The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Kilmer17]

I'm sure you guys will agree when the next GOP president issues an executive order requiring id's to vote across the country.

I support extended background checks for guns. I just don't like the President deciding that since he can't get Congress to do what he wants, he'll just usurp their authority.

Id's should be required to buy guns. And vote.

[ixcuincle]

This whole firestorm can be averted if the NRA wasn't a thug organization coercing legislators by force. They are the primary reason why there's no safety regarding guns. Anytime someone wants to try to stop bad people from getting guns the NRA claims that it will infringe upon the rights of regular gun holders. No one cares about you if you buy a gun legally and are mentally sane. Seriously. Terrorists shouldn't get guns. Is it wrong to say that? Or will legal gun holders complain? 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Is this the gun control thread or the voting rights thread?

[Popeman38]

Is this the gun control thread or the voting rights thread?

You can't see the parallels?

[Kilmer17]

Both constitutional rights. But only one is supported by either side.

[Larry]

Both constitutional rights. But only one is supported by either side.

 

Well, and one has always been run by the states, and the other has been partially federally regulated for at least our lifetimes. 

 

And one actually has federal legislation, on the books, requiring ID for some transactions, but not others, and with (as far as I know) no precise definition of where the dividing line is, between the two.  And the other has no federal regulation whatsoever regarding ID. 

 

And one has a longstanding history of selectively applying ID and other regulations to only some people, to exclude them from the system.  Whereas the other has no such history. 

 

But other than those things, it's a really accurate comparison, and not an attempt at a hijacking in the slightest. 

 

---

 

But, just so I understand your non-hijack position, here. 

 

If, the current situation is, as I understand it, then what we've got now is . . . .

 

1)  Federal legislation specifies that firearms dealers must be licensed, and must perform background checks.  (And, no doubt, lots of other regulations.) 

 

2)  Private sellers do not have to comply with these rules. 

 

3)  And the law does not actually contain any precise definition of whether a person is a dealer or a private individual.  (There is no, say, rule declaring that if one sells more than, say, three guns a year, then he's a dealer, but if he only sells two, then he's not.) 

 

If that's the current situation,

 

Do you seriously want to claim that the constitution forbids the Executive Branch from determining rules which said Executive Branch will use, to decide, at the least, which people who claim to be private sells will get prosecuted, and which ones won't? 

 

I'm pretty sure that our government system is full of such situations.  For example, I was recently researching the rules for determining who is required to be paid overtime, or not.  And what I found was four sets of rules (for four different categories of employees) for determining whether a worker was classified as a "worker" (and is required to be paid overtime), and who is "management" (and exempt from that law.) 

 

And those rules were written by the Department of Labor, not by Congress.  All Congress did was to pass a law that says "Workers get overtime, management does not." 

 

---

 

Now, no doubt, in our system, when a case on this subject actually goes to court, then no doubt the Judicial Branch will politely inject that actually, they are the ones who get to make those interpretations.  And they might disagree with the Executive. 

 

But I'm pretty sure that the Executive has to make their "interpretation of the statute", first.  Or else the case never goes to the Judicial, in the first place. 

[tshile]

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.

 

Basically, yes. I don't know if that's the best example, but yes.

 

I think if you're going to require a license at different levels of an activity you should set the boundary past which you are legally required to be licensed.

 

For example, i can make 200 gallons of beer a year without being licensed in VA. 200. 201 and i'm breaking the law because i'm not licensed to make that much.

 

It's sort of how everything else works. This is retroactive bull**** that's likely to not even be enforced.

 

Which, by the way...

 

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.

*sigh*

I'm not complaining about the executive order method.

 

I'm saying the EO itself is dumb. It's going to be really hard to prosecute (which means many won't even try).

 

But sure, pat yourself on the back because it's something. *rolls eyes*

 

He could have just set a limit of no more than 5 gun sales in 365 days (not even limit by the actual calendar) and the ambiguity is gone and the enforcement is easy.

 

But no. We get this. I bet his advisers told him if he set a limit it'd increase the likelihood of it getting thrown out by the legal system if challenged, and he simply didn't have the balls to do it.

 

But yeah. It's better than yesterday. Sure.

[Larry]

Course, require gun transfers to be tracked, and these laws become a lot easier to enforce. (And we'll all have more facts to spin with).

But then, we've got the same odds of that law passing as we do, well, I can't think of anything comparable. Better odds of President Trump successfully making Mexico pay to build a wall.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Larry

[tshile]

Course, require gun transfers to be tracked, and these laws become a lot easier to enforce. (And we'll all have more facts to spin with).

 

 

Until someone actually allows the ATF to do their job we're all going to be left guessing and picking and choosing which arguments sound good to us, which 'research' is biased or not or has obvious flaws or not, etc.

 

We'll have to settle for things like people defining mass shooting as an incident involving 4 or more people (instead of what everyone else actually thinks of it), guessing what % of gun dealers are skirting the rules, what role (if any) manufacturers are playing in it, and how criminals (the crazy shoot random people kind and the inner city gang/drug violence kind) are getting their guns.

Edited January 6, 2016 by tshile

[tshile]

The ATF has published guidance on how to interpret the new EO's re: "in the business"
 
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
 
Key points (from my perspective):
 
----
The penalty for dealing in firearms without a license is up to five years in prison, a fine up to $250,000, or both
 
As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.
 
Courts have identified several factors relevant to determining on which side of that line your activities may fall, including: whether you represent yourself as a dealer in firearms; whether you are repetitively buying and selling firearms; the circumstances under which you are selling firearms; and whether you are looking to make a profit. Note that while quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors were also present.
 

--------

 

So, as few as two firearms.

 

'other factors were also present'

 

like the motive of profit, i imagine.

 

i get what they're going for, but this seems way too ambiguous.

[twa]

I'm sure you guys will agree when the next GOP president issues an executive order requiring id's to vote across the country.

I support extended background checks for guns. I just don't like the President deciding that since he can't get Congress to do what he wants, he'll just usurp their authority.

Id's should be required to buy guns. And vote.

 

yep

 

[visionary]

Anyone watching the Obama Gun Control Town Hall special on CNN?  I think it's running from 8-10 pm.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/obama-gun-control-town-hall-live-updates/index.html

Edited January 8, 2016 by visionary

[tshile]

nope, but i caught the news teaser that people are on or around GMU's campus with guns protesting.

 

wish the protesters would realize they can protest without the guns...

[Redskins Diehard]

Anyone watching the Obama Gun Control Town Hall special on CNN? I think it's running from 8-10 pm.

Watching it. It doesn't seem like anyone should really be upset or thrilled with the executive order. Doesn't seem all that significant

[Larry]

Watching it. It doesn't seem like anyone should really be upset or thrilled with the executive order. Doesn't seem all that significant

Assume it's mostly for show. (And so are the objections).

[AsburySkinsFan]

I know. The constitution is so stupid. We should just let the President do everything.

Checks? Balances? Pfft. The Founding Fathers were obviously morons.

Who gave the President the ability to write executive orders?

I'll be waiting for your short and direct answer.

Is this the gun control thread or the voting rights thread?

If you check the title, it clearly states that we are to dismiss anything related to gun control.

 

If someone thinks that requiring a background check on a gun purchase from a store, but not from a private sale is effective is stupid.

Pure and simple.

The 2nd Amendement is not absolute, get over it.

It also had to do with maintaining a well regulated militia in a day when the Founding Fathers absolutely rejected the idea of maintaining a standing army. We have since rejected the Founding Father's silly notions of militia defense, it's time we start taking a serious look at their notions of militia and gun ownership.

[twa]

I like executive orders,we just need a better ruler 

[sacase]

 

The normal route with "checks and balances" has been tried before. 

 

So the constitution is good as long as you can use it to further the goals you believe in, but once people oppose your goals, scrap it and accomplish your goal through any means nessesary. Gotcha. 

 

oh BTW, we will allow you to vote if you are a good boy. 

 

You last couple posts have been beyond ridiculous. You are just as bad as the gun lobby you claim to hate so much. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

So the constitution is good as long as you can use it to further the goals you believe in, but once people oppose your goals, scrap it and accomplish your goal through any means nessesary. Gotcha. 

BTW, the Constitution allows for Executive Orders....jus sayin'

 

You guys on the Right keep trotting out this whole "Obama be trompin' on the Constitution with his Executive Orders." Bull.... 

I asked it earlier, and got nothing but crickets, who gave the President the authority to issue Executive Orders? 

And spare me the whole "they were only meant for proclamations etc" nonsense. Alabama schools were desegregated by Executive Order from a frickin' 5 star general.

One of the greatest moments in our nation's history took place because the idiots in Congress couldn't see that the institutional racism was hurting people.

[Kilmer17]

Who gave the President the ability to write executive orders?

I'll be waiting for your short and direct answer.

If you check the title, it clearly states that we are to dismiss anything related to gun control.

 

If someone thinks that requiring a background check on a gun purchase from a store, but not from a private sale is effective is stupid.

Pure and simple.

The 2nd Amendement is not absolute, get over it.

It also had to do with maintaining a well regulated militia in a day when the Founding Fathers absolutely rejected the idea of maintaining a standing army. We have since rejected the Founding Father's silly notions of militia defense, it's time we start taking a serious look at their notions of militia and gun ownership.

So again, please explain the liberal insistence that similar requirements for voting are somehow a violation of our rights?

 

Im fine with Executive Orders.  Just be ready when there is a GOPer in the WH and simply ignores Congress entirely.  The funny thing is that Obama was one of the biggest opponents of Ws Executive expansion.  Funny how that changes.

[tshile]

I'm cool with the EO's in limited use.

I understand the purpose of these specific ones, regardless of my feeling about the effectiveness.

 

What I can't stand is how people simply like/dislike them based on whether "their guy" is the one doing them or not.

 

I also don't like when the president starts enforcing policy by going against the law. I do not like that the policy of legalizing marijuana is being pushed by telling the the DEA to leave those states alone.  I do not like that immigration policy is being pushed by telling those departments to not do their job. IE: I do not like pushing policy, when the policy is against explicit law, by having the president say "do not enforce the law"

 

I think that's incredibly dangerous. The next president can simply undo that. What happens if Rubio wins election and decides to tell the DEA to enforce the drug laws in those states? Some people are going to get in a lot of trouble... at best they'll spend a lot of time/money fighting it up to SCOTUS.

 

So I'm not sure how happy anyone should be able this. The next president can undo all of this on day one. Are we going to have people sitting jail because they were caught doing this in 2016, while plenty of others are not in jail for doing the same thing they just were caught after a new president undid these items?

[Fergasun]

I've said my position and I'll re-iterate it again.  I'm not an active gun owner, nor do I intend to be.  I do believe that people who want to own guns should be allowed to.  Call me a "silent partner" to the NRA/pro-gun crowd.  However, his executive actions are a drop in the bucket.  And I will not be happy if the miniscule, gesture regarding background checks is rolled back by a GOP President in the future. 

 

I know the pro-gun/NRA people want to say "you can't keep guns away from criminals" - yes, that is true, but total gun control is starting to look like a much safer option than "let's make it easy for ill-intention'd people to get their hands on guns".  Starting to look like a much safer option as in "the needle on my political opinion just moved".  I'm nowhere near advocating that position, but the more they lobby against what I see as reasonable policy (more regulation, improving data for background checks) and don't even both showing up to the President's town hall debate, the more they lose me as a "silent partner". 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'm sure you guys will agree when the next GOP president issues an executive order requiring id's to vote across the country.

I would. I also support closing the gun show loophole.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So again, please explain the liberal insistence that similar requirements for voting are somehow a violation of our rights?

 

Im fine with Executive Orders.  Just be ready when there is a GOPer in the WH and simply ignores Congress entirely.  The funny thing is that Obama was one of the biggest opponents of Ws Executive expansion.  Funny how that changes.

Bush did things that I didn't like via EO and my current moron governor is doing things with EO that I think are a collossal CF. 

I'm not the one complaining about the existence of EO's and the Left were not the one's claiming that Bush was acting like a king/tyrant when issuing EO's in the previous administration. (oh I'm sure there were some morons on the Left doing so, but the majority realize that EO's are something we have to deal with. And guess what, they are CONSTITUTIONAL and the power was given to the Executive by Congress!

So, seriously ya'll on the Right need to stop prefacing every comment about Obama's EO's with "By God he's trampling the Constitution!!" Because it just makes you look stupid.

 

The worst part is that stupid people are allowed to vote.

I would. I also support closing the gun show loophole.

In Kentucky we already have to show our ID's. I'm fine with an ID, I'm not fine with driver's licenses.

As for closing the "gun show" loophole and private sale loophole, the fact that those even exist is a total embarrasment.

The FAA now requires every drone owner to register their drones with the Federal government, but guns...nope you can buy and sell those things all day long in private sales and not one needs to be registered. /facepalm

[Larry]

I'm not the one complaining about the existence of EO's and the Left were not the one's claiming that Bush was acting like a king/tyrant when issuing EO's in the previous administration.

I will freely and loudly announce that I was complaining.

Remember, one of his orders was that the Geneva protocols that our government has followed in every conflict since they were written, do not apply in GTMO, because the President has declared every one of them guilty without trial.

Another involved making a US citizen disappear, from US soil, without due process.

So yes, where do I step up to get my "I selectively object to EOs, depending on what the EO does" t shirt?