Posted on 10/05/2015 2:30:13 PM PDT by Kaslin
If this sounds familiar, it’s because Obama took the same attitude towards executive amnesty. Either Congress could give him what he wanted by legalizing illegals or he’d give himself what he wanted by legalizing illegals unilaterally. The president no longer loses in our system of (giggle) separation of powers, at least if he has a complacent caucus from his own party in Congress that’s willing to defend him on every power grab at their branch’s expense. Hillary’s building on that precedent now, in the middle of a surprisingly tough primary campaign, to stroke one of the few political erogenous zones that excites the left more than open borders does.
Hillary embracing gun control is a bit like Jeb Bush embracing Dubya’s legacy. There’s a lot of potential downside in the general election and comparatively little upside, but in the primary that calculus is reversed. Besides, if Hillary’s destined to be attacked as a gun-grabber in the general no matter what she does, just as Jeb is destined to be attacked as running for 43’s third term, they might as well embrace those images and earn some brownie points from their own side in the process.
The proposal most likely to generate controversy is using executive action to close the so-called gun show loophole, if efforts to pass new measures in Congress do not succeed, according to a campaign aide to Mrs. Clinton, who asked for anonymity to lay out the plans before the candidate does…
A central issue in Mrs. Clinton’s proposals are the background checks on prospective gun buyers, which are required for retailers at stores. But under federal law, they are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers.
Under Mrs. Clinton’s plan, she would use administrative powers to make anyone selling a substantial number of guns declared “in the business” of firearms dealing, and subject to the same rules as retailers, if Congress does not act, according to the campaign aide.
It was not immediately clear what the bar for being declared “in the business” would be.
When was the last time a degenerate responsible for a mass shooting used the alleged “gun-show loophole” to buy his murder weapon? The nut in Oregon owned 14 guns, every one of which turned out to be traceable to a federal firearms dealer. To the extent that today’s Hillary proposal is designed to capitalize on public horror over yet another massacre on an American campus, it’s an exercise in “gesture liberalism,” a feelgood do-something measure that doesn’t actually address a major problem. In fact, even the way this supposed problem is framed is a lie: As many of you already know, the “gun-show loophole” that supposedly allows anyone to sell an arsenal of weapons to a buyer without a background check is nothing of the sort. Where the sale occurs doesn’t matter, as Sean Davis explains. Whether at a gun show or anywhere else, if you’re selling weapons to the public repetitively and in any kind of volume, you’re a dealer for purposes of the law and are required to perform a check of the buyer. The “loophole” that permits sales without a background check effectively only covers sales between two private individuals who live in the state and only if the seller isn’t selling guns regularly. Think “dad selling his pistol to his son,” not “guy in a booth selling AR-15s to dozens of strangers at a gun show.”
Again, though: As with the “assault weapons” ban, this is less about Democrats trying to solve a glaring problem than about (a) signaling to the left that they’re on the team and (b) moving the Overton window, however marginally, towards greater federal regulation of guns. Which raises a good question from Greg Sargent. If Hillary thinks this is worth doing as president, even if just to polish her liberal cred, how come President Overreach hasn’t done it already himself? As for the broader politics of this, put me down with Drew McCoy as favoring anyone in the upcoming House GOP elections for Speaker and majority leader who has a strategy for restoring Congress as a check on the executive and is willing to speak up in favor of it. That’s the Overton window that desperately needs moving. It won’t be easy.
Hillary Clinton: We Need Universal Background Checks To Curb Gun Violence
The friends of Eddie Coyle.
Like she could pass an honest background check herself!
They run around in circles, pulling their hair, screaming “gunshow loophole! gunshow loophole!”
Of course it doesn’t exist, its just the monster that lives under their beds. I can’t imagine waking up every day trying to live life as a flaming leftist whacko. There is no truth, no logic, no God, no facts and no cure. Sucks to be a tool for hellery.
Oh yeah Evita! Far be it you should cow tow to those silly representatives of the citizens before deciding on your own what's best for them and their pathetic fly over ilk! Sheesh, whats the use of a Democracy if you cant do what ever you want anyway?
Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold and Joyless, is just putting out fodder for the Low-Information voters and the mainstream pundits, who will do ZERO fact-check.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Talk about warp speed....
Hill would do better to watch out for someone throwing water, or dropping a house on her.
What is the gun show loophole? I am serious. I’ve been hearing this from the democrats for years now and no one has really defined it.
I know here in Pennsylvania, you must go through a background check for any transaction involving a gun. I even bought a 22 rifle from a friend and we took it to a gun shop to have them fill out the paperwork.
Anybody who does not do this is not within the existing laws. The people not doing this will not obey any law you pass.
I am serious though, please somebody tell me what is the ‘gun show loophole’.
Can you say “Go **** yourself, Hillary”? Sure you can.
“There is no ‘gun show loophole’.”
Correct. What she wants to do requires ALL guns to be registered with the government.
That makes the confiscation much easier 2 years later.
Some are hoping that Hillary will go to jail. But the anger, frustration and bitterness that will gnaw on her after wasting decades and a small fortune on two failed efforts to win the White House in which she had every advantage only to lose before even leaving the starting gate will be worse than any prison.In January 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sitting in front of a television set watching someone else take the oath of office. Nothing the penal system has to offer would be a harsher punishment than that moment.
EFF CONGRESS!
How about what the US Constitution plainly states? How about, what the American people want?
EFF YOU, KILLARY!!
In libtard logic, it means that background checks aren’t required at gun shows.
In the real world, background checks are required each and every time you buy from a licensed dealer...including at gun shows. They may or may not be necessary for private individuals selling to other private individuals depending on state law and regardless of venue.
I still want her to be wearing an orange jumpsuit with "Ft. Leavenworth" stenciled on the back when she is watching this.
If patriots can elect a 2/3 non-RINO conservative majority to the Senate and keep majority control of the House in 2016, then Congress will be able to impeach and remove lawless people like Hillary from office, not that I’m expecting her to get elected.
Also consider that if conservatives win supermajority control of the Senate then we can “reset” the Supreme Court with new, Constitution-respecting justices.
Sales between two private individuals, not having a Federal License to sell guns, does not have a federal requirement to to have a background check.
In Pennsylvania, handguns require the background check, rifles and shotguns do not.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/pennsylvania/
Other states have different requirements. Texas does not have such a requirement.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/texas/
It’s pretty ghoulish how the commies think that some satanist killing a bunch of Christians means it’s Christmas and they can ask Santa for more gun control.
It’s stupid that Clinton hops up on citizen disarmament Santa’s lap and all she can think to ask for is the “gun show loophole”. Requiring FFL transfers at a gunshow wouldn’t be that much of a hardship on anyone, so as tyranny goes, it’s not all that tyrannical, I expected more from her.
Is she interesting in explaining how closing this “loophole” is important when it’s been documented criminals don’t use it and she can’t point to any famous killer that has used it? Don’t tell me Columbine, they used a straw purchaser so it doesn’t matter if it was a gun show.
How many mass shootings have occurred at gun shows vs. how many have occurred at schools that have been declared “gun free” zones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.