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

From the link above:

"First, it must be noted that what was issued yesterday was not, in fact, an
“executive order” by the President, but merely an “executive
guidance” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE).
The portion of the policy change related to the “gun show loophole” states
explicitly on its second page: “The guidance set forth herein has no regulatory
effect … ” Further, at least part of that guidance (the portion addressing
changes to rules for NFA items, such as machine guns) will not even take
effect until 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, and it’s not
clear that step has even been taken as yet.

The die is already cast in its effect to chill the free exchange of privately-owned weapons between individuals -- something most definitely outside federal purview until this time. Yes it will be challenged in court. Yes it might be rescinded if a "Republican" is elected. But it's portent of change as to Big Brother's reach down to the very core of just one exchange of one weapon by one individual -- by the Attorney General herself no less -- cannot be ignored.

Moreover it has lent its banner to whipping the disarmament mob in the streets into a frenzy -- for now they have the very realistic bureaucratic language, the very specific target, the concrete goal, the sine qua non of national control at the very lowest level... to rally around.

Never underestimate the power of that combination, especially with the only check against it -- the Congress -- demonstrably powerless to stop a man who will simply veto/ignore any legislation against it.
 
The most touted "new regulation"...erm...I mean guidance, is the closing of the gun" show loophole" of buying guns without background checks. The irony of it, he's standing there at his press conference pouring out his crocodile tears, all the while standing next to his right hand man who previously proclaimed that they "don't have time" to enforce the existing background check laws.

:rolleyes:
 
Irony is irony, but the abject cynicism of using the parents of children slaughtered by a madman as stage props and living emoticons to make his proposals palatable to the American public, all the while knowing damn well that nothing he was doing would have or could have kept their children alive, to me is the most venal and disgusting display of political science at it's worst.
 
K, you aren't the only other person I've read express that sentiment. I saw it replayed on tv; conspicuous to me was Biden in the background. I wondered whether there might have been a bit of him (who lost an adult son recently) opposed to the pretense of emotional incontinence.

Perhaps it says nothing good about me that I am beyond being personally offended by this sort of manipulation, but it did strike me as more egregious than the prior shabby behavior to which I had grown accustomed.
 
Anti-gun lawmakers raised the cost of a Federal Firearms License from $10 to $200 in order to shut down small, part-time dealers. It worked and thousands of dealers didn’t renew their licenses. Now Obama wants all the small, part-time dealers to get licenses? Seriously?
Excellent. Let’s all do that. Let’s add a few hundred thousand dealers to the total and see how well the BATFE deals with it.
Obama’s strategy has the potential to backfire in a major way.
I urge everyone to invest $200 in helping it along.
Apply for your very own FFL today!
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license
 
President Obama Claims Felons Can Buy Guns On Line.

So what are the rules/regulations at the federal level for Internet sales? I know all handguns used to require involvement of a FFL at the buyer's location for Internet sales, and I seem to recall that was also put in place for long guns. Is that only if the transaction were to cross state lines, or does it apply to ALL transactions. Bottom line question: Could a private seller sell a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, over the Internet, to a buyer without a background check ever being done on the buyer prior to Obama's recent Executive Actions? That is what the gun control supporters have been claiming, that felons could buy guns on line without a background check, from a private seller.
 
Depending on what state, you can sell a gun face to face to another person without a back ground check. The seller can advertise the gun on an internet site ( such as this one). That's what is legally allowed. Somebody just boxing up a gun after getting a check and sending it to the buyer has been illegal for sometime.

So I guess that is the angle they are trying to play up.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, buying a gun over the internet is not click-to-order and ship to your door as the President implied, which is already illegal unless C&R, but responding to a Craigslist ad. So his internet purchases are really face to face.

Another lie.
 
CNN is really “All-In” for this so called Town Hall propaganda fest they are sponsoring with Mr. Obama. I noticed they are running a countdown timer on their station as if it were the Super Bowl or some legitimate big event. I suspect we had better get ready for a major onslaught from Obama, Clinton, the wealthy oligarchs and of course the purveyors of honesty in the media.
 
Countdowns, musical fanfares, announcements in bass and baritone voices, are all tricks from the Goebbels years, they are intended to elicit the emotion or feeling that what will follow is important, and good citizens will pay heed to it.
 
I'll bet that the "pro-2nd Amendment" people in the audience will be Fudd types, i.e. the, "I was raised hunting and I own guns, and I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but..." I also bet the questions will all be pre-selected, so that no one can just be called on and then call Obama on much of the bull he spouts about the subject.
 
Now Obama wants all the small, part-time dealers to get licenses? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Here's the problem: the ATF won't grant licenses to the people this bill requires to get them.

The actual application for an FFL is here [pdf]. Skip down to question 18a:

Do you intend to sell firearms only at gun shows? If yes, do not submit application.
Click to expand...

So, yeah. Let that sink in. This is a regulatory scheme to use vague legalese ("engaged in the business") to prosecute people who have no way of complying with it.
 
Tom Servo: This reminds me of the old Washington DC law before Heller. In order to have a firearm it must be registered. Handguns cannot be registered, therefore.......
 
I am on the fence as to whether or not universal background checks are a good idea "in principle", but if Tom Servo is correct and the catch 22 is that you will be required to be licensed, but cannot get a license, it's a different story.

I was trying tg objectively listen to Obama, and it did seem that he was evasive and didn't really answer direct questions. For instance, when asked if he wanted to take guns away, he never said that he didn't. Instead he talked about how the shoot trap at Camp David and that he has been in office for 7 years and hasn't taken them away and he isn't going to do so in the last year.

Then when the rape victim voiced her concerns about whether she would be able to get a handgun to defend herself, the President said she still could. Shortly thereafter he let it slip that the cost of universal background checks will reduce gun sales.

Still, in principle I think background checks are fine, but I think this dog and pony show is designed to smother legitimate gun rights concerns.
 
In order to have a firearm it must be registered. Handguns cannot be registered, therefore...
Click to expand...
Yep. When the law passed, Mayor Washington immediately ordered the police not to issue any permits. The end result was a ban in principle, but not in name. The effect was exactly the same.

Still, in principle I think background checks are fine
Click to expand...
I'm going to put you on the spot on this one. Why do you think they're fine? So far, we have no evidence that they reduce crime or violence. When someone breaks the law, they are almost never prosecuted.

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that false denials and delays inconvenience people to a large degree.

It may be that we've had the concept of background checks for nearly a generation, and we're just used to them. That's no excuse, though. They're an ineffective and obtrusive form of prior restraint that we'd never accept if they were applied to any other enumerated right.

And trust me, they were (and are) the first step towards registration.
 
Tom Servo:
I'm going to put you on the spot on this one. Why do you think they're fine? So far, we have no evidence that they reduce crime or violence. When someone breaks the law, they are almost never prosecuted.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, I suspect if you pointed that out to someone who believes in gun control and background checks, they might point to the fact that since the Brady Law went into effect, (94?), violent crime has dropped. Never mind the fact that argument would seem to negate the need for more gun control, but that never stopped them in the past. They completely ignore the fact that there are more guns in civilian hands today, more gun owners, and more people carry in public, yet violent crime, including crime where guns are involved, is at 40 year lows. The President had to admit that, sort of, during his town hall.
 
they might point to the fact that since the Brady Law went into effect, (94?), violent crime has dropped.
Click to expand...
They made that mistake with the Assault Weapons Ban. The ban was in effect from 1994-2004. If you measure violent crime rates, they did drop during that period.

However, it's disingenuous to claim that's the whole story. In fact, our violent crime rates were already dropping in the mid-1980's, and they plummeted sharply after 1990. They are still dropping.

Many societal factors have been suggested, but to claim the Brady Bill or AWB had something to do with it...that would involve time travel or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top