>WASHINGTON The White House unveiled gun control measures on Monday that require more gun sellers to get licenses and more gun buyers to undergo background checks, moves President Barack Obama said were well within his authority to implement without congressional approval.
>The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives now will require that people who sell guns at stores, at gun shows or over the Internet be licensed and conduct checks, officials said.
>The National Rifle Association, the top U.S. gun rights group, is feared and respected in Washington for its ability to mobilize gun owners.
Now any private gun sale must go through a FFL.
Want to sell that old AR-15 you bought? Better pay up for that NICS background check!
That's not the order, it's more that if you act like a business dealer, as in sell a lot of guns, flip them relatively quickly, have separate accounts for your transactions etc... you need to do the background check.
>the republican congress has already said they will draft a bill to stop the order anyway.
>if they can't repeal it the next republican president will
Better bump while I can
thats what you faggots get for not supporting WA. now its a federal law
Bullshit. Prove it.
...FUCK, I knew I missed something
Here, happy now? It's like you hate freedoms.
Where can I get one?
Where can you get one what? Girl?
I found mine at a live music venue on accident. I am quite glad she likes both guns and classy, racy pics of nearly/completely nude women.
You'll vote for trump because he supports guns, right /k/?
>voluntarily complying with the rules of a private establishment
For fucks sake /pol/ you're embarrassing yourself, do you not know what property rights are?
You can run a diner and have an explicit rule against feminist harpies loudly shouting about their agenda in your diner under the same logic, yet you would welcome the ability to have those rules for your privately owned establishment.
not really, this is actually pretty tame
>The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives now will require that people who sell guns at stores, at gun shows or over the Internet be licensed and conduct checks, officials said. The ATF was finalizing a rule requiring background checks for buyers of dangerous weapons from a trust, corporation or other legal entity as well
>be an individual
>want to sell a gun I never use anymore
>see that it will be much easier to simply sell my gun illegally
>criminals get guns
you're so smart Obama, maybe you check your (executive) privilege
This. Every other board is allowed to talk about the industry and regulations of their board topic, but fuck no you can't talk about WEAPON regulations and laws on the WEAPON board.
Wait, isn't that the exact same shit that we already have?
Well, if you're selling online, chances are you are a box store with an online counterpart, and you have an ffl. If you're on armslist, you didn't sell the gun online....technically, you just said "who wants this overpriced piece of shit?" and someone said "I'll take it for $xxx." And then you made a deal in person.
....you already need a fucking ffl and 4473 to pass if you're in a gun store SELLING a gun. Next.
>at gun shows
Is this an attempt to close a gun show loophole? If you're a retailer and selling guns at shows, you already need to have a stack of 4473s ready to fill out. If you're Joe Schmoe, you make a friend and come to an agreement on how much a gun is worth. This might be the only thing this shit alters.
>buyers of dangerous weapons from trusts, corporate, or legal entities
Well no shit, Dick Tracy. If I can find a fucking dangerous weapon, I'd want to prove I'm capable of handling that bitch in a safe manner, too. Pity, all the weapons I know of on trusts (or in accessible hands of corporate or other legal entities) aren't dangerous, merely fun.
Fuck you. No it isn't.
I shouldn't have to be entered into a government database to buy a Ruger or nugget. This illegal "rule" means any gun purchase anywhere requires background checks and entry into a government database.
So gun show sellers need an FFL or an equivalent, or anybody turning over a decent amount of firearm sales needs an FFL or equivalent.
So private 1-1 sales don't require it.
Honestly, I'm not bothered. It seems legit. As long as it continues to remain for high turnover sellers, gun shows etc only, I don't think it's a real problem. The problem is when this does nothing to stop crime rates, and another mass shooting happens even if it's something as small as a group of gangbangers getting blown away by other gangbangers, the media will leap with full fury saying that obviously background checks aren't enough and stricter gun control is needed.
The implementation here isn't BAD, the problem is the "give an inch take a mile" approach US
legislators and media have on gun rights.
Not every board, no.
Also, I think this goes back to this topic attracting a lot of stormcucks who aren't actually interested in a practical solution, and want to talk about how this is the hebrew's fault.
It's just not always constructive.
>implying the ATF is allowed to keep a national firearms registry
>implying that if they don't already have one, it makes sense for them to start working on one now when there are already 300,000,000 firearms in circulation in the country
>So private 1-1 sales don't require it.
But online sales do, which is the majority of private sales.
Are you really going to hop into your car and drive across six states to buy something and avoid this gayness?
Libtards want to pretend this will stop "terrorism", even though a federal background check was done on the San Bernadino shooters and they passed.
Screening out bad people isn't the goal. Building a database for later confiscation, is.
I'm saying they're not allowed to have one. People are arguing that federal background checks will mark the creation of a national registry. I'm arguing that it doesn't make sense for them to make one NOW that there are already over 300 million firearms in circulation that will never be entered into a database
>I want new rules and regulations and inconvenience and spending to accomplish something I can already do before, for free
Pass a law where the government has to pay for my gas, food, and car maintenance every single time I have to drive across state lines to purchase a gun, and I'll consider your viewpoint.
Have they presented a clear definition of what "engaged is business" means?
Is a guy selling his 10/22 to his buddy exempt? What about two guys that met on Armslist? They brokered the deal online sure, but the transaction was in person.
I suck at legalese.
>Have they presented a clear definition of what "engaged is business" means?
Anyone who sells any gun, at any time, period.
People keep trying to find the silver lining, but there is NO set minimum for this to take effect. If you sell a rifle to your dad, you need an FFL and a background check.
Maybe I misspelled "full auto M9" because I'm a faggot and can't recall shit right now. But that's what I was going for. Or that other CZ autopistol with the magazine acting as a foregrip.
I'm not driving 1,000+ miles for a fucking $500 gun, fuck that.
Knowingly selling to a felon is one thing. A felon being sneaky and posing as a legitimate buyer is something different. Falsifying information, illegal weapon purchase/possession, etc.
it's already been well defined by the ATF. I sent them an email a while back asking for clarification since I wanted to build AKs from parts kits and sell them (low volumes, like 1 a month)
"engaged in the business" essentially means you are manufacturing, buying, or selling firearms for profit.
you are not engaged in the business if you buy a 10/22 for $200 one year and sell it to your friend a year later for $250, even if you gain profit. If you buy ten 10/22s and turn around and immediately sell them for profit, then you are engaged in the business.
see the difference? it's OK to sell guns from your private collection, as long as you don't buy/manufacture with the primary intent of reselling for a profit
Here's the exact words:
A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, 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 also were present.
>There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.
>There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.
>There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.
the descriptive wording of the law is not it's legal interpretation. the description is intentionally worded to misrepresent the law, so that people who are ignorant of the law will defend it.
to be honest I approve of this move. I know it's outside of /k/'s hivemind but I am with the vast majority of Americans on this as well as the majority of gun owners. this does not affect anyone of us who are law abiding gun owners.
>A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.
Good thing it almost never happens.
You cannot go to a gun show and get an AR or pistol without a background check.
it's true that there is no specific threshold number of firearms. this does not mean that you need an FFL to sell one gun.
the difference is whether or not you are buying and selling specifically for profit
so what's to stop these people selling guns at gun shows from not filling out the proper paperwork IF this law passes?
the sellers were already breaking the law, why would they have a change of heart?
or how about having to pass a background check in order to enter the show?
of course you won't stop stuff like straw purchases but it closes off one avenue for felons to obtain firearms directly
I absolutely guarantee you it will be interpreted that way.
I'm getting a migraine here. If there's anything certain with government, especially with this administration, it's that if you give an inch they'll take a mile. You can look forward to court cases in six months where someone gets put in jail because they sold a single bolt-action rifle or a shotgun to another person for cash. I promise you it's going to happen. And then /k/ will be super pissed with 300+ reply threads wondering how the hell it happened. As per usual.
>I checked myself into a mental ward once for suicidal depression and that doesn't look good on a background check
Listen Anon, if you haven't read, or if you don't understand, the executive order be careful where you get an explanation from.
>I absolutely guarantee you it will be interpreted that way
the ATF doesn't have the money to chase down everyone who sells a gun on armslist
they barely have the personnel to approve NFA stamps
it hasn't ever been interpreted that way, as long as people aren't retarded about it. people have sold their entire gun collections without needing an FFL. because they didn't buy them with the intention of reselling for profit.
the executive order has nothing to do with this
yes, that's what I meant, cannot do private transfers across state lines
you can buy long guns under certain circumstances I think, it might be only adjacent states or something, I don't remember
but handguns are no go for sure
buy through an FFL/transfer it to an FFL in home state
this executive order is a means of gun control that makes sense and really doesn't affect anyone who is law abiding and stable. the constant threats of falling skies is coming from paranoid gun owners and politicians with unrelated agendas
I dont get it /k/. Do people just forget how to read shit when it comes to this.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
This is a statement, the reason for the rule.
>The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is the rule.
Im not even Americans and I get this.
>MFW threads about Clone armies, laser swords, robots and space ships are ok; but mention weapon control laws (laws that influence if you can or can't purchase a WEAPON) on a weapon forum are not ok.
Yeah I really want to go to /pol/ and look through 50 comments on how this is the Jews fault before I get to a comment I want to respond to only to have the thread get 404'd because everyone is bumping cuck threads vs have a more or less intelligent discussion on /k/.
people are overfocusing on a remark that as few as 1 or 2 guns CAN be engaged in a business without and understanding of how the courts interpret this
EOs don't create new law, they direct the executive branch (read law enforcement) how to interpret and enforce the law, but the courts interpretation is still the best
another example of this is when Obama signed EOs directing the DEA and other agencies to not pursue investigations of marijuana sellers licensed by their states'it didn't make it federally legal to sell cannabis, the DEA or local fuzz can still arrest you for slangin' on the corner
if you were already in prison, you don't get out
these EOs are not designed to actually do anything, because EOs can't
they're designed to appease the Dem's liberal base and scare gun owners into using FFLs
the courts will interpret the law as they always have
as before, you can't buy guns with the intent to resell, but you can resell if it turns out you don't like the gun or whatever
don't get too hung up on the "as few as 1 or 2" because that doesn't mean "anyone who sells one or two"
the situation they're talking about is suppose I sell Rooski milsurp as my business, and I travel to gun shows as part of that business
while at that gunshow, I see a Imperial marked hand nugget priced like a regular hand nugget and decide that I could sell that through my business for profit
I buy that gun with my business account and then sell it through my business and deposit the profit in my business account
I just broke the law and engaged in the business of selling firearms, but the ATF still has to find out and prove it beyond reasonable doubt
if I, Joe Schmoe the neckbeard see the same Imperial hand nugget and buy it, and, after I get out to the range decide I hate it because my groups are bigger than my gut, and list it on armslist for Imperial hand nugget prices and even make a tidy profit, I, Joe Schmoe the neckbeard broke no law and am legally fine
well, I've purchased not 1 but 2 10/22s from Scheels in WI as an IL resident
I still had to do the IL 24 hour wait, but I did it
from the ATF:
Generally, a person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State. Exceptions include the acquisition pursuant to a lawful bequest, or an over–the–counter acquisition of a rifle or shotgun from a licensee where the transaction is allowed by the purchaser’s State of residence and the licensee’s State of business. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C 922(a)(3); 27 CFR 478.29]
So I bought a gun privately online and it was shipped to my FFL to complete the transfer. I'm not sure this would have changed anything, besides the ATF going to the other dudes house to shoot his dog for being engaged in the business because now they can cherry pick 'evidence' to support a claim of 'being engaged in the business'
>TFW I live in California and this changes almost nothing for me.
The EO only applies if you are inside the gunshow, paid for a booth, accept credit cards, or have a business card mentioning guns
>don't buy booth
>sell as many as you want out of the back of your truck in the parking lot
>EO can't do shit
Not to say it isn't already toothless, because he tacked on a spending bill to it which is going to cause congress to btfo him
that's fine, there's nothing keeping you from buying in WI if you are an IL resident. buying long guns in other states is generally not restricted.
If you bought those guns from WI over the internet and wanted them shipped to you in IL, then they would have to go through an FFL. that was my case. I could have bought it from a shop in WA and wouldn't have to go through an FFL
It's an executive order "clarifying" the law, since Obama can't actually make or change laws himself. It just clarifies that if you sell a lot of guns privately to make a profit, you're considered a dealer and need to get a license.
UH OH ITS NOT /k/ RELATED, WATCH OUT FOR THE FAGGOT MOD HE GON DELETE IT!!!!
Don't Executive Orders only apply to Federal Agencies? And the President cannot regulate commerce (That's taking a job of the Legislative Branch).
Unconstitutional, and unenforceable, and should be disregarded as such.
These orders are just recommendations and orders to fed agencies on how to run their shit. OP is a lying faggot.
>clarifies that people who frequently buy/sell guns for a profit are considered unlicensed dealers
>orders NICS staff to be increased by 50% to speed up background checks
Nothing has really changed except NICS will be faster and open 24/7, and those faggots hoarding ARs for resale during the next scare will be hounded by ATF
currently to hold an FFL you actually have to be in the business of selling guns.
if you get an FFL specifically to get an SOT and obtain NFA stuff the ATF will revoke your FFL if they audit you and find you're not actually conducting any business.
defining the amount of guns you have to sell to require an FFL down to one gun a year makes it feasible to aquire an FFL just to pay the SOT and get the stamp so you can purchase dealer samples at dealer sample cost, without having to run an actual business
Yeah, because they have always been about staffing well the positions that let people get silencers, sawed off shotguns, and machine guns.
There will be a lot more sting posts on armslist from and agents, have fun.
im not saying that it does, im saying that if it did then the bright spot would be easier access to post samples.
if it defined the number of guns sold per year requiring an FFL to 1, all you would need is to sell 1 post sample per year.
you could do that at a loss, faggot
I should have clarified
the ATF (nor the courts) will not interpret it such that anyone selling any gun requires an FFL, NOR could they enforce it if they did interpret it that way
anyone else watching this right now?
>no more private sales?
>lets put tracking tech on all gats
>encourage private retailers to not sell ass-salt guns
anyone know if any of this has any real effect?
Yeah, it's bull shit. He's either misinformed and honestly thinks that adding "technology" to a gun is a good idea /OR/ he's setting it up so the government can track the guns later or disable the firearm remotely
He's also crying like a bitch
>says gun control is a long fight
It's never ending
Trump's first executive order: "Any person or persons attempting in anyway to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns shall be considered a traitor to the nation and to the constitution, and will be executed without due process."
What I want to know are the specifics of private sales. He seemed to be talking about people who sell large stocks at gun shows being required to get an FFL (to be allowed at the gun show as a seller perhaps?), but will I have to drive several miles with my friend to the nearest FFL to buy a Nugget off him for $120?
What does this mean for C&R/FFL03 people? Will "online sales" end entirely or will they just have to do a NICS check beforehand or will nothing change because it's a FFL to FFL transfer?
I don't sell I just buy, btw.
He's just talking about adding it, saying its a great idea
But dont worry anon, even if they do add it, just open up your rifle and rip out the small board or you could just get a car battery and fry the chip so if theres a law on keeping the chip in your gun, just say it shorted itself out and you didn't know
Reading your emails and texts isn't enough. We need to be able to know exactly where all your guns are located and be able to turn them off if you resist the FEMA camps!
Dead nigger king when?
>He seemed to be talking about people who sell large stocks at gun shows being required to get an FFL
That's what he means. Some cocksucker here where I live lost his FFL after "losing" 300 guns. The feds let him transfer the store's inventory to his private collection, then sell all 2000 guns privately with no FFL and no background checks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole (stated) purpose of FFLs to control the distribution of guns and make sure background checks are performed? If someone is found to have sold 300 guns without checks, and that is grounds to terminate their FFL, why let them then sell their remaining 2000 guns privately without checks? If this government wants to fuck us with "it's about safety" bullshit can't they at least be consistent?
>but will I have to drive several miles with my friend to the nearest FFL to buy a Nugget off him for $120?
No. That would require a federal universal background check law being passed, and every one that has come up in congress has been shot down. The president can't issue executive orders to get around proper legislation.
Basically these "orders" change nothing, but are just feel-good measures to make antis feel as if they won.
The funny thing about antis being made to "feel safe" when bullshit laws (like an AWB) are passed, is that they also "feel safe" when you say something is changed and it actually isn't. The feeling of safety and "making a difference" is wholly disconnected from reality and measurable change.
>Basically these "orders" change nothing, but are just feel-good measures to make antis feel as if they won.
>The funny thing about antis being made to "feel safe" when bullshit laws (like an AWB) are passed, is that they also "feel safe" when you say something is changed and it actually isn't. The feeling of safety and "making a difference" is wholly disconnected from reality and measurable change.
this guy gets it
>purpose of FFLs to control the distribution of guns and make sure
>control the distribution of guns
I found the secret liberal arguing for gun control guise
>will need approval of the Sybil System to go plinking
Took my gf shooting for the first time. She loved it and can't wait to go back.
I'm doing my part to counter Obama's culture war against guns. Are you?
The comic lies.
Women are a fast growing demographic for gun ownership.
>Cooking in kitchen
>Some junkie kicks in the door to rape and pillage
>Woman kills junkie and finishes dinner
>Women are a fast growing demographic for gun ownership.
jesus christ Anon, this does not mean that most women avoid guns.
at least you don't need a decent IQ to own a firearm amiright?
So what exactly does he plan on doing about mental health? I heard what he said about throwing money at it but does he want all mental health records to become accessible to the federal government? This worries me because I have mental health issues but I'm not violent or a harm to anyone nor am I a criminal but because I have depression and shit does that mean I'll be turned down when I go to the gun store?
Doubtful but in the event they try that and you get denied an FFL transfer I would sue under the due process clause.
At present moment because of due process you have to be declared a harm to yourself or others by court order if the state can prove you are a danger to yourself or others and in such a hearing the state would of course need probable cause and you'd be entitled to an attorney.
More than that, the FPS generation has more media exposure to guns than than any of the last few generations and the number of certified licensed hunters has remained stable in the 14,500,000-15,000,000 range (the same level of the late 60s) since the mid 90s after the 70s-80s spike leveled out. And there are more general tags, licenses, permits and stamps than there ever have been.
I read the text of the EO, there's nothing there that didn't already exist. What it boils down to is, he couldn't do a damn thing without getting bumperjacked by congress. So, he decided to tell ATF/DOJ to be more proactive in enforcing existing laws, and promised more funding for extra bodies to do it with. He also told a bunch of agencies, including DOD, to do more research on gun safety technology.
If you drill down through all of the bullshit and doublespeak, it's nothing. He got some agencies to promise to look into changing their rulemaking procedures so that mentally ill people can be added to the prohibited list. That's not gonna happen unless some laws change, which requires congress. This whole thing is just his way of saying he can't do anything. His powerbase is dumber than squirrels, so they think he said something meaningful.
This is the only thing I've seen, white house """fact sheet"""
I don't understand how any of this works, however, since executive orders are ostensibly only supposed to apply to members of the executive branch. They're not meant to be laws or give the president the ability to circumvent congress.
Thank you for clarifying
No, I've never been to any mental institution or anything like that, I stopped going to my therapist about 8 months ago because I didn't have the time for it but I was about to receive treatment for my problems and recently I was making plans to start going back but with this shit I don't want to especially if it could keep me from owning firearms
The order itself can't be, but Congress could elect to deny necessary funding for components of the order, such as the hiring of new ATF agents.
Or they could go nuclear and impeach the president, but that's obviously not going to happen.
Yes, I'm sure none of the posts were made by shitposting crossborders who wanted to piss off /k/ in the aftermath of an enormously publicized and very predictable announcement related to gun control.
it wont impact you Anon. Go and get the help you need senpai, you not only will still be able to keep and acquire firearms but you will have the added benefit of enjoying them even more.
Yeah, and I don't know why the fuck he went to all the trouble even. Unless he thinks the vague symbolic value of the move will serve as a rallying cry for stronger gun control efforts down the road.
As it is, he's risking burning bridges that he might need in a few months for objectives of far greater import, such as ratifying the TPP.
Yes. I for one fully support firearm rights for literally anyone not incarcerated or otherwise in the custody of the state such as those inmates in a halfway house.
If they shouldn't have a gun, they should be dead or in prison/jail/supervised.
>if they can't repeal it the next republican president will
Uh huh. Sure.
>They're not meant to be laws or give the president the ability to circumvent congress.
No, they just affect how the laws are enforced. I'm wondering if this background checks at gun shows thing is somehow twisting the wording of the law to apply it in ways it wasn't originally intended, or just finally enforcing the law about how you have to have an FFL to be in the business of selling guns on the people who have been blatantly breaking the law for years.
It would seem to me to be the former, since in my State, the legislature went so far as to close the "loophole" of private sales by requiring all private sales to go through an FFL.
If it were all ready illegal, it wouldn't really qualify as a loophole, but a lack of enforcement. Similar to how claims are made that multinat corporations "evade taxes" where in fact they are following the letter of the law and taking advantage of it where it did not apply.
You can guess the State.
The problem that attracted moderation in the first place was the shitposting floods that ensued after mass shooting incidents. Fair enough, I don't want to see the board inundated with that crap either. But because the mods are lazy, they weren't bothered to distinguish between those sorts of threads and legitimate /k/-related policy discussion.
>If it were all ready illegal, it wouldn't really qualify as a loophole
These are people who don't even understand what they are trying to legislate about, do you think they care about making such a distinction?
I'll probably get shit for this, but we should do it like /r/guns does it. Have one stickied containment thread to discuss gun politics issues. This solution makes everyone happy, we get to talk about guns in the news without wading into the cesspool that is /pol/ and the shitposters still get their low effort threads pruned.
>in b4 gb2reddit
executive orders are not law, the only thing obama ordered that wil actually happen is more money for the ATF and funding for mental health research/smart gun research. he can tell fed departments what to do but can't make laws.
It seems like right now
>official policy of no political discussion
>selectively ignore political threads when they're going well
seems to be a good policy.
You don't want this board fucked with more generals or plagued by rampant shitposting.
I see /k/ommandos complain about /k/ sometimes but it's a god damned on-topic paradise, relatively.
top fucking kek
>not knowing the US has numerous timezones
>not knowing its five a clock somewhere
>Samoa Time Zone
>Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone
>Alaska Time Zone
>Pacific Time Zone
>Mountain Time Zone
>Central Time Zone
>Eastern Time Zone
>Atlantic Time Zone
>Chamorro Time Zone
What you're saying has some merit, but I think you're too dismissive on the leeway that federal agencies have when interpreting how to enforce the law. A good example of this is that a rider was thrown onto a congressional spending bill that was meant to say that the federal government can not undermine state law on medical marijuana. The DEA has essentially decided that prosecuting people and seizing their shit who are following state laws and regulations on med marijuana somehow does not undermine the purpose of those laws, and they continue to do it. Even though it's painfully clear that the people who wrote it obviously meant to stop raids on dispensaries.
>so long as you aren't a danger to yourself
I hate this. With this they can justify doing whatever the hell they want to you because you are truthful about having maybe thought about killing yourself once when you felt like shit a long time ago. You shouldn't have to lie to preserve your rights if you're not committing any crime.
>another example of this is when Obama signed EOs directing the DEA and other agencies to not pursue investigations
I had thought the president was required to enforce the law as it is written, though? That selective enforcement wasn't legal? Or am I misunderstanding that.
Am I the only one who thinks this change is overall pretty great?
Sure, Obama gutted gun trusts and I expect that this will apply to existing gun trusts as well, but the whole point of getting a gun trust was to bypass the CLEO signature, which was just axed. Now, new NFA owners can just apply as individuals and not have to worry about their CLEO rejecting their applications arbitrarily.
If you believe that the law should be applied uniformly to everyone, then all that has changed is that now it will be. Maybe now, all the people who feel wronged that they now have to submit photos, fingerprints and a background check will feel how unjust the law actually is, and instead of being complacent, they will push back with a lawsuit similar to Hollis v. Holder and get rid of the NFA entirely, which should have happened 30 years ago, back in 1985.
Really only involuntary commitment matters.
It's presented as an ultimatum. Here's how:
>go inna hospital
>they treat your retarded ass
>doctor offers either for you to commit yourself or he commits you
>warns if he commits you, you'll be in psych ward longer
>really just more reporting paperwork for him an possible future legal challenges
>you unwittingly preserve your 2nd amendment rights with a 3am decision due to everyone's laziness
>years later buy all the guns, truthfully check no on involuntary commitment question
Source: my actual experiences
I get a lot of junk email concerning guns because of my interest in them.
Anyone get these utterly laughable "Obama is coming for your guns!", "assault on the 2nd amendment!" type spam email's? I think that is why we see all these overly paranoid /k/ friends.
>And then you made a deal in person.
Was about to post this. I've never received money online. Simply agreed to meet a person. Anything beyond that is my own private and personal business.
It's literally nothing except fags who buy shit for the sole purpose of flipping it / scalping are now going to be under more scrutiny, even though that was already illegal unless they manned up and got their FFL
if president nigger is saying that the ATF ruling will prevent people from trusts buying guns and 'avoiding' a background check, what the fuck is the ATF doing with my paperwork for 3 months?
>Now any private gun sale must go through a FFL.
False statement. Joe blow selling his neighbor a pistol one time won't need an FFL. Joe blow selling his "collection" of 347 identical Glocks at a gun show will have to be an FFL.
>The order itself can't be, but Congress could elect to deny necessary funding for components of the order, such as the hiring of new ATF agents.
That's terrifying. So potentially Sanders/Clinton (i.e. Clinton) could get in and just write in any law they like, with no fear of it getting stopped?
If it's due to a doctor's decision alone, it's for observation.
The question on the 4473 covers both adjudicated mental deficiency and involuntary commitment, which they can only do if you are a threat to yourself or others. Guess what they know if they've been treating you for poisoning or slit wrists for half a week...
I don't even know who Ben Garrison is anymore. I mean, I actually see something I might agree with in a comic of his for once.
THAT BEING SAID, it is still WAY too simplied and glossed over for even political cartoon standards. At best, he is making it very clear "I don't like thing" for very vague or general reason, like he always did.
Are you really trying to tell us that you don't know how checks and balances work?
The easiest way to spot someone that come post-Sandy Hook is if they take the "nugget is best rifle ever!!" meme seriously to any degree.
It's always been a joke, and it's always been treated as a joke. It wasn't until the flood of new users that people started to genuinely believe /k/ thought Mosins were the best firearms in existence.
Ok, I used the wrong terminology, but what is the point of writing an executive order, then? It's not going to be "I'm the president and it would be nice if this happened", surely?
I don't know what those checks and balances are. I'm not from the US and I don't get how an executive order is different to a law.
>but what is the point of writing an executive order, then?
They are orders for members of the executive branch (those who enforce the law and are functionaries (paper-pushing assholes)).
They only affect procedure, policy or the manner in which law is enforced.
That's the purpose of the executive branch. Legislative is the only one that can make laws. Judicial is the only one that can interpret law and make judgment as to when law applies.
The president belongs to the executive branch.
>not from the US
Say that first ffs you will give people a thrombosis.
>I'm not from the US and I don't get how an executive order is different to a law.
All an EO is, is a directive for how the executive branch of government should operate. Ideally, they should be reserved for national disasters and emergencies as a way to act quickly in the middle of the night before Congress may have a chance to meet. Since the ATF is a law enforcement agency, it falls under the executive branch of government, which the President is at the top of. Being their boss, he can tell them how to operate, including how to fill out their paperwork and to hire 200 more employees. Serious EOs, like Obama's recent EO to grant amnesty to a bunch of illegal immigrants, can and do get struck down by the courts for the simple reason that the President lacks the power to create law. That one actually was struck down for that exact reason.
>Serious EOs, like Obama's recent EO to grant amnesty to a bunch of illegal immigrants, can and do get struck down by the courts for the simple reason that the President lacks the power to create law. That one actually was struck down for that exact reason.
Ah, I see. So how will these background checks be enforced? Will policemen be required to arrest people going against the executive order? I can't see people in the police force getting away with mass disobedience for a long while.
>>Say that first ffs you will give people a thrombosis.
Kek, I did say it way up the comment chain but desu it probably got lost among the crossboard shitposters
Ah, I see. So this will only apply to those within the executive branch - does that mean that policemen can arrest people who go against this gun control EO? Or are there other agents who would be responsible for this?
So that EO was struck down because the law (written by congress) would have disputed the EO, and as such the EO cannot be allowed?
The ATF is the "police force" in charge of enforcing federal gun laws. Local police work with them, but not directly for them. The only new background checks involved in these recent EOs is the new requirement for trusts, and that would be enforced directly by the ATF, since they process NFA paperwork.
iirc a doctor can only "commit" someone for up to 72 hours for observation.
People who are committed against their will, regardless if they are insane or not, are entitled to legal representation and due process; see O'Connor v. Donaldson.
So is anyone who sells even one gun privately "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and now must get a license and conduct background checks?
How are they going to set the criteria for this? You can only sell a certain amount of guns per year?
Because you know, anyone who sells privately is obviously only selling to criminals who kill babies.
The thing is, when people stop overreacting measures like this become accepted and normalized, which can lead to more drastic measures being seen as acceptable.
Is this individual piece of legislation some dramatic federal gun grab? No, absolutely not. However, "overreacting" to relatively innocuous legislation serves the purpose of preventing the Overton window on gun control from moving towards more stringent measures.
Obama didn't change the law whatsoever. It already was like this. What's the criteria? You tell me. When was the last time you sold one gun and were arrested?
It seems to me that they only say "sell one gun" in the legal description because it would be possible to set up your own retail gun store with the intention of selling without a license, and only sell one gun to an ATF agent, and this way you can't get off by claiming that you hadn't sold many guns yet. The way the law has always been applied has been pretty clear-cut. If you intend to buy and sell guns for a profit, then you need a license. If you're just selling your privately owned guns because you don't like them anymore or need the money, then you don't need a license.
>>If you're just selling your privately owned guns because you don't like them anymore or need the money, then you don't need a license.
Will people be punished for doing this now?
an inappropriate reaction only serves to undermine your cause by removing integrity.
you clearly didn't read, or didn't quite understand the moral of The Boy Who Cried Wolf
>the new guidance does not include a specific number of guns that must be sold to qualify as a dealer, since existing law does not specify a number.
>However, court rulings have set a precedent that says a person could sell as few as one or two guns and still be considered a dealer, depending on the circumstances.
>For instance, Lynch explained, if an individual sells a gun clearly for profit, or if they buy and sell a gun kept in its original packaging, they may be considered a dealer.
Here's another analysis that I just found. Breaks it down with considerably more detail than I did, and I don't agree with all of the conclusions, but it's another viewpoint to look at.
>His powerbase is dumber than squirrels, so they think he said something meaningful.
On the other hand expect more panic buying and hoarding by the uneducated on the far right.
>tfw you will never see .22LR again until two years after Trump takes office.
well, the EO directed them not so much to never prosecute medical shops (although that is the intent if you read between the lines), but to concentrate on those breaking both federal AND state law
it's based on your intent when you purchase the firearm(s)
see a Finn Mosin mispriced as if it were Russian and think "ah, that'll be a quick flip"?
you're doing it for profit
see a Finn Mosin marked as if it were Russian and buy it because you've always wanted a Finn
then later find out it was priced so cheap because the barrel is pitted and accuracy sucks, but flip it to some neckbeard for double what you paid?
it's a subtle and mostly unenforceable distinction
you hire Schlomo Scheckelberstein to represent you
Schlomo gets up there and says "prove that he did it for profit" and when the prosecution goes "uh, uh, uh" the judge will throw their case out
I bet Obama and those involved with this EO are having a good laugh at the shit fit progun loud mouths are having over this.
maybe this is a political move to discredit gun guys by showing how they will overreact to anything put forward in the name of safety, even when it is nothing new and actually would make acquiring guns easier.
>assume they are all different people
It's not uncommon to see somebody attempt to samefag on /pol/, which is hilarious because it doesn't work. Imagine how often it happens here.