Gun Control - Lawless President at Work Decree Making Again, oh joy!

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Few issues gets our eternal partisan campaigner and lavish DECREE maker, in a rage quite like gun control. In an ad-lib speech today the angry, sarcastic, and disdainful "leader" was doing his best to contain heartfelt emotions, as well as channeling "der Fuhrer's" ranting. It was a roller coaster of emotion, issuing demands and promising legal decrees (er actually agency "clarifications"). He Wow.

Perhaps Obama's anger was further fueled by someone giving him a semi-reality check to his unquenchable ambitions because the promised controls turned out, for the most part, to be pretty tepid stuff. No extended magazine ban, banning firearms to those on the no-fly list, etc. What happened to check, with perhaps one exception, his otherwise imperial sentimentality?

Several days ago, Eric Schultz reported “...he [Obama] has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively.” Apparently Obama didn't want to know what was lawful, and then to examine his options. Nope, he knew what his "options" should be and he wanted his staff to "scrub (or scour?) the law to find a way to provide a fig leaf of legal authority for an unconstitutional/illegal decree.

So what happened? I suspect Obama got strong push back from some legal advisers and/or there is a growing awareness that Obama's unconstitutional imperial 'orders' might start generating political damage in an election year.

In any event, as dear leader has been unclear on one talking point, that of defining a "gun dealer". White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks - clearly an attempt to drive hobbyists from doing business. (It takes a YEAR just to complete the process of getting a gun license).

We shall see - in the meantime, its pretty clear that his actions could be unlawful if pushed too far.

PS: Original Edited to be fairer to Obama. After all, this may be the first time I have seen him show real empathy over human tragedy (well, other than when playing the race card).

Wow!

The Founding Fathers must be telling their slaves to turn them over in their graves right now.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This goes all the way to the top folks!

http://www.theonion.com/article/oba...Marketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus

 

[Rhea]

You may have guns, Truasti, but is your house properly sandbagged and is your family properly drilled for the warfare you must think is coming? I feel a lot of this addiction to owning guns is a kind of sick nostalgia for bygone days. Do you really feel there are people hunting you with guns? The wild west is gone. Cut the drama.

I don't own guns. But I strongly support the natural right of people to defend themselves. Governments come and go. Police are unreliable. That some are irresponsible doesn't mean all should suffer derogation of rights.

So then what's with the stupid claim of hypocrisy via comparison between people Obama wants to have background checked and all the secret service who ARE background checked?

Your rant makes no sense. His exec order is about background checks. All his staff has background checks.

And there's no "natural right" to "defend yourself" with such a dangerous object. We can't have rocket launchers. Why not? Because they are too dangerous and our liberty does not require them. Grow up.

- - - Updated - - -

You may have guns, Truasti, but is your house properly sandbagged and is your family properly drilled for the warfare you must think is coming? I feel a lot of this addiction to owning guns is a kind of sick nostalgia for bygone days. Do you really feel there are people hunting you with guns? The wild west is gone. Cut the drama.

I have guns, bible and a fence. I think I properly qualify as living on a compound.

Now I just need to convince my wife that we need to start recruiting nubile 16 year old girls for our fledgling cult.

Yeah, well I have guns, bible, fence AND multiple outbuildings all painted the same color, surrounded by a clear field of fire for 1000 feet.


And I like Obama's new proposals.

 

[Jayjay]

In any event, as dear leader has been unclear on one talking point, that of defining a "gun dealer". White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks - clearly an attempt to drive hobbyists from doing business. (It takes a YEAR just to complete the process of getting a gun license).

If they are "hobbyists", why are they "doing business", and vice versa?

To me it sounds like Obama is just attempting to close an obvious loophole of straw purchases for "hobbyists". And the gun manufacturer lobby is getting their panties in a bunch.

 

[maxparrish]

In any event, as dear leader has been unclear on one talking point, that of defining a "gun dealer". White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks - clearly an attempt to drive hobbyists from doing business. (It takes a YEAR just to complete the process of getting a gun license).

If they are "hobbyists", why are they "doing business", and vice versa?

To me it sounds like Obama is just attempting to close an obvious loophole of straw purchases for "hobbyists". And the gun manufacturer lobby is getting their panties in a bunch.

Why? Because many kinds of hobbyists and collectors "do business": buying, selling, exchanging items of interests (ranging from comic books to guns and cars). This so-called loophole (exception) for seller responsible background checks was written into the law for obvious reasons - the authors saw that as a practical matter requiring background checks would make occasional sales or trades from private citizens would be difficult and expensive (as it would if the same were required for any other kind of collecting).

Hence under federal law anyone who is only those "engaged in the business" must have a federal firearms license, and by law ONLY those with said license are allowed to do a background check. (I.E., it is a protected "guild"). While Congress clearly intended to apply background check requirements only to those who pursue gun sales as a substantial part of their “livelihoods.”, there is no "bright line" of how that is determined.

So the law is ripe for abuse by the gun haters; the most devious route being to "require background checks" from private parties who, by law, can't do background checks. And, since the Clinton administration, the ATF has intentionally made it difficult to obtain a federal license (aside from the expense, it takes a year to process) this is an opportunity to chill or close down ALL informal sales.

Obama's call for expanded background checks may have little to do with actual background checks, rather it may be a pretext to make private sales difficult or impossible.

We shall see.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

You may have guns, Truasti, but is your house properly sandbagged and is your family properly drilled for the warfare you must think is coming? I feel a lot of this addiction to owning guns is a kind of sick nostalgia for bygone days. Do you really feel there are people hunting you with guns? The wild west is gone. Cut the drama.

The "wild west" is gone in North Hollywood, CA.. and in the 7 or 8 major cities around the very far edges of this vast country. Us city slickers represent about "fuck all" percent of the people in the US. It makes no sense to allow guns on the downtown F train in Manhattan, but in 99% of the other places across this vast and diverse country it is fine, in my opinion. My point, is that our opinions (as city folk), are far from representative of the vast majority of people of this country.

The vast majority of people in this country ARE city folk. It's the rural folk who represent, in your words, 'fuck all' (less than 20%). Did you mix up centuries?

 

[bleubird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

 

[bigfield]

Now I just need to convince my wife that we need to start recruiting nubile 16 year old girls for our fledgling cult.

I had that conversation with my wife. It didn't go very well.

If you're successful with it, give me some tips for how you went about it so that I can bring the subject up again.

Probably shouldn't have brought it up immediately after she said 'no' to anal.

 

[RavenSky]

If he was sincere, he'd disarm the secret service and security at the White House. Kinda hypocritical that he can have guns for his and his family's protection but the hoi polloi can't.

Kinda weird that you're worried about something not even being addressed in these executive orders.

Yep

 

[repoman]

So, can a governor block by force any implementation of this executive order?

 

[maxparrish]

So, can a governor block by force any implementation of this executive order?

No. But actually his executive action, for the only controversial part, is not going to be an executive order. Nor will it be a formal regulatory action (which would require a process of hearings, etc.). Rather, there will be new guidance on the definition in the law on what activities the ATF considers to be "in the business" of gun sales.

"Guidance" documents are informal, but serve as a warning to the private market that they may be subject to prosecution and may be intended as a chilling affect. As it is still unclear if the new guidance will comport (or disagree) with prior court opinions the impact is unknown.

And, no doubt, if anyone is prosecuted under a substantially new 'guidance' there will be a court fight.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And, no doubt, if anyone is prosecuted under a substantially new 'guidance' there will be a court fight.

A shoot out would be more American.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Few issues gets our eternal partisan campaigner and lavish DECREE maker, in a rage quite like gun control. In an ad-lib speech today the angry, sarcastic, and disdainful "leader" was doing his best to contain heartfelt emotions, as well as channeling "der Fuhrer's" ranting. It was a roller coaster of emotion, issuing demands and promising legal decrees (er actually agency "clarifications"). He Wow.

Perhaps Obama's anger was further fueled by someone giving him a semi-reality check to his unquenchable ambitions because the promised controls turned out, for the most part, to be pretty tepid stuff. No extended magazine ban, banning firearms to those on the no-fly list, etc. What happened to check, with perhaps one exception, his otherwise imperial sentimentality?

Several days ago, Eric Schultz reported “...he [Obama] has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively.” Apparently Obama didn't want to know what was lawful, and then to examine his options. Nope, he knew what his "options" should be and he wanted his staff to "scrub (or scour?) the law to find a way to provide a fig leaf of legal authority for an unconstitutional/illegal decree.

So what happened? I suspect Obama got strong push back from some legal advisers and/or there is a growing awareness that Obama's unconstitutional imperial 'orders' might start generating political damage in an election year.

In any event, as dear leader has been unclear on one talking point, that of defining a "gun dealer". White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks - clearly an attempt to drive hobbyists from doing business. (It takes a YEAR just to complete the process of getting a gun license).

We shall see - in the meantime, its pretty clear that his actions could be unlawful if pushed too far.

PS: Original Edited to be fairer to Obama. After all, this may be the first time I have seen him show real empathy over human tragedy (well, other than when playing the race card).

 

[Malintent]

The "wild west" is gone in North Hollywood, CA.. and in the 7 or 8 major cities around the very far edges of this vast country. Us city slickers represent about "fuck all" percent of the people in the US. It makes no sense to allow guns on the downtown F train in Manhattan, but in 99% of the other places across this vast and diverse country it is fine, in my opinion. My point, is that our opinions (as city folk), are far from representative of the vast majority of people of this country.

The vast majority of people in this country ARE city folk. It's the rural folk who represent, in your words, 'fuck all' (less than 20%). Did you mix up centuries?

Hmm... according to Wikipedia, the top 132 densest areas (the densest communities in the US*) total less than 20 million people. the US population last year was just short of 319 million. so, the people who live in the densest places in the US represent about 6.27% of the total. 6.27 is not "Fuck All"?
OK... but which century are YOU talking about???

* dense versus not dense was determined by population densities of over 10,000 people per square mile.


We can nitpick on elements of these numbers, but the point is that different gun laws make sense for different places in this country, and that the most dense areas should not have laws that are designed for the least dense areas and vice versa.