Executive Order - Expanded Background Checks

[carpro]

I predict this illegal executive order will change hardly anything at all and will just be widely ignored. Closing "loopholes" that aren't there in the first place just won't work.

 

[Don]

Well...no responses. No supporters of the EO can apparently provide answers to my questions.

Not surprised. Just disappointed.

 

[Zaac]

"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.

See post #18. It better defines the threshold.

It's an EO. They are designed to be somewhat vague so that, much like the foolish legislation passed by Congress, it will allow things that aren't explicitly 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.

You think it's flawed. The lady in the Attorney General's office and her team don't think so. It won't be clarified in court. Honestly if yall put the same pen to every EO that GWB enacted no one would be saying a thing. But the only real reason this is being talked about is because fear mongerers want folks to think the President is coming to take your guns.

If some are as uptight and prone to want to get violent as they display on this board, maybe somebody needs to take guns out of their hands?

Exactly how would this have stopped the San Bernardino situation?

I don't think too much could have stopped San Bernardino other than taking up and destroying every gun in America.

Then what exactly is the EO protecting against?

I see it helping considerably in keeping guns from being bought by people who may have a mental condition. As I mentioned before , the military won't allow soldiers with PTSD to have a firearm on base. So wouldn't it stand to reason that background checks should be available that reveal that type info?

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?

Yes. I don't think it's safe for them or others for them to have access to firearms if they are suffering from a mental condition. We can come up with all sorts of scenarios. But there are just some folks who don't need to posses firearms.

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

It may be Don. I just heard lots of folks mentioning that they believe that if the government is gonna require these background checks that they should allow everyone trying to sell a gun access to such a database.

 

[TCassidy]

So what gunshow loophole is this Executive Order closing?

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole." All gun dealers who sell guns at a gun show must do background checks on all persons buying guns from them and must fill out and keep on hand the form 4473.

Why the radical leftists keep lying about the "gun show loophole" is beyond me. It is so easy to fact check.

 

[TCassidy]

So how does this executive order prevent illegal obtainment of automatic weapons?

It doesn't.

 

[TCassidy]

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?

Never.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

In other words, EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW ALREADY SAYS!

 

[Zaac]

In other words, EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW ALREADY SAYS!

I thought that the current law, before the EO, did not require that an individual private seller be licensed and do a background check. It seems that the EO makes this a new requirement based upon who is determined to be a "dealer".

It's talked about as the "gunshow loophole" but it seems to be using that term to highlight a type of seller and not necessarily where they are selling their guns.

The gun shows just mentioned because private sellers might go to them from time to time and can sell from their "collection" without being licensed because they don't consider it a business but more of a hobby.

 

[carpro]

I thought that the current law, before the EO, did not require that an individual private seller be licensed and do a background check.

Neither does the EO.

 

[carpro]

Last I checked the FBI can only keep the NICS records for a short time then they have to be destroyed.

Do you really believe they are destroying those records? Ever?

 

[Don]

See post #18. It better defines the threshold.

It's an EO. They are designed to be somewhat vague so that, much like the foolish legislation passed by Congress, it will allow things that aren't explicitly stated.

Things that aren't explicitly stated can be, and should be, challenged in the legal system. That also means a LOT of taxpayer money used to defend the EO.

You think it's flawed. The lady in the Attorney General's office and her team don't think so.

My first response is, how many other things has the Attorney General's office, throughout the years of our country, didn't think were flawed -- yet were challenged in court and overturned?

It won't be clarified in court.

So you believe no one's going to challenge this EO?

Honestly if yall put the same pen to every EO that GWB enacted no one would be saying a thing.

Invoking GWB is a lazy comeback. And if you wanted to take the time and spend the energy, you'd find in the archives of this message board that I was one of the more vocal protestors against the Patriot Act and some other GWB legislation.

But the only real reason this is being talked about is because fear mongerers want folks to think the President is coming to take your guns.

Again, a lazy comeback. Let's actually reason this out.

If some are as uptight and prone to want to get violent as they display on this board, maybe somebody needs to take guns out of their hands?

That's a false argument, and you know it. Your statement, as it stands, means: even though all they ever do is yell and argue, let's take away their individual freedoms because someday, they *might* do more than just yell and argue.
----------------------------

I don't think too much could have stopped San Bernardino other than taking up and destroying every gun in America.

The first time you addressed San Bernardino, you stated:

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.

Either you're back-pedaling, or you're proposing that the EO didn't go far enough by not taking away guns from private citizens. Care to clarify?
----------------------------

I see it helping considerably in keeping guns from being bought by people who may have a mental condition. As I mentioned before , the military won't allow soldiers with PTSD to have a firearm on base. So wouldn't it stand to reason that background checks should be available that reveal that type info?

1) Military members not performing guard or other related duties do NOT normally carry weapons on a military base anyway.
2) Military members who live off-base are not restricted from having weapons.
3) Until this EO, your psychiatric and medical records were confidential, in order to minimize the stigma towards the person suffering mental or medical disorders. Now they're not. So to copy your method of arguing this subject: Why don't we just throw anyone with a mental condition into a state-run facility? That'll also create a whole LOT of new jobs.

Yes. I don't think it's safe for them or others for them to have access to firearms if they are suffering from a mental condition. We can come up with all sorts of scenarios. But there are just some folks who don't need to posses firearms.

And who actually gets to make the distinction as to who those "some folks" are? Or do we say anyone seeking assistance for mental conditions? What's the threshold? Because that wasn't clarified in the EO, either.

It may be Don. I just heard lots of folks mentioning that they believe that if the government is gonna require these background checks that they should allow everyone trying to sell a gun access to such a database.

Too broad, don't ya think? "Everyone trying to sell a gun"? What if I want to sell a pistol to my son? What if I want to give a pistol to my son? Should I be required to have a firearms dealer license, and run a background check on him?

 

[Crabtownboy]

 

[InTheLight]

CTB,
Please conflate two totally unrelated topics into an incoherent strawman argument again.

 

[poncho]

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.

Let's put your argument into perspective shall we?

The NDAA. Authority (sic) congress granted the executive to imprison and/or execute American citizens on a secret data base without due process.

So your argument is a government that is already claiming it has the authority to kill American citizens it has on a secret list without due process "is only trying to make the whole process more efficient. No big deal."

Gee that doesn't sound so bad.

 

[Zaac]

I predict this illegal executive order will change hardly anything at all and will just be widely ignored. Closing "loopholes" that aren't there in the first place just won't work.

Then I guess the GOP talking heads should stop talking about it then. I get the impression that many in the GOP aren't too concerned about illegal guns either.

Let's put your argument into perspective shall we?

The NDAA. Authority (sic) congress granted the executive to imprison and/or execute American citizens on a secret data base without due process.

So your argument is a government that is already claiming it has the authority to kill American citizens it has on a secret list without due process "is only trying to make the whole process more efficient. No big deal."

Gee that doesn't sound so bad.

Well you know when people don't worry about due process when prosecutors are obfuscating it and not prosecuting rogue cops who murder unarmed people, it just doesn't seem to be that big of a stretch that they would bypass due process in other areas.

If one isn't a big deal, why is this?

 

[Zaac]

Now CTB. You've taken to meddling and stepping on folks' toes. Biggrin

 

[poncho]

Then I guess the GOP talking heads should stop talking about it then. I get the impression that many in the GOP aren't too concerned about illegal guns either.

Well you know when people don't worry about due process when prosecutors are obfuscating it and not prosecuting rogue cops who murder unarmed people, it just doesn't seem to be that big of a stretch that they would bypass due process in other areas.

If one isn't a big deal, why is this?

Why are you asking me this, haven't I brought enough insults and condemnation down on myself here by saying we have a police problem to suit you?

Maybe you'd be happier with me if I claimed all the police shootings were caused by "white privilege"?

What else do you have in your bag of false and divisive democrat talking points that you would have me repeat to stay in your good graces?

 

[Zaac]

Why are you asking me this, haven't I brought enough insults and condemnation down on myself here by saying we have a police problem to suit you?

Maybe you'd be happier with me if I claimed all the police shootings were caused by "white privilege"?

It wasn't a dig. It was intended to point out that the government(federal, local and state) didn't just start bypassing due process or a whole lot of other rights.

What else do you have in your bag of false and divisive democrat talking points that you would have me repeat to stay in your good graces?

What's false and divisive about what I said? Are you now gonna tell me that prosecutors aren't bypassing due process? What I said would only be divisive to the folks who think that due process is only for them.

And you know that I don't need folks in my good graces.

 

[Salty]

Crabby - please explain how women are being denied birth control?

 

[carpro]

Crabby - please explain how women are being denied birth control?

You don't really expect an answer , do you?