President's Gun Control Proposals
- Thread starter hogdogs
- Start date
Understood and I wish you and your fellow citizens the best.
I know many hunters are concerned and engaged. However, I have many friends and family that hunt, but just don’t seem concerned. We need all gun owners to wake up and see what has happened in New York and what could happen other places.
armoredman
New member
No, I don't think it's the magazines they want most of all, it's the newest of buzz terms - "universal background checks", which is NewSpeak for "no more private sales", and the stepping stone to registration. Current background checks do not call in serial numbers, just "handgun or long gun", but that could change with an EO addressing existing law, I think. Then remove the ability to skip the background check with a state issued CCW permit, and whammo, universal background checks for all, and private sales eliminated.
One guy said, "it's still a private sale, you selling to someone else!", and my response is, "if the government insists on knowing everything going on, there's nothing 'private' about it"
One guy said, "it's still a private sale, you selling to someone else!", and my response is, "if the government insists on knowing everything going on, there's nothing 'private' about it"
Let's knock that foolishness off once and for all.
There are plenty of hunters who support the whole of the RKBA. There are also plenty of "tactical" guys who couldn't care less about draconian new background-check measures or preserving hunting lands so long as they get to keep their hi-cap magazines.
And there are far too many gun owners of all stripes who can't even be troubled to vote. The silly stereotypes only serve to turn folks against each other at a time we really need unity.
spacecoast
New member
After hearing Cuomo's pathetic rant against "assault weapons" and his claim that "nobody uses them for hunting" I wonder how many hunters inundated his office with pictures of the deer, hogs, etc. that they have taken with just such firearms. There must be millions of such pictures.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
I read between the lines and saw that Obama is treating Doctors and healthcare professionals as employees of the government.
What i really fear for now, is for when any more laws are passed by legislation, what his NEW EOs will be...
What i really fear for now, is for when any more laws are passed by legislation, what his NEW EOs will be...
armoredman
New member
Yes, yes he is, and that IS scary - remember how anti the AMA is.
#1 and #6 both concern me greatly.
#6 because this is about private sale of firearms requiring background checks. Depending on how this is implemented it could result in effectively registering every firearm in the country as it may also include all transfers including gifts, inheritance, etc. It would take time, but within a generation or two, they would have a listing of everyone who "legally owns a gun".
#1, because there are alot of Federal Agencies like;
IRS, are you in money trouble, stress means no gun for you today.
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), got a relative who is not a citizen, No gun for you.
DoD, any problems during military service, PTSD?, minor sscrape with your CO, "who was a jerk by the way", No gun for you.
Bankruptcy court, Sorry Sir, you are a bad risk, No gun for you.
Commerce Department, Sir, do you have business dealings in other countries?
US House and US Senate, Have you ever sent a nasty letter to a Congressman?
OK, some of these may be over the top but you do get the idea.
#6 because this is about private sale of firearms requiring background checks. Depending on how this is implemented it could result in effectively registering every firearm in the country as it may also include all transfers including gifts, inheritance, etc. It would take time, but within a generation or two, they would have a listing of everyone who "legally owns a gun".
#1, because there are alot of Federal Agencies like;
IRS, are you in money trouble, stress means no gun for you today.
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), got a relative who is not a citizen, No gun for you.
DoD, any problems during military service, PTSD?, minor sscrape with your CO, "who was a jerk by the way", No gun for you.
Bankruptcy court, Sorry Sir, you are a bad risk, No gun for you.
Commerce Department, Sir, do you have business dealings in other countries?
US House and US Senate, Have you ever sent a nasty letter to a Congressman?
OK, some of these may be over the top but you do get the idea.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
rickyrick said:
I don't see too much danger here from executive orders per se. Given that the 1968 GCA established the criteria for prohibited persons, it would take an Act of Congress to change them -- all the AG can do is make recommendations/propose changes. As Glenn pointed out, the political makeup of Congress makes it pretty unlikely that they'll pass significant extensions of existing laws.Tom Servo said:
I'm not too troubled by the mental-health reporting stuff, for the same reason. Clarifying, even broadening, what health-care personnel can do in terms of reporting won't change the criteria established by 18 USC 922, which restricts who is reprted to the Feds to anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been [involuntarily] committed to any mental institution." Both involve action by a court, otherwise known as "due process."
If Congress were to pass a law altering this requirement, so as to allow people to be disqualified on the say-so of health-care workers, that would be an egregious violation of 5th Amendment rights, and would, I believe, be immediately challenged in court.
There's also nothing wrong with finding ways to make states do what they're already required to do in terms of reporting commitments etc. to the FBI. State privacy laws and lack of funding for adequate record-keeping are most of the problem there.
On the other hand, encouraging mental health workers to do what, at least in my state, they're already required to do, i.e. report anyone whom they believe to be an immediate danger to themselves or others, is a fairly good idea.
The other EOs around mental health are basically about making treatment more accessible, which is a fine idea, but takes money...
Last edited:
Yes, add #4 to #s 1 and 6.
Just because they break these orders down individually do not fail to see the combined effect of the whole.
And of course the nullifying argument that the only reason the 2nd amendment was written was either to arm the militia, meaning "National guard and Reserves", or to hunt/target shoot.
We know this is not the case. the 2nd amendment was put in place so that the people could ultimately guarantee their own freedom.
Just because they break these orders down individually do not fail to see the combined effect of the whole.
And of course the nullifying argument that the only reason the 2nd amendment was written was either to arm the militia, meaning "National guard and Reserves", or to hunt/target shoot.
We know this is not the case. the 2nd amendment was put in place so that the people could ultimately guarantee their own freedom.
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibi
What is intent of this EO if it were to get worked into a future gun control law? Could open the door to mass gun confiscation just from pyschiatrists reporting a so called past mental illness to authortities. Mentall illness definitions are subjective to begin with and if incorporated into new gun control measures could bring about large bans against firearms ownership. If an AWB can't be enacted into law as they want, a trojan horse like this could be one way for them to accomplish something similar.
What is intent of this EO if it were to get worked into a future gun control law? Could open the door to mass gun confiscation just from pyschiatrists reporting a so called past mental illness to authortities. Mentall illness definitions are subjective to begin with and if incorporated into new gun control measures could bring about large bans against firearms ownership. If an AWB can't be enacted into law as they want, a trojan horse like this could be one way for them to accomplish something similar.
If one accepts that registration of every privately owned firearm is a necessary step preparatory to seizing all privately owned firearms then would you still be unconcerned that in order to sell "or transfer" a privately owned firearm to any other individual that you must "report" the sale to the federal government?
The only way they can ensure compliance is if all the guns you own are registered even if registration is given a different name.
And Apom, this isn't just a requirement for you to be screened if you buy a privately owned firearm, it's a requirement for the seller to perform the screening which includes you if you wish to sell a gun to someone else. Almost certainly at your own private cost.
But as soon as you add the word transfer, money and sales go out the window and gifts and Dad's old shotgun being passed down after he goes walks in the front door.
There can be many reasons one might object to this and suggesting that I have a criminal record is slanderous sir. I am by far removed from such a thing and resent your comment personally.
Of course if you wish to retract your veiled slur I would be inclined to accept
The only way they can ensure compliance is if all the guns you own are registered even if registration is given a different name.
And Apom, this isn't just a requirement for you to be screened if you buy a privately owned firearm, it's a requirement for the seller to perform the screening which includes you if you wish to sell a gun to someone else. Almost certainly at your own private cost.
But as soon as you add the word transfer, money and sales go out the window and gifts and Dad's old shotgun being passed down after he goes walks in the front door.
There can be many reasons one might object to this and suggesting that I have a criminal record is slanderous sir. I am by far removed from such a thing and resent your comment personally.
Of course if you wish to retract your veiled slur I would be inclined to accept
Last edited:
Ruthless4christ
New member
^that
Think about the practical side of private sale background checks.
Let’s say I have a .22 rifle to sale which obviously is used. I find a co-worker who wishes to buy the gun and we agree on a price of $175. We trot down to the local gun shop to have the background check run and they charge us $40 for the service. Who pays this?
I know if sounds simply enough, but the devil is always in the details and really how many criminals are going to do this anyway.
Let’s say I have a .22 rifle to sale which obviously is used. I find a co-worker who wishes to buy the gun and we agree on a price of $175. We trot down to the local gun shop to have the background check run and they charge us $40 for the service. Who pays this?
I know if sounds simply enough, but the devil is always in the details and really how many criminals are going to do this anyway.
sigcurious
New member
Or they just don't willingly submit to government intrusions into their private lives. Not to mention the practical considerations of background checks for everyone that no one in favor of them ever seems to address or account for.
Apom, my job requires background checks; my previous job, as a Navy officer, required background checks. I have held security clearances suffiicient to gain access to the CIA building, had work required it.
I have had years of military firearms quals; concealed carry licenses in three states; I have attended training courses run by top tier instructors.
The government has entrusted me with thousands of lives and billions in equipment (former Ship's Weapons Coordinator, Force Over The Horizon Track Coordinator, and Tactical Action Officer aboard a NIMITZ class carrier).
I hold a current Airline Transport Pilot certificate.
I do not fear background checks (or training requirements) because I worry about passing them - I am kind of a poster boy for people who should easily meet background and training requirements in any jurisdiction in the US.
I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a tightening of the noose on the Second Amendment; I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a way for the political equivalent of the country club set to keep "those people" from becoming members of the right to bear arms club; I fear background checks and training requirements because they turn a right into a privilege.
Instead of positing that the only people who fear background checks are those with criminal histories, I would posit that the only people who do not fear background checks are the ones who have not thought it through.
I have had years of military firearms quals; concealed carry licenses in three states; I have attended training courses run by top tier instructors.
The government has entrusted me with thousands of lives and billions in equipment (former Ship's Weapons Coordinator, Force Over The Horizon Track Coordinator, and Tactical Action Officer aboard a NIMITZ class carrier).
I hold a current Airline Transport Pilot certificate.
I do not fear background checks (or training requirements) because I worry about passing them - I am kind of a poster boy for people who should easily meet background and training requirements in any jurisdiction in the US.
I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a tightening of the noose on the Second Amendment; I fear background checks and training requirements because they allow a way for the political equivalent of the country club set to keep "those people" from becoming members of the right to bear arms club; I fear background checks and training requirements because they turn a right into a privilege.
Instead of positing that the only people who fear background checks are those with criminal histories, I would posit that the only people who do not fear background checks are the ones who have not thought it through.