How to Close "The Loophole"... White House Style

The big question is, "can he get away with this?"

Executive orders are a murky and poorly-defined thing. They don't exist in the Constitution. We had a discussion here for anyone who wants to brush up.

Essentially, the President can't use them to make or alter law. That should stop this in its tracks. Yet, he's going ahead with it anyway.

A court challenge is inevitable, and SCOTUS hasn't been really fond of executive overreach. I'm not sure why the President thinks this will fly.

Even if it does, enforcement is going to be difficult at best.
 
A court challenge is inevitable, and SCOTUS hasn't been really fond of
executive overreach. I'm not sure why the President thinks this will fly.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to fly. It just has to threaten good people with criminal felony records long enough to "change the culture"
Even if it does, enforcement is going to be difficult at best.
Click to expand...
See above.
Thuggery its best.
 
It will probably take until after the next election to run anything down in court. I'm sure there will be some tie in with all the Democratic candidates so whoever gets the nomination can claim part of the victory while campaigning this year.
 
It will probably take until after the next election to run anything down in court.
Click to expand...
The timing strikes me as opportune. The President can ride out his last months claiming he "did something" about guns, and it won't be overturned until he's out.

It's callous and dishonest, but...
 
Tom Servo, I think you are close with the Pres being able to claim that he did something about guns, but it is more than that. Pretty much the sides are drawn as to who will support the Dems and the Repubs come the elections, but something like this will rally the Democratic base and get out the vote. I don't know that opposition to the antis will do that much to get out the Republican base.
 
I saw a debate about this issue on CNN a day or so ago and one of the commentators made an interesting comment. Basically due to changes in demographics and the way some groups see firearm ownership along with issues related to the Electoral College certain political parties no longer see pushing gun control as a negative. Apparently certain parties have made the calculation and feel that aggressively pushing gun control will actually help them win the White House.

This is something that we should all be very aware of and push our leaders and representatives to find ways to reach out to and educate all voters. While the NRA tends to support one political party because that party supports our position we need to remember some people will never vote for that party. So, can we find ways to educate all Americans and ultimately generate more support for the Second Amendment?
 
The time between election and swearing in ought to be interesting, considering what's already happened and what is speculated to happen. Busy,busy.
 
Apparently certain parties have made the calculation and feel that aggressively pushing gun control will actually help them win the White House.
Click to expand...
There are 5 really important swing states and two minor swing states. Florida and Ohio are two of the big election deciders. All of them seem to be areas that are either pro-gun or at least middle of the road. Ohio is by some measures the most important. Ohio has the longest swing state track record of going with the candidate elected(since 1960, or 13 elections). The gun issue gets votes here. Big votes. Not enough to push Sherrod Brown out the door, but enough to change a close election.
 
I think what must be understood is that there are a list of possible characteristics, no one being controlling, but some being given more weight than others, for example engaging in a regular business activity with the end of generating of profits. What I think will happen that the EO will set a "bright line" limit on the number of firearms transactions (other than estate sales).

For some states, including California, Washington and Oregon, the new EO will make no difference since these states have universal background checks. And in response to an earlier post, not all sellers are FFLs at gun shows; instead, one or more FFLs will set up a table at a show to perform all the background checks and to take possession of firearms during the mandatory ten day wait. In essence, it is treated as a face to face transaction performed at the FFL (for which the FFL charges whatever fee traffic will bear, at a minimum $75).
 
Yes, holding this 'town hall' at a liberal university in front of a cherry-picked audience of college students and 'concerned citizens' is really taking the message to the American people.

It's theater, folks, scripted and cued. No way this president would get up in front of a group of ordinary citizens and deliver his spiel.

Cue the disgusted NRA member who doesn't think anyone should hunt deer with an AK47 in....one, two, three...

Follow that up with the teary emotional plea about gun violence in Chicago, then a demand for common-sense gun laws like confiscation, bans, etc.,

Then follow that with the president saying, 'Well, we can't do that, we have a 2nd Amendment, you know, but we can do what I'm going to do', just as soon as we get enough camera footage we can play over and over this week.
 
Pretty poor timing on the Oregon boy's part, wasn't it? They knew about this gun push, too, the whole country did.

About as smart as carrying your AR15 in Walmart.
 
My take on all this.

I'm still not concrete on what's being proposed yet but if it is the 50 gun sales a year makes you an FFL I don't really see that being such a bad thing.

It defines a number @ 50 vs the ATF discretion as of now.

It may actually help keep some guns out of the hands of criminals.. Touchy subject but the same freedom that allows me to sell my rifle to my neighbor the same as a toaster puts guns into the hands of criminals.

How many? IMO some but i'd bet most are stolen. Do the guys selling 50+ guns a year without doing background checks inadvertantly increase odds of selling to a criminal? I think so.

I understand this may hurt that one guy you always see at the gun show but I do honestly think that guy is skirting restrictions already in place anyway.

I think i've noticed a general turnaround from blame the gun to blame the person. People still don't see through the media BS and think they live in some post apocalyptic wasteland even though shootings are down.

I know many people who most would consider liberal who have bought a gun just for the sake of "can't beat them join them". In the last year i've known about 10 people to do this.

Either way there's just too much pressure from society to "do something" even though most don't know what that is. If this is IT then i'd chalk that up to a win(the chip away at a right argument is very valid).

I'll take it further and i'd personally like to see some give/take gun control.

Give
Open up the NCIS background check system to the public($5 charge/fully funded and staffed)
Sign up for an electronic ID number
All gun sales require a background check even FTF sales. Streamlined of course.

Damn I can feel the glaring laser beam eyes from you guys through the internet for saying that :D.

Liberals get what they want, closing the "gun show loophole" and I legitimately think it would make a difference in everyday crime(IE not mass shootings). Someone that hell bent on indiscriminately killing will find a way PERIOD.

Now the take part...
Remove the tax stamp on suppressors and fund the program for reasonable wait times(under 3 months).
Keep the background check and maybe even purchase in store through the NCIS system.

Made it arguably more difficult for a bad guy to get a gun and good guys who can already legally shoot on their property can do so without annoying anyone.

I just don't see why someone at the NRA couldn't present this give take type of "negotiation" to gun control. I'm against gun control totally but we live in a reality where its been in place for a very long time and not going anywhere...

I know anyone who bothers to read this will probably disagree and flame me to oblivion and maybe I deserve it.. Its just one a-holes honest opinion in 300+ million.
 
I understand the desire to seem cooperative and look for some real answers. I could probably support a mandatory background check on all transactions at a gun show thus closing the infamous Gun Show Loophole.

However, not sure how we could ever enforce a mandatory background check on face-2-face sells without a national registry. Also, since every study I’ve seen shows that bad guys get their guns from acquaintances or theft not sure it would reduce crime.

As for opening up access to the background check system to everyone I can understand the allure of that. However, what are the privacy issues involved? Would everyone start checking up on their neighbors? Does it matter? I will admit it concerns me to some extent.
 
Does the NCIS check give you info or just yes/no?

The scenario I must made up in my head would use dl number which I thought to be private but setting up a member id/pin shouldn't be difficult. You'd have to have that info to start.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone who is disqualified from firearm ownership wouldn't be well aware of local gun sale websites or gun shows being a great source to buy a gun off the books.

I do know that a background check for ftf sales wouldn't affect me much and most people are asking to see a ccw permit anyway which in a way steps on what's being fought against.

Data is data though.


Good point.

When faced with millions demanding something be done you can bet something regardless of effect will be done. I'm just saying at least its this not that.

The other background check stuff was just conjecture about crime.
 
Hmm...if I sell stuff at a yard sale once a month, am I "in the business" of selling clothing, tools, lawn equipment, firearms, furniture, toys, books, tapes, etc.? I think not...but then again it would not surprise me to see governments at all levels jump at the chance to get a cut of private yard sales and flea markets.

I'll be interested to see how he is going to approach this. If he puts a number...say 50 guns a year...as defining "in the business", how are they going to prove it? Are they going to monitor the sales of each and every private individual and collector at gun shows, flea markets and yard sales? I can see it now...even more BATF creeps slithering around the gun shows, recording each and every sale they can from the private sellers...making a list, checking it twice, giving the perp walk to those who are naughty and not nice.

Imagine the uproar if we started requiring background checks on the sales of cars, legal drugs, chain saws, knives, etc....and started requiring licenses to sell them. Imagine the uproar if we required background checks to register to vote.
 
Last edited:
chimo said:
I'll be interested to see how he is going to approach this. If he puts a number...say 50 guns a year...as defining "in the business", how are they going to prove it? Are they going to monitor the sales of each and every private individual and collector at gun shows, flea markets and yard sales?
Click to expand...

How else would they close the "garage sale loophole"?

mr.wesson said:
I'll take it further and i'd personally like to see some give/take gun control.
Click to expand...

In practice, this will be you giving up pieces of your rights while those who don't care for the right set up to take more of the right.

mr.wesson said:
I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone who is disqualified from firearm ownership wouldn't be well aware of local gun sale websites or gun shows being a great source to buy a gun off the books.
Click to expand...

What "local gun sale website" facilitates non-ffl transfers?

Do we assume that a disqualified person hasn't any friends with a firearm?

mr.wesson said:
I do know that a background check for ftf sales wouldn't affect me much and most people are asking to see a ccw permit anyway which in a way steps on what's being fought against.
Click to expand...

If this hasn't much of an effect on you, why would you reasonably expect it to have much of an effect on anyone else? If most private sellers are requiring a ccw permit (this seems a very odd thing to request), and a disqualified person would not have a ccw, then an NCIS check is redundant, and adds expense and inconvenience.

mr.wesson said:
Give
Open up the NCIS background check system to the public($5 charge/fully funded and staffed)
Sign up for an electronic ID number
All gun sales require a background check even FTF sales. Streamlined of course.
Click to expand...

So, to purchase a firearm, an integral part of exercising a fundamental constitutional right, a person needs to sign up for an electronic ID number, needs to possess the means to instantly transfer $5 to a government account, and undergo a background check with his personal information communicated to the seller?

Does that seem streamlined to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top