Obama seeks to extend background checks without Congressional authority

K

KyJim

New member
The AP reports that the Obama White House is "finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval." No direct word on what this will mean but there is a hint later in the story: "White House officials have said they're exploring closing the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check."

There seems to be little that Obama can do legally to extend background checks except perhaps to include more who will be considered dealers. That has been discussed here previously. If they could do more legally, it seems they would have already done it. Otherwise, if I were an anti-2A Obama supporter, I would be ticked for not doing something years ago.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...OME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-10-12-31-0
 
There goes our Curio and Relic licenses, sounds like.

They must be expanding the definition of a dealer to include anyone selling guns at a show, private sales are exempt by federal law unless state law is in place requiring a check.
 
There's still a loophole unless EVERY gun is registered today. Oh, they're not!
And that's if it goes through and doesn't get kicked out by a challenge.
Tough luck Obama.
 
They could simply require all sales at a Gun Show go through a background check. We all know that currently most do, but a few by “hobbyist” don’t. So, now all transactions within the building require a background check. Does it reduce gun violence? No, but he can tell the faithful that he “did something” and mark it off his agenda.
 
Just pure propaganda,
"White House officials have said they're exploring closing the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check."
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they leave the part out that when you pick up you internet purchase from the dealer you go through the background check and for the gun show nonsense the BATFE states that personal sales are legal. If only they would tell it properly. Just wad it up and twist it around to suit your needs and point of view
 
this is obama doing something without actually doing anything. the left and right will argue about it while we get to sit in the back and be happy that obama cant actually do anything (ie ban guns)
 
According to the article linked to in the OP, all that's happening is:
...White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review "in short order."....
Click to expand...

So Obama has asked for a proposal, some folks are working on one. So no one knows what it will be, whether it will be legal or doable, or whether it will go anywhere. In other words, the AP picked this up from a press release issued by the White House to convince people that something is going on.

And, "The check is in the mail."
 
The regulation being contemplated is actually the attempt to redefine "engaged in the business of selling firearms" as a specific number. What is interesting here is how the spin machine has been directed at gun control supporters now instead of gun owners or fence sitters.

They are describing this as "extending background checks" and "closing the gun show loophole" - which makes it look to his base like this action is a lot more significant than it is.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The regulation being contemplated is actually the attempt to redefine "engaged in the business of selling firearms" as a specific number.
Click to expand...
Do you have a published source for that?

Most of what I've seen so far has been speculation.
 
The scope of executive orders is murky but limited. The courts have found they can't be used to enact laws.

In a way, I'd like to see the President overreach in this manner. It would give SCOTUS a chance to elaborate on the exact limits of executive power.

On the face...no, he can't alter or extend the law in such a way.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The regulation being contemplated is actually the attempt to redefine "engaged in the business of selling firearms" as a specific number. What is interesting here is how the spin machine has been directed at gun control supporters now instead of gun owners or fence sitters.

They are describing this as "extending background checks" and "closing the gun show loophole" - which makes it look to his base like this action is a lot more significant than it is.
Click to expand...

Redefining "engaged in the business" appears to be a likely approach based on public discussion of that topic. Members of both the House and the Senate have sent letters to Obama requesting such a redefinition. NBC reported the administration was considering a definition with a threshold of 50 or 100 gun sales a year. Bloomberg's Everytown group has advocated a threshold of 25 gun sales a year for guns that had not been owned for at least a year.
 
IF this idea of his becomes effective by executive order, what can be done to undo that, and is it likely to be done before the end of Obama's term?

I know there's at least one attorney on this thread. Perhaps they could explain what would happen next?
 
Since this would require people to self report, it's kind of a joke. It would be almost impossible to figure out if someone sold X amount of guns a year unless they kept records of the sales or sold a large quantity to government officials.
 
"So Obama has asked for a proposal, some folks are working on one. So no one knows what it will be, whether it will be legal or doable, or whether it will go anywhere. In other words, the AP picked this up from a press release issued by the White House to convince people that something is going on."

It's pretty shameful, actually; I've literally seen no elaboration on this story beyond the exact quoted AP text. And the actual text sounds suspiciously like a brush-off by Jarrett ("We've got top men working this. Top. Men.")

The fact is, the Prez' hands are basically tied on this front, by constitutional design. The kind of public policy directive he seeks, and has promised, simply cannot be delivered through bureaucratic channels alone.

So the real question, is what is he actually going to do, that he will turn around and state is a closure of loopholes/etc. ? I suspect the obscure NFA rule change "41p" being pitched (to require people transferring NFA items via trust/corp to submit to personal background checks/prints/LEO signoff/etc) was either supposed to be this action, or part of it. The regulation specifically states it is at the behest of an executive order, after all. The only problem, is that it clearly flies in the face of trust and corporate law, and is the very definition of biting off more than can be chewed.

I believe setting a firm number on the number of transfers allowed in a year is similarly doomed in any sort of court battle, since there's decades of precedent clearly stating that intent is the violation, and 49 vs. 50 gun sales cannot be argued to be the marker of intent that could be present at any number up to that. And more practically, the ATF wants no such preconditions tying their hands, when it comes to picking and choosing their battles. Selective enforcement is basically the only way they've managed to avoid getting the NFA/GCA from being overturned so far. Such a ruling might force them into pushing a prosecution they really don't want to follow to its conclusion *cough* Cody Wilson *cough*

TCB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top