Biden to announce executive order on gun sale background checks

[herrwalther]

"Use the Department of Defense’s acquisition of firearms to further firearm and public safety practices. The Department of Defense buys a large number of firearms and other weapons to protect and serve our country. The President is directing the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement principles to further firearm and public safety practices through Department of Defense acquisition of firearms, consistent with applicable law."

Not entirely sure but I think this has to do with a large number of military firearms that have gone missing in the past 30 or so years. Read about a few weapon warehouses in Kuwait (a way station for service members traveling between Europe/USA and the Middle East) being completely empty. Dated article below.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...pons-and-contract-fraud-idUSN2934875420070830

But...like you said I don't see how this plays into US civilian problems. I don't know of any high profile incident where a stolen US military firearm was used in a mass shooting.

 

[WiTom]

Maybe he's afraid the weapons that were gifted to Ukraine, are going to make there way back to here, through the black market.

 

[Poper]

If one applies the “missing historical law precedent” then women lose the right to vote because it was not in the Constitution before the 20th Century. Bruen was about 2A. Background checks and red flag laws are about public safety.

I disagree.
The right for women to vote was Amendment XIX to the constitution.
BC's and RFL's may be (or may not be) in regards to "Public Safety", I dunno. (Just because a politician says so, that does not make it true.) Regardless, they both appear to infringe on the 2nd amendment as written and adopted in 1791 - per Bruen.
RFL's also must pass muster with the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment.
Again, IANAL. Maybe you are, though.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I don't understand why this is not already covered in "straw purchases".

"Boyfriend loophole" has nothing to do with straw purchases, it subjects a dating partner to the same rules as a spouse for purposes of denying firearms if the person has threatened the significant other

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.

You would make a yard sale to sell your guns? Where anyone can come in?

 

[old lady new shooter]

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.

Which press? Not the MSM, they'd be gloating.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Confiscated!!! lol! this an’t china or Australia. We went to war with Britain over the price of tea! Want to see a NEVER ENDING gorilla civil war!

No, we went to war when they tried to take our guns.

 

[Dudedog]

allows guns to be made with polymers

oohh evil Plastic guns,

Nice to know all the women and men who have died for the country lately were using evil stuff with polymers.

Yep let's replace that with wood or metal and make them carry around another couple pounds...

Haven't been there or done that but I would think pounds matter....

Would have been nice if we had better low temp polymers in Space shuttle boosters.

 

[Megawatt maker]

The DOD provision is the real ominous provision. That COULD go a lot of ways.

Keep in mind...the only operating powder mill in the USA is owned by the a major defense contractor. All the military powder (expect the special sniper and match rounds) is made at that one place...St Marks..owned by General Dynamics. They make ball powder. Only ball powders. All other powders come from overseas or Canada.

So...whats to stop the DOD from telling them to stop sales of powder to civilians? If they want to keep the contracts...what would they do? How about Olin, Federal, ETC who have contracts for supplying ammo to be told to stop sales of surplus ammo, and components to civilians? Not hard to see them doing it.

Same can be said to companies like Sig and FN, Colt, etc...want to keep the military contacts...stop selling civilians guns, parts, and parts kits.

Under this regime, and the woke morons they got appointed to run the pentagon right now...it's not a stretch of the imagination to see them trying to pull this off.

That, and the fact that the DOJ now gets to put a number on how many firearms a person can sell before he has to apply (and go through hell only to get denials over and over) for an FFL.

Those are the dangers as I see it. They are NOT nothing burgers. They are direct and deliberate threats to our rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

The DOD provision is the real ominous provision. That COULD go a lot of ways.

Most likely, this could be done by inserting clauses in military acquisition contracts that would prevent the companies from selling the same or similar products to the civilian market. But if a company's civilian sales outweigh its military sales, it could walk away from the military contract. Or, it could organize a subsidiary corporation to handle the civilian sales. Lots of ways clever lawyers could get around this.

 

[Hartkopf]

"Use the Department of Defense’s acquisition of firearms to further firearm and public safety practices. The Department of Defense buys a large number of firearms and other weapons to protect and serve our country. The President is directing the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement principles to further firearm and public safety practices through Department of Defense acquisition of firearms, consistent with applicable law."

Ok so the "DOD will further firearm and public safety practices." with "acquisition of firearms."

Acquiring firearms from who? The public? The public was mentioned in the same breath.

"consistent with TWISTING applicable law."

 

[AlexanderA]

No, we went to war when they tried to take our guns.

Remember, though, that the guns in the Concord armory were publicly owned. (And actually, the issue was the store of powder rather than the guns themselves.) The British were not after individually-owned guns.

The die was already cast by the time the British expedition left Boston for Concord. Of course, "the shot heard around the world" was the meme that persisted in the collective memory.

 

[N555]

Virtue signaling.
Make it look you did or are doing something but in reality you really aren't doing anything or changing anything at all.

 

[buck460XVR]

"Boyfriend loophole" has nothing to do with straw purchases, it subjects a dating partner to the same rules as a spouse for purposes of denying firearms if the person has threatened the significant other

Yes, I realized this after I posted. I actually have a very nice Colt Stainless Government model that was brought back to the LGS because the buyer discovered she couldn't buy a gun for her prohibited boyfriend. It was LNIB having been shot only once.

You would make a yard sale to sell your guns? Where anyone can come in?

Yep. While I haven't created a yard sale expressly for selling guns, I have sold a gun at a yard sale. Didn't start out to sell it, just had some ammo on a table. Gentleman came up and we started to discuss guns and he asked if I had anything I would like to sell. I had a Winchester auto 12 ga. that never fit me and it left my possession that day. If we truly do believe in the 2nd, why wouldn't selling guns at a yard sale be just fine? Would that be any more dangerous that any other FTF sale? Would guns at a table in your yard be any different than in your open trunk in the parking lot of a gun show? That's where I see most personal firearms being sold at gun shows. I actually don't have an issue if personal guns are sold for dispersal at a table inside. It's just my experience that folks that rent a space are there to make money, not to dispose of their collection.

 

[daniel craig]

I don't really understand the way the article was written but to me it makes it sound like this is one step closer to universal background checks which I support so if that's the case then I'm fine with it.

 

[Megawatt maker]

I don't really understand the way the article was written but to me it makes it sound like this is one step closer to universal background checks which I support so if that's the case then I'm fine with it.

You do realize Universal background checks are unenforceable without also having Universal gun registration right?

UBCs are just the camels nose in the tent. They want gun confiscation, that's the end game. Only way they can get them all is foring them all to be registered first.

History is LOADED with examples of this.

I get UBCs sound harmless on paper. I agree, criminal should not own guns...but like most good ideas...they pave the road to hell.

Because of that...hell no to UBCs

 

[rust collector]

I don't really understand the way the article was written but to me it makes it sound like this is one step closer to universal background checks which I support so if that's the case then I'm fine with it.

Universal background checks are wonderful in concept but not what you think.

 

[buck460XVR]

I don't really understand the way the article was written but to me it makes it sound like this is one step closer to universal background checks which I support so if that's the case then I'm fine with it.

The majority of the guns I have bought, I have bought new thru a dealer. So, since background checks have been required, I have submitted my info, paid my monies and went home with a gun. So, if UBCs are implemented, the effect on me personally would be moot. I also have needed a background check for my job, to coach youth sports, to ref youth sports and to help with Hunter Safety for youths. So for me, it's not a big deal. Snopes claims it "true" that over 90% of Americans support UBCs. I know many here will argue it. Most folks don't have an issue with the UBC itself, it's the idea that is going to be used to trace a gun directly to them by the "man", that is the fear.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Back in the 80's when they first came up with the background check system I supported the concept because I didn't want to sell a gun to a prohibited person.

I now realize the multitude of reasons that the system is a failure. From GIGO information to things deliberately left out of being reported (Take the POS kid in Parkland that shot up Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School who had been interviewed by the local LEO's and the FBI both, was thrown out of his prior school for bringing bullets to school and yet was still able to pass a background check).

The background check system, like it or not, is doomed to fail unless the errors in the system are corrected and it gets administered right. And that's assuming the government agency doing the checking is fair and honest.

 

[dogtown tom]

The DOD provision is the real ominous provision. That COULD go a lot of ways.

No, it can't.

Keep in mind...the only operating powder mill in the USA is owned by the a major defense contractor. All the military powder (expect the special sniper and match rounds) is made at that one place...St Marks..owned by General Dynamics. They make ball powder. Only ball powders. All other powders come from overseas or Canada.

So...whats to stop the DOD from telling them to stop sales of powder to civilians?

Whats to stop DOD from telling Nissan to stop making cars in Tennessee?
DOD can't tell a private business who they can sell to.

If they want to keep the contracts...what would they do? How about Olin, Federal, ETC who have contracts for supplying ammo to be told to stop sales of surplus ammo, and components to civilians? Not hard to see them doing it.

Unless a component is illegal, such as certain armor piercing ammunition, the contract cant stop a private business from doing what they do.....manufacture ammunition.

Same can be said to companies like Sig and FN, Colt, etc...want to keep the military contacts...stop selling civilians guns, parts, and parts kits.

Same as above.

Under this regime, and the woke morons they got appointed to run the pentagon right now...it's not a stretch of the imagination to see them trying to pull this off.

https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/commodities/ali:cmx

That, and the fact that the DOJ now gets to put a number on how many firearms a person can sell before he has to apply (and go through hell only to get denials over and over) for an FFL.

Where in earth are you getting this sillyness from?
There is no magic number, never has been. It could be as few as one firearm.

Those are the dangers as I see it. They are NOT nothing burgers. They are direct and deliberate threats to our rights.

The dangers you think you find are tinfoil hat territory, not grounded in reality or allowable under any federal law or current regulation.

 

[Megawatt maker]

No, it can't.


Whats to stop DOD from telling Nissan to stop making cars in Tennessee?
DOD can't tell a private business who they can sell to.





Unless a component is illegal, such as certain armor piercing ammunition, the contract cant stop a private business from doing what they do.....manufacture ammunition.



Same as above.


https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/commodities/ali:cmx




Where in earth are you getting this sillyness from?
There is no magic number, never has been. It could be as few as one firearm.



The dangers you think you find are tinfoil hat territory, not grounded in reality or allowable under any federal law or current regulation.

Yes, It can. They can add stipulations to contacts...they do all the time. Not even hard for them to do.

What the hell does Nissan have to do with it? That a stupid comparison. That makes ZERO sense.

They wouldn't be telling them they COULDNT sell whatever to civilians, they would be telling them unless they wanted to lose the contact..they couldn't.


I read the EO. They are using the excuse that the latest gun control bill passed last year gives them the authority to put a number to it for the first time ever. Try reading sometimes.....

And finally...it ain't Tin Foil hat anything...have you been paying attention? You clearly haven't.

The Dems want guns gone. That's plain to see.
If you dont see that..you are either stupid, or a Democrat.

 

[dogtown tom]

Yes, It can. They can add stipulations to contacts...they do all the time. Not even hard for them to do.

The details of a contract are the details of a contract. If part of the contract violates federal law the contract is void.
Further, private businesses are free to tell DOD to take a hike and NOT SIGN SUCH a contract.

What the hell does Nissan have to do with it? That a stupid comparison. That makes ZERO sense.

It makes zero sense to you, but is a valid comparison to those that know what a comparison is.

They wouldn't be telling them they COULDNT sell whatever to civilians, they would be telling them unless they wanted to lose the contact..they couldn't.

Only if the item being produced was proprietary, patented or licensed to DOD or an item regulated by federal law...like armor piercing ammunition.
If DOD wants a manufacturer to produce 9x19 only for them.....well they don't own the specs or design of the 9x19.

I read the EO. They are using the excuse that the latest gun control bill passed last year gives them the authority to put a number to it for the first time ever. Try reading sometimes.....

I did. It doesn't.

And finally...it ain't Tin Foil hat anything...have you been paying attention? You clearly haven't.

I know nonsense when I read it.

The Dems want guns gone. That's plain to see.
If you see that..you are either stupid, or a Democrat.

Are you calling yourself stupid or a Democrat? 'Cause you said its "plain to see" then "If you see that...you are either stupid or a Democrat."

 

[GEM]

Virtue signaling, correct call. The big game as I said elsewhere is in the courts with the increasing number of state AWBs and mag bans, laws like the NYS CCIA that removes useful carry.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Keep in mind...the only operating powder mill in the USA is owned by the a major defense contractor. All the military powder (expect the special sniper and match rounds) is made at that one place...St Marks..owned by General Dynamics. They make ball powder. Only ball powders. All other powders come from overseas or Canada.

Not quite.

There are two propellant manufacturers in the US, one, as you stated, at St Marks, FL, and one at Radford Army Ammunition Plant, VA. Radford is the source of all your double-based flake propellants, like Bullseye and Unique. Currently, BAE operates RFAAP.

 

[N555]

The part about 3d printing is most interesting. Think all it would be useful for is another charge to tack on when someone gets caught making and selling 3d printed guns. Seems like they using a mirror to grasp at smoke.

I can't see how any of it will make people safer or reduce crime.

 

[Megawatt maker]

Not quite.

There are two propellant manufacturers in the US, one, as you stated, at St Marks, FL, and one at Radford Army Ammunition Plant, VA. Radford is the source of all your double-based flake propellants, like Bullseye and Unique. Currently, BAE operates RFAAP.

I stand corrected. I did not know this. Thank you