Executive Order - Expanded Background Checks

[Don]

This is mainly for CTB and our other anti-gun members....

What *exactly* will this executive order achieve? Notice I said "exactly."

Obama has enacted 23 other related Executive Orders since Sandy Hook; and we've still had mass shootings.

Background checks occur at gun shows when the seller is a licensed dealer, because licensed dealers are already required to conduct background checks, and not doing so at a gun show would cause them to lose their dealer license. As this executive order says, "people in the business of selling guns." The *only* time a licensed dealer would not conduct a background check would be in the case of a personal firearm in a personal sale. So what gunshow loophole is this Executive Order closing?

Someone called into a radio show yesterday claiming that this EO helps because buying an automatic weapon is too easy. It's obvious that the individual didn't have a freakin' clue what they were talking about, because none of the weapons used in any of the mass shootings were originally automatic weapons; they were semi-automatic. If they were automatic, they were purchased illegally, or modified to become automatic. So how does this executive order prevent illegal obtainment of automatic weapons?

It also makes it harder for people on Social Security to obtain a weapon, if someone has determined that they're not able to manage their own benefits. But I have to ask there: When have we seen any mass shootings, or any other shootings, by someone on Social Security who was deemed unable to manage their social security benefits?

The *only* thing this executive order has done is to add the condition that your personal health records can now be opened by anyone selling weapons, or at least by the government in order to add you to the "not allowed to buy" list.

If we can't provide the evidence that these were actual threats, that enacting such an executive order would prevent such threats -- then what *exactly* does this executive order protect us from?

Because if it doesn't actually protect us from something -- then all it's really doing is taking something away from us....

 

[Don]

Post was made yesterday at 4:49pm. 21 views since then. 1 "like."

Response from those that support expanded background checks, support gun control, and/or support Obama? Crickets.

I fear for our country.

 

[Rolfe]

Don, they know that they cannot answer your questions with anything other than emotions.

 

[InTheLight]

I think one of the side effects of the EO is for gun collectors and hobbyists that want to sell some of their guns. As I understand the EO, they will now be required to have a firearms license and/or will need to perform background checks on any potential purchasers. That means if my friend the gun collector wanted to sell me one of his Glocks he would need a license and would need to do a background check on me. I doubt that he's going to go through the hassles of doing that, and even if he did, how long would it take to get the license? How does one go about doing a background check that would satisfy the ATF?

So my friend would be a criminal if he sold me a gun.

Perhaps the whole idea is for this to happen whereupon the government solution for hobbyists and low volume gun sellers will be registration of firearms.

 

[poncho]

You have to understand the mindset of the people we're dealing with here Don, to Obama and the anti gunners freedom is a loophole.

What Obama is doing IMHO is setting the stage where upon anyone can be put on one of those secret government lists and have their rights taken at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

 

[Don]

I think one of the side effects of the EO is for gun collectors and hobbyists that want to sell some of their guns. As I understand the EO, they will now be required to have a firearms license and/or will need to perform background checks on any potential purchasers. That means if my friend the gun collector wanted to sell me one of his Glocks he would need a license and would need to do a background check on me. I doubt that he's going to go through the hassles of doing that, and even if he did, how long would it take to get the license? How does one go about doing a background check that would satisfy the ATF?

So my friend would be a criminal if he sold me a gun.

Perhaps the whole idea is for this to happen whereupon the government solution for hobbyists and low volume gun sellers will be registration of firearms.

But my problem with that is the language of the Executive Order; it says "in the business of." Typically, when we define business, we're talking about trying to make a living, or additional income. Private sales don't normally escalate to the point of that definition (unless someone's just being shady; and then you have to wonder about tax evasion).

So if that's what the Executive Order is intended to mean, then that may be the first thing challenged in court.

 

[Don]

You have to understand the mindset of the people we're dealing with here Don, to Obama and the anti gunners freedom is a loophole.

What Obama is doing IMHO is setting the stage where upon anyone can be put on one of those secret government lists and have their rights taken at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

A couple of us were discussing concealed carry licenses the other day, and someone mentioned that if you get the CC license, then they have a record of you and a reason to believe you have a weapon. Of course, the counter-argument is, if you're buying your guns legally, then they already have a record of you and know you have a weapon.

 

[Don]

Don, they know that they cannot answer your questions with anything other than emotions.

And that's why I fear for our country.

 

[poncho]

A couple of us were discussing concealed carry licenses the other day, and someone mentioned that if you get the CC license, then they have a record of you and a reason to believe you have a weapon. Of course, the counter-argument is, if you're buying your guns legally, then they already have a record of you and know you have a weapon.

Last I checked the FBI can only keep the NICS records for a short time then they have to be destroyed. John Ashcroft changed the "90 day rule" to 24 hours. But the government changes laws faster than most people change their underwear so who knows what the law says about keeping those records now.

What I do know is that in Tennessee most of the people I talked to thought the NICS background check was for purposes of registration. It's not. At least it wasn't supposed to be. Those background checks were supposed to be destroyed after 90 days.

 

[Don]

Last I checked the FBI can only keep the NICS records for a short time then they have to be destroyed. John Ashcroft changed the "90 day rule" to 24 hours. But the government changes laws faster than most people change their underwear so who knows what the law says about keeping those records now.

What I do know is that in Tennessee most of the people I talked to thought the NICS background check was for purposes of registration. It's not. At least it wasn't supposed to be. Those background checks were supposed to be destroyed after 90 days.

Yeah, and the gunshot microphone records are supposed to be destroyed every 24 hours, too.

 

[Zaac]

This is mainly for CTB and our other anti-gun members....

What *exactly* will this executive order achieve? Notice I said "exactly."

Obama has enacted 23 other related Executive Orders since Sandy Hook; and we've still had mass shootings.

Background checks occur at gun shows when the seller is a licensed dealer, because licensed dealers are already required to conduct background checks, and not doing so at a gun show would cause them to lose their dealer license. As this executive order says, "people in the business of selling guns." The *only* time a licensed dealer would not conduct a background check would be in the case of a personal firearm in a personal sale. So what gunshow loophole is this Executive Order closing?

Someone called into a radio show yesterday claiming that this EO helps because buying an automatic weapon is too easy. It's obvious that the individual didn't have a freakin' clue what they were talking about, because none of the weapons used in any of the mass shootings were originally automatic weapons; they were semi-automatic. If they were automatic, they were purchased illegally, or modified to become automatic. So how does this executive order prevent illegal obtainment of automatic weapons?

It also makes it harder for people on Social Security to obtain a weapon, if someone has determined that they're not able to manage their own benefits. But I have to ask there: When have we seen any mass shootings, or any other shootings, by someone on Social Security who was deemed unable to manage their social security benefits?

The *only* thing this executive order has done is to add the condition that your personal health records can now be opened by anyone selling weapons, or at least by the government in order to add you to the "not allowed to buy" list.

If we can't provide the evidence that these were actual threats, that enacting such an executive order would prevent such threats -- then what *exactly* does this executive order protect us from?

Because if it doesn't actually protect us from something -- then all it's really doing is taking something away from us....

I support what he's doing or attempting to do with this Executive Order. Some may think it doesn't do anything . But doing nothing doesn't do anything either.

Somebody has to start somewhere in reeling in gun violence.

The EO requires that anyone selling a gun basically be licensed to do so, and therefore perform a background check. In other words, the EO says that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

I think this is a good thing and it may have prevented a situation like was seen in San Bernardino where , I believe, the now charged neighbor bought high powered rifles and gave them to the killers.

I don't think the EO is designed to stop ILLEGAL anything because no law or EO can stop the illegalities.

Now I think the proposed $500 million to increase access to mental healthcare would definitely help and I don't understand why Congress is saying they simply won't appropriate the funds?

I don't understand what the problem is with making sure that somebody, i.e who has PTSD, can't get a gun. If I'm not mistaken, the military services won't allow any person designated to suffer from PTSD or any other Post traumatic anything to even have a gun on bases. So why not allow the sort of background checks that prevent them from getting them in their homes?

I do believe they need to make a database available so that folks can readily do the background checks so that it doesn't cause a decrease in people's business.

 

[poncho]

It's dangerous to let the government build data bases on us and keep secret lists of people.

That's what totalitarian governments do. We went to war with a totalitarian regime in WW2 and another later during the cold war that were acting the same way this government is acting now.

And yes these totalitarian regimes told their people it was all to protect them too.

 

[Don]

I support what he's doing or attempting to do with this Executive Order. Some may think it doesn't do anything . But doing nothing doesn't do anything either.

Somebody has to start somewhere in reeling in gun violence.

The EO requires that anyone selling a gun basically be licensed to do so, and therefore perform a background check. In other words, the EO says that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

"Anyone selling a gun basically be licensed to do so." That directly contradicts "if you're in the business of selling firearms." This is where the EO is vague, and therefore useless. Define "in the business of selling." Does that mean they have to be declared as a business? If that's the intent, then it needs to be clearly stated.

What you've provided as an answer contradicts what the EO says. Thus, you have an interpretation of it; and I have a different interpretation. Thus, the EO is flawed, and will have to be clarified in a court of law.

I think this is a good thing and it may have prevented a situation like was seen in San Bernardino where , I believe, the now charged neighbor bought high powered rifles and gave them to the killers.

Exactly how would this have stopped the San Bernardino situation?

I don't think the EO is designed to stop ILLEGAL anything because no law or EO can stop the illegalities.

Then what exactly is the EO protecting against?

Now I think the proposed $500 million to increase access to mental healthcare would definitely help and I don't understand why Congress is saying they simply won't appropriate the funds?

I don't understand what the problem is with making sure that somebody, i.e who has PTSD, can't get a gun. If I'm not mistaken, the military services won't allow any person designated to suffer from PTSD or any other Post traumatic anything to even have a gun on bases. So why not allow the sort of background checks that prevent them from getting them in their homes?

Rape victims also have PTSD. In fact, they have a higher rate of PTSD than military members do. Should we make sure they don't have access to firearms?

I do believe they need to make a database available so that folks can readily do the background checks so that it doesn't cause a decrease in people's business.

It was my understanding the database is already available. It's the same database currently used when someone buys a gun.

 

[InTheLight]

"Anyone selling a gun basically be licensed to do so." That directly contradicts "if you're in the business of selling firearms." This is where the EO is vague, and therefore useless. Define "in the business of selling." Does that mean they have to be declared as a business? If that's the intent, then it needs to be clearly stated.

What you've provided as an answer contradicts what the EO says. Thus, you have an interpretation of it; and I have a different interpretation. Thus, the EO is flawed, and will have to be clarified in a court of law.

Yep, this is the problem. They need to clarify what "being in the gun business" means. If you sell 5 or more guns per year, or something like that, would clear it up.

 

[Don]

If I collected some, or a dozen, or even 100 handguns; then a year or two later I decide I no longer want them, and I really don't want guns any more at all; so I decide to sell the entire lot to a collector I know--am I required to obtain a seller's license?

 

[Rob_BW]

If I collected some, or a dozen, or even 100 handguns; then a year or two later I decide I no longer want them, and I really don't want guns any more at all; so I decide to sell the entire lot to a collector I know--am I required to obtain a seller's license?

There hasn't been a set number that divides dealers from non-dealers.

And in addition to hobbyists, estate liquidations happen fairly often, where non-dealers might sell off a boat load of guns.

 

[Zaac]

It's dangerous to let the government build data bases on us and keep secret lists of people.

That's what totalitarian governments do. We went to war with a totalitarian regime in WW2 and another later during the cold war that were acting the same way this government is acting now.

And yes these totalitarian regimes told their people it was all to protect them too.

What secret lists? You've got a SS#, then you're in a government database. You've got a driver's license, then you're in a government database. You've got a passport---government database. Mortgage---government database. Gone to school?---government database. Got a job?---government database. Use the internet ?---government database. Credit card?---government database.

Data mining is big business. The government doesn't really need to do this to see who is buying and selling guns. The info exists already. Someone just has to be willing to go to the great lengths to mine it.

The EO is quicker.

They've already got secret lists that aren't so secret that you're on poncho.

 

[Zaac]

Yep, this is the problem. They need to clarify what "being in the gun business" means. If you sell 5 or more guns per year, or something like that, would clear it up.

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.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

 

[Zaac]

There hasn't been a set number that divides dealers from non-dealers.

And in addition to hobbyists, estate liquidations happen fairly often, where non-dealers might sell off a boat load of guns.

That's particularly one of the loopholes they are trying to get rid of. It's no secret that lots of folks buy guns that way and then resell them.

 

[Don]

Zaac - please see post #13.