Obama announces new lame duck "gun control" scheme.

[kozak6]

Did you even read the thread?

50 guns a year is a ridiculous amount. It makes me wonder what they even think is going on. A frequent point of discussion on this forum is to never sell a gun. But 50? A more realistic number might be 3-10, and even 10 seems like a lot.

I almost hope this goes through. If this goes through, gunshows should become a lot more interesting since it would basically be permission to freely sell up to 50 guns a year. Even I'd be tempted to get a table now and then. And that's 50 guns according to your records since they can't really prove anything.

Actually, it's enough to make me wonder if that's the point. To throw gas on the fire until there is enough support to ban private transactions.

 

[Praxidike]

....

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Did you even read the thread?

50 guns a year is a ridiculous amount. It makes me wonder what they even think is going on. A frequent point of discussion on this forum is to never sell a gun. But 50? A more realistic number might be 3-10, and even 10 seems like a lot.

I think you're missing the political point.

50 is a ridiculous amount. However, it IS an amount, and that's significant: there never was a limit before.

50 is so ridiculous that it's politically acceptable. So if he does this, it'll likely stand. And the first brick will have been laid for future building upon. Maybe the next brick is 40, and the one after that 30...

THAT is the point.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

50 may seem like a lot to the living, but two good points were raised:

1) estate sales. If the ESTATE now must have a FFL to sell Grandpas collection, how many families will choose to surrender "those old guns" to the local PD for destruction?

2) slippery slope. NY recently decided that 10 round magazines were too dangerous and decided 7 is the new number. Future Presidents can move 50 down to 25, or 5.

 

[Onmilo]

I wonder how many people engaged in the criminal enterprise of selling guns to criminals are going to declare the number of guns they illegally sold to the Federal government?

 

[jerkface11]

50 is a ridiculous amount. However, it IS an amount, and that's significant: there never was a limit before.

YES THERE WAS!!! Before the ATF got to decide what "in the business" meant. They could have said that when you sold 10 guns or 20. Now it's not until you sell 50. This is a LIMIT on federal power not an overreach of it.

1) estate sales. If the ESTATE now must have a FFL to sell Grandpas collection, how many families will choose to surrender "those old guns" to the local PD for destruction?

If they conduct the sales thru an FFL they don't have to have their own.

So....where's the actual LAW that says anyone selling over 50 firearms a year must have an FFL?

The gun control act of 1968



There is also this little tidbit near the bottom of the article.

federal lawyers remained concerned that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold could leave the rule vulnerable to a challenge.

 

[Tirod]

Some keep arguing that the President could lower the number of guns in the future to some level that it would be an inconvenience.

He choose 50 for a reason - he has legal advisers, too, aside from the political ones. There's no evidence he didn't consult the ATF, although I imagine they would like to simply dictate the terms of what they can do.

Defining the limit at 50 now, what would happen if it was 5? His directive to the ATF is telling them exactly - what? Where's the EO so we can parse the language and sense the more exact interpretation of what will happen?

So far he's telling the ATF to look into sales of firearms by an individual if they see more than 50 and they have no FFL. Anybody consider that it was something they wanted? On the other hand, anybody consider it was a number they could live with without additional burden, too? They may very well be using the figure already as their own internal check off list in the prioritization of who to take to court.

All this goes around to when the first few cases come up - like, shouldering the SIG Brace. Zero prosecution on that, the ATF open letter did it all by scaring all the .gov dependent people who rely on being told what is or isn't illegal for their guidelines. Same here - the bulk of the discussion isn't what is legal under the law, it's "Ok, now we know where a line in the sand is." Well, they can draw a line in the sand wherever - and then again you have to have enforcement and prosecution.

Buying and using a Brace is now into the second stage of thinking since the Open Letter - absent any prosecution, the general trend is to just give lip service to it on open forums and shoulder it on the range anyway.

After all the non - FFL gun sellers digest it, likely it will be business as usual at gun shows. Do we know of anyone who has been prosecuted for being an "unlicensed" seller of guns? Not the guy selling out of the trunk of his car, he's doing all he can to not be caught (and by the way, he's selling stolen Glocks, 1911's, SIGs, etc. Yo, ya don't buy no cheap junk for to show on the street, man, you buy what the Man carries. Equal status is the dominant purchasing point.)

Is the guy at the gun shows getting busted in public? Has anyone seen that happen? Seems to me if "gun control" is the agenda and "closing the loophole" the focus, we should see "non-dealers" being walked out of shows on a WEEKLY basis.

No enforcement. Therefore, "50" guns really means nothing. It will make no difference if it was 5. The ATF isn't cuffing citizens, it's all public puffery, which is what this administration does best.

Looking forward to seeing a "Shall Issue" case in federal court where the ATF must provide a license. I suspect it will take years - they have to bust "that guy" who got refused first. And vague language about it will still exist.

EO's are barely worth the paper they are written on - every new law passed by Congress can erase the provisions of an old EO - because it changes the law it's based and can specify exactly how it should be handled.

They also make and approve the budget - the ATF is always concerned what happens on the Hill and where they get the money to even go to work. Anybody worried about "King Obama" is forgetting there are two other branches of government who are perfectly capable of monkeying with things, too. All the President can do is tweak existing law, he does not "make" it and when he tries they are all over that.

 

[redneck2]

I generally agree with Obamacare but unfortunately the SCOTUS decided that it wasn't a violation and that's what counts.

But none of that has anything To do with the price of tea

Dude...it isn't only Obamacare itself. It's the fact that he made at least 52 changes via executive order. This is an absolutely clear violation of the costitution.

Suppose he starts down the road to reduction rather than confiscation. Who needs a milsurp semi auto rifle? No civilian ever needs one. Start banning those. Then anything high capacity. You know, anything over three rounds

This is pretty much what hit Australia.

You must have short memories, as the current .22 fiasco is a direct result of

 

[Old Fuff]

For argument only, lets take Arizona...

Firearm registration has never existed, from the early frontier era to present. In fact a state statute (aimed at a few liberal-slanted cities) makes registration illegal!

Arizona is packed full of guns of all kind, and it's been that way forever. They're is absolutely no way to know who has what on those made before 1968 - except some sold by licensed retailers as used guns after that date.

Regardless of numbers, residents can (and will) deal among themselves in private if doing so at public gun shows is blocked by a quantity limit.

Needless to say, the underground criminal black market won't be affected much either.

The Democrats, and other supporters of gun control have great faith in the power of laws to alter or prevent illegal behavior, but little evidence that this actually works.

Perhaps they should take a hard look at 1930's Prohibition, or the current War On Drugs.

 

[Deanimator]

The Democrats, and other supporters of gun control have great faith in the power of laws to alter or prevent illegal behavior, but little evidence that this actually works.

No, I think rather that they have great faith in CONTROLLING NON-criminals by criminalizing otherwise normal behavior.

New York and Connecticut are just dim hints of the reaction they can ultimately expect.

 

[TruthTellers]

A terminally ill person in a lot of pain taking some pills to end it is a lot different than the teenager that blows their brain out because their boyfriend dumped them.

Well, with the way healthcare is going, I'd imagine it'd be a lot faster to shot oneself to death than wait for the appointment with the doctor to get some death pills. Hell, it's probably cheaper too.

As for those teenagers, they're more likely to cut themselves. Maybe we should have "common sense" knife control laws as well?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

So....where's the actual LAW that says anyone selling over 50 firearms a year must have an FFL?

The gun control act of 1968

Where in the GCA of 1968 does it say this? I've read through it and haven't seen it. Might be because of my eyes, though, old as they're getting.

 

[jerkface11]

It says you need an ffl to be in the business of selling firearms. But does not define what that means. This order states that selling 50 guns in a year means you're in the business.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It says you need an ffl to be in the business of selling firearms. But does not define what that means. This order states that selling 50 guns in a year means you're in the business.

So, the GCA of 1968 does NOT say that anyone selling more than 50 guns a year requires an FFL. So there is no actual law that says this.

Which was what I said.

 

[jerkface11]

No it gives them the leeway to decide what in the business means. Now they lose that.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It's also a two-way street.

Not having a limit means people also have the latitude to challenge the claims of the government.

"Your honor, I sold 25 firearms last year because I'm old and no longer use them so much. I've had them for a great many years. They weren't sold as part of an ongoing business, as evidence by the fact that these were owned by me for many years before this and I have no ongoing history of such routine sales."


The ATF looks for people who are making a business out of gun sales. That is what that section of the GCA of 1968 was about.

To put a number limit on it now, whatever that number may be, means that no matter what the reason for the sales may be, it's an automatic violation of the law. It's one sided, giving the government all the power and the citizen who does it none.

 

[yugorpk]

Okay here's the question that comes to my mind.

I have a friend, well, maybe not, just a guy I know and not very well at that.
Anyway, his is "disabled" and wanted to get his FFL to make some extra money out of his house, obviously with no storefront. Well the ATF turned his application down because he didn't have a storefront and such. (According to him)
He took this to mean he can still buy/sell make the cash and not need a FFL, so long as he reports it as income to the IRS.

Your friend told you part of the story. The part he wanted to tell you. The other part is that the ATF will turn down an application for an FFL if what you are asking for violates local business zoning codes. Your friend's zoning requires a storefront to run a business or he is not zoned dual use.

Ive run an FFL business from my home and I have several friends who still do. Follow the rules and they pretty much leave you alone except for an occasional compliance check. I know one guy who was approved in the last few weeks as my state now requires all transfers go through an FFL and he figures he can make some good side cash ( if anyone was actually following the law . No one is. ) They actually do a lot to help the small business owner but you have to be in the actual business and not just doing it to get good deals for yourself and you have to follow all your state and local tax and zoning laws.

Your "friend" is running a gun business without a license . Not a good position to be in before or after the latest EO.

 

[JSH1]

So, the GCA of 1968 does NOT say that anyone selling more than 50 guns a year requires an FFL. So there is no actual law that says this.

Which was what I said.

You are leaving out the fact that laws almost always lay out the broad scope and leave the details to the corresponding agency. The GCA of 1968 says you need a FFL to be in the business of selling firearms. The ATF determines who is and is not in the business. Up to this point they have not set a hard number, it looks like that may change in the future.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

You are leaving out the fact that laws almost always lay out the broad scope and leave the details to the corresponding agency. The GCA of 1968 says you need a FFL to be in the business of selling firearms. The ATF determines who is and is not in the business. Up to this point they have not set a hard number, it looks like that may change in the future.

Granted...but before this, if a person is charged with running a business because of some arbitrary number alone, then the person has something he can defend against by demonstrating through other evidence that he's NOT running a business.

Now he cannot do this. Cross the numbers line one time, even if it's simply unloading all of his guns because he's no longer going to be using them, and he's broken the law.

Accusing someone of running a business means that they are engaging in buying/selling on an ongoing, routine venture. There's more to it than just the number sold alone.

 

[DeepSouth]

Your friend told you part of the story. The part he wanted to tell you. The other part is that the ATF will turn down an application for an FFL if what you are asking for violates local business zoning codes. Your friend's zoning requires a storefront to run a business or he is not zoned dual use.

Ive run an FFL business from my home and I have several friends who still do. Follow the rules and they pretty much leave you alone except for an occasional compliance check. I know one guy who was approved in the last few weeks as my state now requires all transfers go through an FFL and he figures he can make some good side cash ( if anyone was actually following the law . No one is. ) They actually do a lot to help the small business owner but you have to be in the actual business and not just doing it to get good deals for yourself and you have to follow all your state and local tax and zoning laws.

Your "friend" is running a gun business without a license . Not a good position to be in before or after the latest EO.

I suppose that's possible, but I doubt it. He lives on a dirt road 3-4 miles outside of the town limits, and that's a town with no red light. Now, state and/or county stuff, I have no idea about.
I'll also say I told him he may well be standing in quicksand if he's ever questioned but I do see his point which is (to copy RetiredUSNChief)
"Your honor, I was rejected a FFL because I wasn't running a business, now I'm being prosecuted for running a business"
While we are in AL and generally have gun friendly juges, I wouldn't want that to be my case.

I definitely agree he could be not telling me the whole story, he's at least a little shady. A few years ago he was makeing moonshine for extra money, pretty sure he doesn't anymore, but my point is the ATF may have another story.

And my "friend" isn't really a friend, he is someone I knew fairly well at one time but only see every few years now. It's definitely not me, my wife would love for me to be in the business of selling guns, unfortunately I'm in the business of buying but only 2 or 3 a year.

 

[jerkface11]

Maybe the ATF knows about the moonshine. After all that's part of their job.

 

[danez71]

.....
It's the fact that he made at least 52 changes via executive order. This is an absolutely clear violation of the costitution.
.....

I'll ask again, spell it out for us, what part of the Constitution specifically.

You are leaving out the fact that laws almost always lay out the broad scope and leave the details to the corresponding agency. The GCA of 1968 says you need a FFL to be in the business of selling firearms. The ATF determines who is and is not in the business. Up to this point they have not set a hard number, it looks like that may change in the future.

Noope. A judge does that. The ATF arrests and charge people. Judges determine.




Lets go back and think about this.

Obama gave a guideline on how to interpret the 'engaged in business'. He didnt make a law.

Obama's guideline doesn't preclude the ATF from charging someone to be 'engaged in business' for less than 50 guns.

The ATF director tends to listen to the President in order to keep his job.

The ATF, and all LE for that matter, only arrests and charges people.


Judges (and juries) determine guilt.


Currently, someone could sell 150 guns (estate sale for ex.), and a judge could still rule the person was not 'engage in business' (because they were performing a 'one time purpose' liquidation), in part, because this isn't a law... its not part of the law... the law is still ambiguous... and its a judges job to interpret the ambiguity of the law; not the ATFs.

 

[22-rimfire]

Actually, this is a mixed bag of good and bad, but I'd say mostly good.

One of the big complaints we've had for years is that the definition of "in the business of" is left up to the whims of the enforcers. If this is put into effect, there's some level of definition established.

Of course it would depend on the wording. If it is simply a tack-on to the existing, to wit "...engaged in the business of dealing firearms, exempting anyone who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms ...unless the total sold exceeds 50 firearms per year" then it would measurably inconvenience a few folks.

If it is merely a restatement of the definition to be, "...engaged in the business, defined as selling more than 50 firearms in a year" then that would allow a certain degree of relief to those who get mighty nervous about selling a few guns now and then, but who knew they could always be painted with the charge of dealing because the law is so vague.

I tend to agree with you, but why do this at all? I have internally complained that many folks are "in business" and yet they have no business license and certainly no business related insurance. A business license usually means you have to pay taxes on your income from said business. This order if legal would inconvenience a few people who sell at gun shows without any kind of license.

 

[22-rimfire]

Gun deaths per 100K people 2004 - 2010

http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths

Now that is certainly an interesting map. Clearly if the data is correct, in lower population areas, the death rate is reported as higher which downplays the real problem in high crime areas, and as the President said, states that have more restrictive gun laws. Added: It would appear that this is a cumulative reporting not the totals divided by the number of years as normally reported. So, the map exaggerates the gun death rate to make their point.

 

[Captcurt]

Gotta go with redneck on this one. Someone is getting to be a bit brazen with their pen and phone. Enough executive orders already (maybe we should ban those)....the people will vote for what they want.

We haven't voted on anything for the last 7 years and our worthless Congress needs to be kicked out with the trash. But what does the average voter do? They vote for the same do-nothing "politicians" that has been in office for 10+ terms. We can only blame ourselves.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Maybe he was trying to tell us something. You think?