Dreaming100Straight
New member
Whatever the number is, the law should be clear as to when you are subject to being violated for failing to run a bc.
Someone asked if Obama had reached the limits of his legal authority...
- Thread starter mehavey
- Start date
The sad answer is: "Yes, and he's exceeded them, too." The even SADDER follow-up is that he probably did so before being re-elected.
It is difficult for me to think of a time in U.S. History when congress has surrendered their role of funding and restraint like they've done, these days. I simply cannot figure out how, after "running the table" on the democrats during the 2014 elections, the republicans thought it'd be a good idea to ignore the mandate given them by the voters, and just continue on, "business as usual".
It's almost as though the Obama gang (a term I use in MULTIPLE senses of the word) has damning information on all the congressional leaders that he's threatening to make public, if they don't "play ball". I had HOPED that those days had largely died away when J.Edgar Hoover did. I guess all that really changed was the branch of government and office building in which the "Department of Opposition Research and Extortion" was located.
All of this is pure conjecture on MY part, and I haven't a shred, "not even a smidgin" of evidence for any of it. I just hope that history will prove me wrong when/if the truth is ever learned.
It is difficult for me to think of a time in U.S. History when congress has surrendered their role of funding and restraint like they've done, these days. I simply cannot figure out how, after "running the table" on the democrats during the 2014 elections, the republicans thought it'd be a good idea to ignore the mandate given them by the voters, and just continue on, "business as usual".
It's almost as though the Obama gang (a term I use in MULTIPLE senses of the word) has damning information on all the congressional leaders that he's threatening to make public, if they don't "play ball". I had HOPED that those days had largely died away when J.Edgar Hoover did. I guess all that really changed was the branch of government and office building in which the "Department of Opposition Research and Extortion" was located.
All of this is pure conjecture on MY part, and I haven't a shred, "not even a smidgin" of evidence for any of it. I just hope that history will prove me wrong when/if the truth is ever learned.
Of course he has exceeded his Constitutional authority on multiple occasions, but if the Constitutional checks and balances, on separation of powers are not exercised by the other two braches, little can be done. I think the founding fathers were more concerned that one branch might step out of line and need to be kept in check by the other two, than all 3 branches going rogue at the same time, which to them would signal the unraveling of the entire Constitutional government in their eyes.
rwilson452
New member
One fear I have is now that he has exceeded his authority with impunity it sets a precedent.
It seems that politicians have been emboldened to bend the rules in recent years (maybe they always have) because there's really no consequence to their actions.
A politician seems to retain the support of their voter base regardless of their actions as long as they can explain it away as for the good of the masses.
The only thing that seems to alienate them is if they turn out to have some sexual escapade.
It seems to me that they are always seeking to skirt the fringes of the constitution, which tells me that in the absence of the constitution we would quickly have no rights.
A politician seems to retain the support of their voter base regardless of their actions as long as they can explain it away as for the good of the masses.
The only thing that seems to alienate them is if they turn out to have some sexual escapade.
It seems to me that they are always seeking to skirt the fringes of the constitution, which tells me that in the absence of the constitution we would quickly have no rights.
The BATFE sometimes arrests and prosecutes "unlicensed dealers". Some of these "unlicensed dealers" have sold fewer than 50 guns.
Often the BATFE will warn guys who frequently sell guns. This guy ignored a warning from the BATFE. He got consolation prize:
//www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061115/NEWS/611150464/1060
There are these guys:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/5/9/250897/Sentences-Handed-Down-For-Unlicensed.aspx
More:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jury-finds-unlicensed-gun-dealer-guilty-74931277.html
Often the BATFE will warn guys who frequently sell guns. This guy ignored a warning from the BATFE. He got consolation prize:
//www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061115/NEWS/611150464/1060
There are these guys:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/5/9/250897/Sentences-Handed-Down-For-Unlicensed.aspx
More:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jury-finds-unlicensed-gun-dealer-guilty-74931277.html
kilimanjaro
New member
No kidding, if you're an honest man just making a buck, the FFL gets you transfer business, which is not a small potato to a little guy, and probably nets you more per hour than setting up a dealer table for a weekend gets you. That's a lot of work that may get you a hundred bucks after all is said and done.
carguychris
New member
In my experience, it's usually some combination of laziness, tinfoil-hat paranoia, and a misguided belief that the gov't should not have the power to interfere with private business for any reason.rickyrick said:
Realistically, I think the second two are often fed by the first one.
I had an FFL for Curios and Relics in the lates 80's /early 90s and I still have concerns about the books and 4473's I had to turn over to the BATF when I finally decided not to be an FFL any more. Lazy? No. Paranoia? I guess. Do you trust your government?
I doubt there are many out there who sell 50 guns and are not FFLs. Why do I oppose it? Next year it might be 25. Then 5. Then you might have to get a license just to sell or transfer one. They want the license fees. They want the paper trails. They are Constitutionally enititled to neither, and any information gained can and will be used against you. I'm also opposed to my state taxing used merchandise over and over again every time it is resold.
Because to get an FFL you have to get a business license.
In my town, order to get a business license you have to notify your neighbors within a 300 foot radius. This is reasonable enough if you were actually going to generate foot traffic, but not if you're selling at gun shows. Where I live (in CA) this would generate a panic at the thought of a "gun dealer" in the neighborhood.
Also once you have an FFL your address is part of the public record. It's bad enough that it's available online, but our local newspaper has a habit of periodically publishing a handy burglar's guide of all FFL's along with lurid headlines warning of the menace in your town.
It's not wise to turn a blind eye to government. I don't consider those who don't to be tinfoil or paranoid.
But a feller could profit from the new UBCs coming down.
They'll get their background checks... Too many people accept it and are open to the idea.
They've already passed the boundary of "infringed" long ago. And government is always being called out on other rights.
But a feller could profit from the new UBCs coming down.
They'll get their background checks... Too many people accept it and are open to the idea.
They've already passed the boundary of "infringed" long ago. And government is always being called out on other rights.