Details of New Executive Actions to be Announced Jan.5
- Thread starter climbnjump
- Start date
- Status
With respect to the dealer issue, Obama is essentially relying on the ignorance of the public and press for PR value.
For a discussion of what current law actually is see this thread: What is "Dealing in Firearms Without a License?".
For a discussion of what current law actually is see this thread: What is "Dealing in Firearms Without a License?".
J-Bar
Member
Chris Stirewalt makes an interesting point in his Fox News column; "Obama's Small Ball on Guns Could be a Big Deal." He opines it may not only be about guns at all, but about setting the precedent for even more sweeping executive orders:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-on-guns-could-be-big-deal.html?intcmp=hpbt1
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-on-guns-could-be-big-deal.html?intcmp=hpbt1
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Bill, what are you talking about? As a non-licensee, you CAN'T use those forms.
Is this more of the Chicken Little hand waving we get every time the President says the words "Executive Action?"
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
According to that British state news organization, "We don't know how gun laws in the U.S. work and didn't understand what this new declaration even does...but hey, we'd like to report about it anyway."
Apparently.
(And ... uh, wow, since when did anybody check the SELLERS' background? Seems a bit arse-backwards, what?)
lilguy
Member
HSO
Do I understand you correctly? To secure ownership of an NFA item I would no longer need to have my CLEO sign off on it? Just notify him as when I reup my
C&R license?
Do I understand you correctly? To secure ownership of an NFA item I would no longer need to have my CLEO sign off on it? Just notify him as when I reup my
C&R license?
I stand corrected with regards to Pennsylvania handgun sales. I thought the required FFL for handgun transfer was Federal, but it is a state thing (or, more correctly, Commonwealth (of Pennsylvania) thing). How did that come about, as, for a Northeastern state, Pennsylvania is about the most gun-friendly states out there? I am surprised it passed and when did this originally come about?
Also, is there a list out there as to which states allow face to face transfer of handguns, and which ones require an FFL (like Pennsylvania)? Just curious.
Also, is there a list out there as to which states allow face to face transfer of handguns, and which ones require an FFL (like Pennsylvania)? Just curious.
Jlr2267
Member
As a non-lawyer, it does sound to me as if the "responsible person" is very specifically defined. A properly worded trust could then, seemingly, circumvent the BG check requirements for others on the trust.
Hopefully one our esteemed legal-regulars can clarify.
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
Yes, this is what the proposed rule change says. There is another discussion on this subject going on in the NFA section of the forum.
JFtheGR8
Member
That's the exact word that came to mind for me too. He's the mouthpiece of the liberal left and will lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goals.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Crocodile tears..."
Let the meme-ing begin... He'll probably be selling mortgages in pop-up ads with that photo by the end of the week.
What a rather surprising mixed-bag this pronouncement is. All the more so because this man has never made a point of conceding any territory willingly, and because he has never crafted proposals like this with any contrarian input. Basically, a rather substantial (and somewhat humiliating) burden laid upon so many NFA owners, but at the same time a supposed lifting of an outright barrier to ownership for many.
I suspect the CLEO signature removal will, itself, be rescinded by this administration before he leaves office. He removed it, he can put it back once we've finished overlooking the additional regulatory burden he has placed by mandate upon so many NFA owners. In the case of individuals, there is some question whether the authority to even remove the signoff requirement exists, and in the case of trusts, the same question as to by what authority their approval is now required (the CLEO of the location/address of the trust I can understand, but not the CLEO's of every party to the trust, or such a thorough piercing of the trust's protections that every party be scoured by background check)
We shall see what sticks, but not until years from now, such is the modus-operandi of this administration (I'd call it contempt of the judicial system, and do not understand why judges remain oblivious of the raspberries being blown in their faces). I happen to think this move may be entirely a way to shortcut future assaults on the NFA's unjustifiable prohibitory effects; the CLEO signoff refusal was the most direct route not involving *scawwy* machineguns.
I just hope the ATF/Justice Dept get some better lawyers to draft their arguments for the courts than whoever drafted the justifications portions of this drivel. Conceding that registered NFA weapons generate no public harm, yet are such a public threat as to require essentially limitless federal regulatory intervention. That individuals (and trustees) who partake of the onerous process constitute a vanishingly small burden on law enforcement, yet are deserving of even more scrutiny than those with security clearances (at least those BGCs only occur every few years, not every time a document is handled/created).
I hate to be crass, but pretty much everything else about his proposals falls into the 'baffle them with bull****' category, and is probably a distraction from the more nuanced but impactful 41p/NFA changes we are seeing. Very few practical effects for anyone not in the midst of an ATF sting. Basically, our Feds are claiming that no legal construct intended to protect sensitive personal information will stand in their way if they want to know bad enough, whether it be trust or medical records, and intend to use tax law as the conduit.
Can't wait to hear what the next 300$ legal workaround to this fingerprint requirement will be; I strongly suspect the NFA law groups won't give up this honey-pot so easily. I'd also love to see such personal scrutiny on individuals setting up trusts for other areas of commerce *cough* Cayman Islands *cough* since that would get this question settled quite rapidly, indeed.
TCB
Let the meme-ing begin... He'll probably be selling mortgages in pop-up ads with that photo by the end of the week.
What a rather surprising mixed-bag this pronouncement is. All the more so because this man has never made a point of conceding any territory willingly, and because he has never crafted proposals like this with any contrarian input. Basically, a rather substantial (and somewhat humiliating) burden laid upon so many NFA owners, but at the same time a supposed lifting of an outright barrier to ownership for many.
I suspect the CLEO signature removal will, itself, be rescinded by this administration before he leaves office. He removed it, he can put it back once we've finished overlooking the additional regulatory burden he has placed by mandate upon so many NFA owners. In the case of individuals, there is some question whether the authority to even remove the signoff requirement exists, and in the case of trusts, the same question as to by what authority their approval is now required (the CLEO of the location/address of the trust I can understand, but not the CLEO's of every party to the trust, or such a thorough piercing of the trust's protections that every party be scoured by background check)
We shall see what sticks, but not until years from now, such is the modus-operandi of this administration (I'd call it contempt of the judicial system, and do not understand why judges remain oblivious of the raspberries being blown in their faces). I happen to think this move may be entirely a way to shortcut future assaults on the NFA's unjustifiable prohibitory effects; the CLEO signoff refusal was the most direct route not involving *scawwy* machineguns.
I just hope the ATF/Justice Dept get some better lawyers to draft their arguments for the courts than whoever drafted the justifications portions of this drivel. Conceding that registered NFA weapons generate no public harm, yet are such a public threat as to require essentially limitless federal regulatory intervention. That individuals (and trustees) who partake of the onerous process constitute a vanishingly small burden on law enforcement, yet are deserving of even more scrutiny than those with security clearances (at least those BGCs only occur every few years, not every time a document is handled/created).
I hate to be crass, but pretty much everything else about his proposals falls into the 'baffle them with bull****' category, and is probably a distraction from the more nuanced but impactful 41p/NFA changes we are seeing. Very few practical effects for anyone not in the midst of an ATF sting. Basically, our Feds are claiming that no legal construct intended to protect sensitive personal information will stand in their way if they want to know bad enough, whether it be trust or medical records, and intend to use tax law as the conduit.
Can't wait to hear what the next 300$ legal workaround to this fingerprint requirement will be; I strongly suspect the NFA law groups won't give up this honey-pot so easily. I'd also love to see such personal scrutiny on individuals setting up trusts for other areas of commerce *cough* Cayman Islands *cough* since that would get this question settled quite rapidly, indeed.
TCB
Carl N. Brown
Member
Car deaths are down relative to gun deaths not because gun deaths have risen. Gun deaths have actually fallen over the past twenty years. The difference is, car deaths have fallen even more. There is not an epidemic of gun deaths in the sense of rising numbers. This "gun deaths have risen to exceed car deaths" is rhetorical games with statistics.
An FFL can transfer a firearm from his business inventory to his personal collection using a 4473. After holding it in his personal collection for at least one year he can then sell it privately without a 4473.
Post 128, but here's the link again:What is "Dealing in Firearms Without a License?"Warp said:
Red Wind
Member
valnar said:
How much time do we have for what?
Crawdad1
Member
Not the way I see it. In Pennsylvania all handguns have to go through an FFL where it is still lawful to privately sell a long arm to an individual without a background check if it's a private sell and the seller is not violating the definition of 'Engaged in the business.'
Red Wind
Member
^ You are correct. In Florida and a multitude of other states the same applies.
Actually, I see 3 facts:
1. The EOs themselves seem to skirt on the edge of redefining and extending what is already law, and folks on forums like this are reading those literally, and concluding that not much has been done with the new EOs. Au Contraire.
Consider these two additional facts:
2. The MSM including ALL US cable news stations and international press , is "erroneously" reporting that all guns in the USA will be registered and all sales will require a background check. Is this deliberate?
3. The administration including POTUS are making statements like "If you sell a gun you must perform a background check". This is clearly not in the EOs, so why are they making crazy statements like this at the highest level?
I conclude that the EOs were a means to open a discussion on gun ownership where outrageous statements can be made (like firearm registration, all sellers must be licensed, etc). these statements can be repeated till the non-gun owning public gets conditioned that this is the new "common sense" norm. After a year or so, people can be told, "Look, nothing bad happened. Why not pass universal background check laws?" This will pave the way for future gun laws that will indeed require universal background checks, leading to registration and eventually confiscation.
So, the EOs may just be an excuse to float and test outrageous statements and conjure up a reality that doesn't exist yet, but will in the future.
What can we do?
I would suggest we contact NRA, GOA etc and make sure that the general public understands that UBC and gun registration is NOT the staus quo in America. In fact, it is inherently inimical to firearm ownership. The current EOs do nothing. We should DIMINISH the importance of these EOs, not paint them out to portray a false reality.
Last edited:
Red Wind
Member
Contradict them as we have been doing on this forum. I'm very sure the NRA,SAF,GOA, will be doing the same. The sky only is falling for a small fraction of American gun owners. Most know better. Believe it.
Last edited:
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Good to see someone sees this as more than just some buffoonish behavior from the executive branch.
I'd add that this being the new normal, when the next mass shooting happens he/they will say they've done all they can and congress must act to keep us safe.
By selling this as safety for the people he controls the narrative and anything congress does short of his demands means they don't care about the American people.
This wouldn't get much traction except the MSM keeps parroting it at every chance.
I've read this entire thread. A few of the comments raised this, but I wanted to ask this to make sure.
If I have a collection of 10 plus firearms, and need to liquidate them to get some cash and I go to a gun show to sell all 10 firearms and I ask a FFL to run a background check on each of the sellers, could I still be considered to be "in the business" and conducting that business as an unlicensed dealer? This doesn't seem to make much sense, but I thought I would ask. Is the only alternative to liquidate your collection 2 firearms per year?
Thanks!
Blonde
If I have a collection of 10 plus firearms, and need to liquidate them to get some cash and I go to a gun show to sell all 10 firearms and I ask a FFL to run a background check on each of the sellers, could I still be considered to be "in the business" and conducting that business as an unlicensed dealer? This doesn't seem to make much sense, but I thought I would ask. Is the only alternative to liquidate your collection 2 firearms per year?
Thanks!
Blonde
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
