Popeman38 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Who's limiting rights? Everyone still would have the right to bear arms just as everyone has the right to smoke a cigarette. This idea will never pass, but if no legislation can ever be passed to address the real issues of gun violence and we will even forbid research into the area of gun violence... then a sideways approach may be the only feasible option. Access is a problem. Access combined with anger, stupidity, evil, mental health, irresponsibility, and a whole litany of problems is a problem. It's a problem we don't address. We barely even shake a fist at it in mock exasperation. You're right. I picked too low a number. A thousand is too cheap. OK. And you can only vote if you own property. If you rent or live at home with mom n dad, or attend college, it just sucks to be you. I'm not limiting your right to vote, I'm just ensuring only responsible people vote. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Actually, I'm just being a wise arse with this. I get that you're joking because you know it can't actually happen, but the ends to which you're trying to accomplish are quite clear. And you're ok with doing it based on how much money a person has. It's fine because I realize it won't actually happen. I'm just pointing out what's behind your little joke If it passed the courts would have a tough time overturning it. No they wouldn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our FWIW as a gun owner, second amendment supporter, and life member of the NRA, I don't really have a problem with anything in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our FWIW as a gun owner, second amendment supporter, and life member of the NRA, I don't really have a problem with anything in there. The only problem I have with it is they're making this "engage in business" of gun sales stuff... but they say... there's no actual rule that determines that. it's up to the 'evidence' I don't like that. I don't care if they limited it to selling 5 guns a year. I'd just prefer some sort of actual rule instead of this ambiguous, we'll figure out how we enforce it later; oh and that's subject to change as we desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our FWIW as a gun owner, second amendment supporter, and life member of the NRA, I don't really have a problem with anything in there. As tshile says, the President basically authorized local prosecutors to prosecute anyone they deem to be in the business of firearms without defining what that means. The fact that the local DA can charge you for selling a single firearm because you haven't become a licensed dealer is bull****. Opens a slippery slope. Person who buys your gun gets drunk and shoots someone and they trace the sale back to you and now you get charged for being an unlicensed dealer? Same dude goes to Dick's/Wal-Mart and buys it and nothing happens to Dick's/Wal-Mart. You are politicizing the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) The only problem I have with it is they're making this "engage in business" of gun sales stuff... but they say... there's no actual rule that determines that. it's up to the 'evidence' I don't like that. I don't care if they limited it to selling 5 guns a year. I'd just prefer some sort of actual rule instead of this ambiguous, we'll figure out how we enforce it later; oh and that's subject to change as we desire. As tshile says, the President basically authorized local prosecutors to prosecute anyone they deem to be in the business of firearms without defining what that means. The fact that the local DA can charge you for selling a single firearm because you haven't become a licensed dealer is bull****. Opens a slippery slope. Person who buys your gun gets drunk and shoots someone and they trace the sale back to you and now you get charged for being an unlicensed dealer? Same dude goes to Dick's/Wal-Mart and buys it and nothing happens to Dick's/Wal-Mart. You are politicizing the issue. Yeah I guess I'm with y'all there. The problem is that giving a hard definition necessarily creates ways to skirt that definition. Right now we've got guys that probably sell dozens or hundreds of guns annually but aren't "in the business". But the minute you say "Look, if you transfer ownership of more than X guns per year then you're 'in the business'" you get sued by people who want to give their guns to their kids. Like you say it shouldn't be vague, but it has to be open-ended enough to disinclude actual private good faith transfers while catching those guys who are selling guns for income but staying just on the outside edge of licensing requirements. I'm not sure how you go about doing that. Edited January 5, 2016 by Stugein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Who's limiting rights? Everyone still would have the right to bear arms just as everyone has the right to smoke a cigarette. This idea will never pass, but if no legislation can ever be passed to address the real issues of gun violence and we will even forbid research into the area of gun violence... then a sideways approach may be the only feasible option. Access is a problem. Access combined with anger, stupidity, evil, mental health, irresponsibility, and a whole litany of problems is a problem. It's a problem we don't address. We barely even shake a fist at it in mock exasperation. You're right. I picked too low a number. A thousand is too cheap. Hmm now let's change this to ID laws for voting and see how fast you do an about face. As tshile says, the President basically authorized local prosecutors to prosecute anyone they deem to be in the business of firearms without defining what that means. The fact that the local DA can charge you for selling a single firearm because you haven't become a licensed dealer is bull****. Opens a slippery slope. Person who buys your gun gets drunk and shoots someone and they trace the sale back to you and now you get charged for being an unlicensed dealer? Same dude goes to Dick's/Wal-Mart and buys it and nothing happens to Dick's/Wal-Mart. You are politicizing the issue. Funny thing is very few AUSA's are going to prosecute these cases. why? Because they are not sexy and they will have a hard time getting convictions. If you knew how many cases with good evidence never got to court because there is a chance the AUSA might lose or it isn't sexy enough, you would be amazed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Funny thing is very few AUSA's are going to prosecute these cases. why? Because they are not sexy and they will have a hard time getting convictions. If you knew how many cases with good evidence never got to court because there is a chance the AUSA might lose or it isn't sexy enough, you would be amazed. Yeah, but charging someone is enough to ruin their life. Loss of job, reputation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 So....If you can pass a background check, you can buy a gun. If your customer can pass a background check, you can sell the gun. What's the problem? And spare me the slippery slope, predictions of tyranny paranoia. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The problem is that giving a hard definition necessarily creates ways to skirt that definition. I definitely get that. So....If you can pass a background check, you can buy a gun. If your customer can pass a background check, you can sell the gun. What's the problem? And spare me the slippery slope, predictions of tyranny paranoia. What's the problem? The problem is with the specific wording about requiring a license to be a gun broker. For the sake of argument - I wouldn't care if you required ALL sales, including private, to be subject to a background check by a local gun dealer (for whatever fee they charge - $20 or whatever.) But this wording, to me, says they can retroactively determine you're now 'engaging in the business' of dealing guns, for which you need a license, and since you don't have one you can now be charged with selling guns as a dealer without a license. It would seem to me setting a definition of what it means to be a gun dealer would be simple and signfiicantly better. like say - if you sell more than 5 guns a year you need a license; if you're selling/giving them to family members you file for an exemption or something (say in the case of dispersing the collection of your recently passed father to his family) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Perhaps the grey area there is a bit of rope which unlicensed dealers will use to hang themselves. And it boggles my mind that we don't already have laws and protocol in place that requires all gun sales to be subject to background checks. Boggles. My. Mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Perhaps the grey area there is a bit of rope which unlicensed dealers will use to hang themselves. And it boggles my mind that we don't already have laws and protocol in place that requires all gun sales to be subject to background checks. Boggles. My. Mind. I'm with you on the background checks. Trust me. I don't know how you can expect anyone to successfully convict unlicensed anything when you're not going to set the requirements for needed said license. It just sounds like something that will be abused by the government, or not enforced because they can't do anything with it. I'm willing ot bet the later, that's what a lot of our gun control ideas are: things that make people clap but don't actually do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Does this background check require a photo of to prove who you are? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Does this background check require a photo of to prove who you are? Obviously unnecessary. Take their word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Does this background check require a photo of to prove who you are? Yes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Yes... Obviously this requirement adversely affects blacks. Ergo. Obama is a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 But this wording, to me, says they can retroactively determine you're now 'engaging in the business' of dealing guns, for which you need a license, and since you don't have one you can now be charged with selling guns as a dealer without a license. It would seem to me setting a definition of what it means to be a gun dealer would be simple and signfiicantly better. like say - if you sell more than 5 guns a year you need a license; if you're selling/giving them to family members you file for an exemption or something (say in the case of dispersing the collection of your recently passed father to his family) I agree with your second paragraph, with the law, clearer is usually better. I disagree with your first paragraph. The executive order has an effective date. Before that date, certain things are legal, after that date, they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Obviously this requirement adversely affects blacks. Ergo. Obama is a racist. Here's the racism you're looking for, you tireless crusader! http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/alabama-drivers-licenses-voter-id Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I agree with your second paragraph, with the law, clearer is usually better. I disagree with your first paragraph. The executive order has an effective date. Before that date, certain things are legal, after that date, they aren't. I wasn't saying that. I was saying you could sell guns all year (after the EO effective date), not recognized as a gun dealer. Then the government could decide you are a gun dealer, and charge you for your previous dealings of the year - selling guns without a license. Not because you actually violated any law, but because they've reviewed your activity and decided (based on no set of standards) that it now violates the law because you didn't have a license they never told you need to have. It goes against the way we license everything... Some things need licenses if you sell this amount, or revenue exceeds this, or you do business this way, or you whatever. There are rules. This is as ambiguous as it gets. I 100% like the intent of closing down people who use 'private sales' as a loop hole to sell guns without background checks. 100%. This is an awful way of accomplishing that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I wasn't saying that. I was saying you could sell guns all year (after the EO effective date), not recognized as a gun dealer. Then the government could decide you are a gun dealer, and charge you for your previous dealings of the year - selling guns without a license. Not because you actually violated any law, but because they've reviewed your activity and decided (based on no set of standards) that it now violates the law because you didn't have a license they never told you need to have. It goes against the way we license everything... Some things need licenses if you sell this amount, or revenue exceeds this, or you do business this way, or you whatever. There are rules. This is as ambiguous as it gets. I 100% like the intent of closing down people who use 'private sales' as a loop hole to sell guns without background checks. 100%. This is an awful way of accomplishing that. Oh i see. So you are concerned that a person could sell like, a gun in January, then another in like July and still feel like he's not "engaged in the business" and then sell 10 guns in August and cross the line to being considered "engaged in the business" and now the 2 guns he sold previously without conducting a check would screw him? I can see how that could be an issue, but i'd have to read the whole existing law to see if it defines "engaged in the business" on a calendar-year basis. As to your second point about this being an awful way of accomplishing the goal: it appears that it was the only way, b/c Congress isn't going to do ****. All in all, this is a pretty modest proposal that is likely going to expand background checks a little bit and is a small incremental step in what I think is the right direction. Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it better than what we had yesterday? I would say yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Given the ridiculous republican reply and paranoia about "Obammer taking our guns" what happened today was long overdue. Everyone knows gun legislation can't pass because Republicans are being obstinate and in the pockets of the gun lobby. So **** Congress and **** Republicans. Subvert them all because they're all in the pockets of the lobby Lol NRA making threats about Obama and legislators siding with the president. NRA is despicable organization and lobby. Do you see what Obama and his friends are up against? Nobody is trying to take your gun. Nobody is trying to make it difficult for you to buy a gun if you're a good boy. We just want safety so crazy people can't buy guns at gun shows (no background checks) and use them in attacks against innocent people. Too many damn people being capped and we need to ****ing do something about it. But when we do the Republicans and the NRA get involved and make excuses about how they will INFRINGE on their right to get a gun. NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM GETTING A GUN HOSS. IF YOU DON'T BREAK THE LAW YOU CAN HAVE A GUN NO ONE IS SAYING YOU CAN'T IT'S MOTHER****ING RIDICULOUS IS WHAT IT IS **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I know. The constitution is so stupid. We should just let the President do everything. Checks? Balances? Pfft. The Founding Fathers were obviously morons. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I know. The constitution is so stupid. We should just let the President do everything. Checks? Balances? Pfft. The Founding Fathers were obviously morons. Well tell me what did he do wrong then. How is it wrong to demand a gun show loophole which lets crazy people buy guns stay open? How is it wrong to demand restrictions and make it more difficult for these incidents to happen? If he goes through Congress you saw what happened after Sandy Hook. The Republicans will just deny it because they're in cahoots with the gun lobby. Obama felt COMPELLED enough to just subvert those corrupt assholes in Congress because something had to be done. The normal route with "checks and balances" has been tried before. The Gun lobby is too powerful. Even as we speak they continue to slander and demean any candidate or politician that dares to side with Obama. The grim reality is that people love their guns. They think any kind of law putting any restriction on them restricts THEIR ABILITY to purchase guns. They think Obammer is going to take their guns away. No one is going to do **** to you if you are a law-abiding citizen. Obama isn't just going to march in your house and take your handgun and spank you and say you're a bad boy for owning this gun. The Republican response to Obama's gun control legislation has always been ridiculous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Kilmer,Funny, I don;t recall the constitution forbidding executive orders.ix,Funny, I don't recall "well, we all know we can't pass the thing I want, through Congress, therefore imposing it via EO is valid" being stated in our government framework, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Well he's done it before on immigration so You all act like this is the first time someone has used EO Other presidents have done it before **** Guns **** that **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts