Biden to announce executive order on gun sale background checks
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
VoodooMountain
Member
Exactly. This is the problem with giving an inch.
dweis
Member
I have a gripe with some of it, and I support some of it. I don’t support bans in guns, but I do think FFL’s operating outside legal limits ought to be called out. I have to follow the letter of the law whether I like it or not, and I do not see why an FFL should be treated differently. I have mixed feelings about universal background checks and red flag laws. Both depend upon good process or due process. Done right both could reduce gun violence. I just don’t have a lot of faith that they would be done right.
AlexanderA
Member
There are two contradictory aspects to this: if more gun sellers are required to get FFL's, then the ATF would have to make it easier for them to get FFL's. The unintended consequences here are that there would be more "kitchen table" FFL's. That would go contrary to what the ATF has been trying to do for years, which is to restrict the number of FFL's.
How can you have a campaign to revoke FFL's for minor infractions (which is what the ATF appears to have been doing recently), and then suddenly require marginal non-licensed gun sellers to get FFL's? What exactly is the Administration's strategy here?
How can you have a campaign to revoke FFL's for minor infractions (which is what the ATF appears to have been doing recently), and then suddenly require marginal non-licensed gun sellers to get FFL's? What exactly is the Administration's strategy here?
Last edited:
JeeperCreeper
Member
Keyword "could", but I would even argue that.
Going back to the article, I see this attempting to go after private sellers and collectors.
The scary one is also the "boyfriend loophole". Not very PC if you ask me, I'm offended. Crazy that your relationships will be regulated if the article is accurate in its claims.
This is aimed at the guy with a few guns on a table at a gun show, and a yard or estate sale. ATF has been vague on what requires dealer licensing. I suspect that we will soon learn that offering or attempting to sell anything more than one or two a year will violate new rules.
hoardingthemanual
Member
the problem is when the new law doesn't affect everyone equally. the people who aren't affected by it will not fight against it. they even go so far as to chastise those who are affected by it. they put on a holier than thou attitude and say, "you should have known better." the new pistol brace rule is an example of this. on this very website you have a lot of popular members not giving one flip against the rule because it doesn't affect them. i don't have an answer for you, but i do spot the problem.
entropy
Member
Clinton did that in the 90's, requiring those who sold more than x number of gun to get an FFL. End result?
A lot more guns bought not only by the new FFL holders, ( who could then get wholesale pricing) but their friends & family.
This pretty much a Yawn. The major game is the expanding AWB and mag bans across the states and laws like the NYS CCIA being adopted by other states. They really strike at the core of useful gun ownership. This is just virtue signaling by Biden for campaign reasons. It is minor variance in the war for gun rights.
AlexanderA
Member
Both require that the government is and will forever remain completely and unfailingly trustworthy to protect the freedom of the citizens. No government in the history of the world has done that.
Well lets see? How many deaths from firearms in USA each year, VS deaths from overdose drugs??
The numbers are all over the place depending on what source you look at, BUT Opioids are the clear number one cause of deaths. Lets no even get into alcohol and tobacco!
How is that war on drugs doing??
Tired of all this nonsense!
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/crime-and-justice/firearms/firearm-deaths/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20211117.htm
The numbers are all over the place depending on what source you look at, BUT Opioids are the clear number one cause of deaths. Lets no even get into alcohol and tobacco!
How is that war on drugs doing??
Tired of all this nonsense!
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/crime-and-justice/firearms/firearm-deaths/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20211117.htm
Why would the ATF have to make it easier to get FFLs? If they made it more difficult they would accomplish their and the administration's objective of reducing availability of firearms.
For part two, after a new licensee has run the gantlet of qualifying and complying, they can put them through intensive and time consuming oversight, then pull the license for claimed violation of a vague rule or policy or make them turn in their ticket in frustration. This is how bureaucracies work when so directed.
jmohme
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2014
- Messages
- 469
Boiling a frog.
Roverguy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2021
- Messages
- 887
And if laws like the opt in make carry illegal in almost all the useful places, then buying all the guns makes no difference for the RKBA. That's why Scotus needs not to play its games. There will be no Federal legislative solution for the gun bans. If Clarence or Alito drops dead, the court balance changes and no chance of the court overturning those laws. That they screwed around and did not speak clearly but came up with an ambiguous rule (according to legit progun scholars) is just a shame.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
I don't understand why this is not already covered in "straw purchases".
To me, it comes down to what the final definition of what constitutes a "firearm dealer". Seems it would be fairly simple. A person that buys guns at a low price to sell at a higher price, in order to make a profit. Wouldn't really matter how many a year. Table at a gun show? To me, that is selling guns for profit. Yard sale or estate sale of personal or inherited firearms to dispose of? Not dealing in firearms. JMTCs.
AlexanderA
Member
Because, following Biden's directive to require more marginal gun sellers to have FFL's, the ATF would have to make these FFL's available. If they didn't, and these additional FFL's were practically unobtainable (for example, because of local zoning compliance issues), it would create a Catch-22 for which the ATF (and the Administration) would be skewered in the press. The last thing this Administration wants is ridicule and negative publicity.
The path of least resistance for the ATF, therefore, would be to hand out FFL's left and right, and then worry about auditing the new licensees later. Everything in government is done for short-term CYA considerations. There is no thought given to long-term unintended consequences.
Last edited:
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
"Boyfriend loophole" refers to the qualification for domestic violence. Traditionally, domestic violence only happened if you were married to that person. E.G: Spousal disputes. You'd be arrested for this. If it's a dating partner someone beats up, it's considered a misdemeanor.
They have extended the definition of domestic violence to include dating partners. The amount of people who live with said partner without marrying them has increased so much since 1970 to the point it's the most normalized form of co-habitation. But this meant that alot of people who beat up their girlfriend/boyfriend weren't getting arrested on domestic violence charges.
They have extended the definition of domestic violence to include dating partners. The amount of people who live with said partner without marrying them has increased so much since 1970 to the point it's the most normalized form of co-habitation. But this meant that alot of people who beat up their girlfriend/boyfriend weren't getting arrested on domestic violence charges.
jmohme
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2014
- Messages
- 469
All of this is nonsense, since these actions will only effect those who buy their guns legally and without evil intent, while the gang bangers, steal guns or buy them black market with the intent to use them to commit crimes.
Go ahead Biden. Give us another executive order requiring these criminals to have a background check before buying a murder weapon.
The president is a blooming idiot!
Go ahead Biden. Give us another executive order requiring these criminals to have a background check before buying a murder weapon.
The president is a blooming idiot!
Poper
Member
IANAL nor do I pretend to fully understand legal precedent & procedure.
Still, from what I have been able to deduce following the NYSRPA vs. Bruen case, the infringement of UBC & RFL are probably not constitutional as the historical background prior 1791 to support these laws is not present. Also, the government is not permitted to step on our Constitutional rights just because they claim a benefit for doing so. Even if the gov't could prove such a benefit (they cannot) it does not (IMHO) provide a constitutional basis for violating our 2nd Amendment rights.
Also, given the Deep State's proclivity to exaggerate, lie and fabricate stories and evidence to further political goals, the gov't has a proven track record of NOT having the citizen's best interest at the core of their actions. They SAY they do, but, historically, that has VERY rarely been true.
JMHO and worth everything you paid for it, too!
Roverguy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2021
- Messages
- 887
There is no indication whatsoever that the media is capable of applying fair and judicious standards to their coverage of the Biden administration.
That is not a logical conclusion at all. Of course the president and his administration can direct the ATF to crack down on sellers, make it harder to get an FFL license and make compliance more difficult. Do you really think the ATF and the current administration are concerned about an appearance of being too hard gun dealers?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked