Alinsky Rule 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have”.
So private sellers are supposed to, what? Just show up at a licensed dealer and say “please run this person through NICS.”? And how are licensed dealers supposed to “encourage” folks to do this? Advertise? Go door to door?
Who handles the 4473? The dealer? The seller?
I don’t recall him saying that in his speech. Also, it wasn’t in the news.
You mean he deliberately held back information from the people?
Shocking.
It almost seems to me that the government is encouraging FFL’s to simply lie to people by basically telling people that it is “required” to do a background check with an FFL even for private transactions, even though there is no law at this time that states such.
I know what all FFLs in Tx will say.
FUBO!!
Confucius say man who poke hornets` nest get stung.
Currently, FFLs aren't allowed to use the NICS system to simply run someone's name to see if they would be accepted or rejected. An actual transaction must be in the process of taking place. This is telling FFLs how to process these private transfers.
The next step will be requiring that all private sales be done through an FFL, but that will take an act of Congress, not an EO.
Nobody except an idiot is going to sell their gun to another private party through an FFL dealer.
I can see some unscrupulous FFL’s lying to people so they can make money for doing NICS checks.
If you hear about it, send them a nasty email. Or, visit them in person and inform them you will NOT patronize a business that goes along with the Obama disarmament agenda.
No, thank you. I will not use an FFL simply to make a communist happy. This is about good and evil, and the "request" that we use an FFL and create an audit trail is not coming from those who side with good. In the unlikely(?) event that the federal government becomes an enemy of freedom, every untraceable firearm in the hands of a decent person is a very good thing.
F troop has a long history of overstepping the laws that they are supposed to obey.
Private sales are just that - PRIVATE. Until CONGRESS changes the law there is no legal obligation for FFL dealers to encourage NICS checks for private transactions.
I’m sure a lot of them will tell the F troopers that they are available to do that should a subject, er citizen, request it just to keep them off their backs.
Read whole article, but particularly 3rd from last paragraph:
Here it comes, as I said in a TGO post last week.
P4L
Class action suit time.
How would FFL’s be involved in deals between two people? There is no federal laws saying you have to use a FFL to buy or sell a used firearm between two people, so I don’t see how FFL’s would be involved unless you are shipping the firearm.
Whole thing is nonsense.
Going to be thousands of new jobs out there...Undercover agents will be trying to buy guns from private citizens all over the country...
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I believe the second part of this Amendment is an answer to the first part.
And just how many mass killings would this have prevented?
GET REAL!
The Commerce Clause indirectly clarifies that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce. And I will substantiate my statement about the Commerce Clause with the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's writings. Using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Jefferson had clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
So the federal government originally had no constitutional authority to regulate (interfere) with iintrastate agricultural products like alcohol and tobacco. In fact, the Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Butler that the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate intrastate agricultural production, the Founding States having made the 10th Amendment to clarify in general that the Constitution's silence about things like agriculture automatically made it uniquely a state power issue.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)." --United States v. Butler, 1936.
On the other hand...
Note that the states had ratified the 18th Amendment, essentially delegating to Congress the specific power to prohibit intrastate agricultural production, specifically the production of alcoholic beverages. So there had been a constitutional exception to the Commerce Clause.
The problem is...
While the federal Bureau of Prohobition (BOP), which evolved to become the ATF, had been established to support federal government enforcement of the 18th Amendment, I think that the BOP was wrongly ignored by Constitution-ignorant voters after the states ratified the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment. In other words, instead of the constitutionally obsolete BOP being decommissioned after 18A was repealed, its shell arguably provided the perfect smoke-and-mirrors vehicle for the corrupt federal government to interfere with intrastate agriculture and gun rights.
Finally, problems with the intrastate firearms aspect of ATF has been addressed, imo, by the Supreme Court's clarification of the purpose of 2A in United States v. Cruikshank.
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes (emphasis added), to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
The movement is now an out of control avalanche and the ATF cannot keep up with the flood of records keeping, they are fully aware that for every registered gun there are several hundred unregistered private sales, and they are all wrought with concern that this will lead to millions of untraceable weapons should they be forced to search and destroy.
essentially its desperation on their part, and it sure smells good.