting to get an F.F.L. will kill the shows here in Ohio pure and simple.
All of the gun shows I have attended over the past few years have had about zero private sellers with a table and only 1-2 with a gun to sell walking around. This won’t really affect gun shows.
Absolutely the opposite of my local experiences. Fully one-quarter to one-third of the vendors at the last two gunshows I attended were not licensed dealers, although many of them didn’t have more than 2-3 firearms for sale. We did notice fewer people walking around with guns for sale/trade, but we put that down to the political climate (not many folks are looking to sell guns going into a presidential election year; if anything, buying are buying).
The sad fact is that Republicans have used executive action far more times than Obama has and they know it.
Quantity of EO’s matters not a whit.
Historically, EO’s were intended to settle/clarify vague parts of laws and keep the machine of government moving.
In contrast BHO uses EO’s to un-constitutionally “Fundementally transform America” into a sheet hole.
Big difference.
If the background check system can handle volumes like we’ve seen the past couple of November/December holiday seasons, it can probably handle the extra thirty or forty checks per week that this pointless EO will generate…
The whole point of this will be to see if they can get away with it. I would expect them to start by defining “in the business” as a relatively high number, so only a few people will be affected. Then they’ll wait to see how it shakes out in court. If they win the inevitable lawsuit (their defense paid for with tax dollars, of course), they’ll just wait a bit, and then start ratcheting that number down.
An excellent point, well made.
“If Republicans are such great friends of gun owners why did they not pass the Rand Paul bill that bans the President from using executive orders on gun ban laws?”
Because Obama would veto it. To override it you need a 2/3 majority. Right now Congress is pretty evenly split so it would not happen with the Democrats rallying behind Obama to keep it from getting overridden.
It is called being a realist and why in the end President’s DO matter in how law is made.
Politicians promise the world especially Republicans when it comes to gun rights and one of the biggest Gun Ban laws came under Reagan when he banned the sale of new manufactured full auto weapons. Busch also stabbed gun owners in the back when it came to anti-gun laws.
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips
•Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia
•Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
•Supports law-abiding American’s constitutional right to own guns to protect their families and home
•Supports the current ban on automatic weapons
•Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips
•Supports voluntary safety locks
•Opposes government mandated registration of all guns owned by law abiding citizens
So in Conclusion when Obama destroys Gun Shows with his new gun ban laws do not expect Republicans to do anything at all about it. They talk tough but do nothing.
Headline says “executive orders” when the cited article, as do all the others, say “executive actions”. People should know there is a difference and that “actions” do not have the legal clout that “orders” do. We must remain vigilant but clear minded as well.
Sie kommen.
Under the law of unintended consequences, such an EO might result in a reversal of long standing ATF policies intended to drive “kitchen table” FFL’s out of the market. If under the EO, selling more than X number of guns makes me “in the business” then ATF will have no choice but to issue me an FFL if I hit that number.
I for one would be happy to apply for an FFL if I thought I could get it. Guns shipped to my door, ability to buy at Wholesale prices, etc, what’s not to love? Sure, I would be under more intense regulation as an FFL and subject to onsite inspections, etc., but combine an explosion in FFLs with ATF’s congressionally limited budget, and there is no way they could be jerks to everyone on an ongoing basis.
As an owner of numerous class 3 items anyway, I already have the Feds giving me the eye, so going all the way and getting an FFL wouldn’t be all that much worse. Plus, I could get an SOT endorsement and then be able to buy pre-1986 dealer samples at much lower costs than fully tranferable machine guns.
I’ve only been a POTG for a few years and I was trying to explain it to the wife these possible changes and I also began to realize that it seems that they would be un-doing all the kitchen-table purge that they did years ago.
Nobody in the ATF has the balls to tell the SCOAMF POTUS that….”Uhhhh…you’re undoing the work we did over the past years and increasing our workload by a shit-ton”.
You have to understand how a bureaucracy works. More work means more staff hired to do the work. BATF managers are now managing more staff so they get a pay-grade improvement with more salary and benefits. F-Troop then gets more money for the increased staff and promotions.
Staff-stacking was reportedly used at many BATF offices for managers to improve their pay grades.
Kinda depends on the way it’s written, doesn’t it? If it says the “seller must perform a background check”, then you may be right. If it says, “seller may not transfer without a background check”, they’ll just say that there are plenty of FFLs already who would be happy to perform the check for you for a fee.
We already have these “features” in Illinois. No sales without a background check/FOID card. NO gunshow “loophole”. Haven’t been to a gun show in 4 years anyway- and there were cops(secret ones too) hovering over everything(Indiana too). I was lucky to sell a pre-1890 junk revolver to a buddy. We’ll see…I’m betting THIS will fire up millions to vote Repub(I hope that helps!).
A possible unintended consequence of Obama’s anticipated redefinition of what constitutes being in the business of selling guns: people who sell guns at shows but were reluctant to apply for an FFL but now decide to get an FFL to avoid the hassles. There could be a large increase in the number of FFL’s and also a big increase in NICS checks. If Obama and BATFE were smart they would create a new class of FFL to cover “casual sellers” who “exploit the gun show loophole”; but don’t look for that to happen.
I am wondering if he will limit magazine capacity to 5 rounds and ban all semi-automatic rifles and pistols as well. If he demands every table holder at a gun show have an F.F.L. he could then deny licenses to anyone not zoned for business and restrict the number of licenses issued even to people who would qualify for one. When 90 per cent of tables in my area are non-dealers you can see that this would kill the gun shows instantly which is exactly what Obama and the anti-gun nuts have been praying for, for years.
Even if they allow table holders to send their buyers to a “dealer table” (which they may not) you will have to hope the ATF line does not shut down as it often does on high volume weekends and also if there is a hold on your request you simply do not get to buy your gun. If you are from out of state or simply at the far end of a State you are not about to drive several hundred miles to pick up your gun a few days later plus pay tax and if you do want it pay a horrendous shipping bill on the gun. In other words the hassle alone may eventually kill the gun shows altogether. I might add Obama may add a 3 to 5 day waiting period which would again kill the gun shows.
How soon people forget the big ATF purge of F.F.L. holders a few short years ago because they would not hire enough agents to inspect dealers. In some States dozens of gun shops closed simply to eliminate them to cut down on record keeping. Even the NRA was strangely silent on this and it was one of the biggest abuses of ATF power ever done. It seemed like everyone, pro-gun and anti-gun remained relatively mum about what happened. Local people simply saw gun store after gun store suddenly go out of business.
Kinda tells you the truth about the state of the army of resistance, doesn’t it?
Wishful thinking. The new law will have to be obeyed “or else” and as my Dad used to say during WWII when the Nazi’s told everyone “or else” everyone new what that meant.
Truly a Foundational article.
Comments are closed.