Skip to comments.
Obama ‘Seriously Considering’ Using Executive Authority to Tighten Gun Laws
PJ Media ^
| 10/09/2015
| Liz Sheld
Posted on 10/09/2015 7:34:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: bruoz
Understood, thanks. So I guess that somehow now the ATF is going to have to determine private sellers who exceed their ‘large sales volume’ threshold to somehow compel them to file for a FFL. I did not see any mechanism how the feds will determine, track, prove private sales volume. Hmmmm probably cannot be done without registering all private guns to determine any movement through sales maybe ?
To: Iron Munro
It’s going to be much, much more than that. Every gun purchase will require proof that you aren’t going to resale the gun. They’ll have to know the inventory of every gun owner to enforce compliance. That’s going to be expensive and invasive.
22
posted on
10/09/2015 8:19:44 AM PDT
by
demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: FRiends
Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
23
posted on
10/09/2015 8:24:47 AM PDT
by
deoetdoctrinae
(Donate monthly and end FReepathons.)
To: SeekAndFind
A Constitutional scholar, my ass!
24
posted on
10/09/2015 8:26:56 AM PDT
by
TexasCajun
(#BlackViolenceMatters)
To: Iron Munro
You can'tPlease you live in Florida and believe that.
O should have used the term "unlicensed dealer" which would be more correct. The way the federal law reads it's very hard to prove that an individual isn't buying and selling to "enhance" their gun collection. As a Life member of the NRA its hard to defend this administration's crap but private sales usually avoid the NICS check, at least here in Florida.
25
posted on
10/09/2015 8:27:40 AM PDT
by
bruoz
To: bruoz
O is talking about individuals that are not FFL dealers who buy and sell large numbers of personally owned guns for profit.
***************************************************
But doesn’t the State have laws on the books for this? Having been to gun shows, I don’t know of anyone who could buy a gun without first having the dealer have an FFL or the person buying the gun to go thru a back ground check?
I guess there could be people in the parking lots doing this, but that would go against State Law, wouldn’t it?
26
posted on
10/09/2015 8:29:10 AM PDT
by
HarleyLady27
(I have such happy days, and hope you do too!!!)
To: bruoz
And I don't see how he can administratively change that “collector” provision in the GCA68. You just have to have your story straight when one ATF agent sells you the gun and you sell it to the second agent a few minutes later for a profit. BTW, when I first started doing gun shows in the 70s FFLs where forbidden to sell guns anywhere except from the address on their license.
27
posted on
10/09/2015 8:35:48 AM PDT
by
bruoz
To: Louis Foxwell
"...A mandatory death penalty...for the use of a gun in a crime ..." Better make it "use of a firearm in the commission of a felony". I'd hate to get "the chair" for shooting a duck or two over my limit.
28
posted on
10/09/2015 8:36:38 AM PDT
by
skimbell
To: HarleyLady27
It depends on the jurisdiction where the gun show is held. There is no state law requiring NICS checks on casual sales. However, the Florida Constitution provides a "county option" to require them. In Hillsborough County there is a background check and three working day wait on any firearm sale that occurs on public land. Hence the shows at the Florida State Fairgrounds here are subject to the law. Technically any offer made at the show, even if the actual sale and transfer takes place elsewhere is still subject to the ordinance. Good luck enforcing it though. Shows in some other counties or private venues are not.
29
posted on
10/09/2015 8:53:05 AM PDT
by
bruoz
To: bruoz
Thank you...that answered questions I had....
30
posted on
10/09/2015 8:54:20 AM PDT
by
HarleyLady27
(I have such happy days, and hope you do too!!!)
To: SeekAndFind
Under Obamas proposed executive fiat, dealers who sell more than an arbitrary number of guns will need to obtain a license from the ATF and perform background checks on consumers.Holy crap....they already do!
31
posted on
10/09/2015 8:58:37 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism. It is incompatible with real freedom.)
To: SeekAndFind
32
posted on
10/09/2015 8:59:08 AM PDT
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: SeekAndFind
We now know that the Oregon shooter purchased his weapons legally..."No...his mother did.
33
posted on
10/09/2015 9:05:01 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism. It is incompatible with real freedom.)
To: Louis Foxwell
A mandatory death penalty with limited appeal for the use of a gun in a crime would go a long way to deter gun crime. But there are places where the use of a gun IS a crime, even in self-defense. They'd love that! Kill all the people who had the temerity to defend themselves...
34
posted on
10/09/2015 9:09:10 AM PDT
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: SeekAndFind
Using “Executive Action” to circumvent the Bill of Rights?
I don’t think that will fly.
It’s a serious miscalculation to mess with the 2nd Amendment.
It’ll be a hard lesson for Obama to learn.
35
posted on
10/09/2015 9:09:40 AM PDT
by
Forty-Niner
(The barely bare berry bear formally known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
To: SeekAndFind
36
posted on
10/09/2015 9:19:28 AM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: Forty-Niner
RE: Using Executive Action to circumvent the Bill of Rights?
Obama is an Alinskyite.
Saul Alinsky does not and never has taught changing things ( or the constitution ) via a big bang approach.
It is always via the slow, subtle, baby steps approach.
Just look at what happened to gay marriage....
First, you appoint judges who will overturn state referendums that ban gay marriage.
Then, you turn to the deep blue states and support their legislature in legislating to legalize gay marriage.
You at first voice opposition to it and then a few years later, tell everyone that you have “evolved” on the issue.
You then appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will vote to legalize gay marriage.
You then ignore such laws as DOMA and refuse to enforce it.
Then, with all the judges you have in place, allow the gay activists to challenge DOMA in the courts.
You get your buddies in Hollywood and the popular music business to make films and music sympathetic to the gay marriage cause for mass consumption to slowly but surely indoctrinate the youth.
Eventually, without even the nation voting on it, and with DOMA safely declared unconstitutional, you go for the big prize — SUPREME COURT deciding the only recognizing traditional marriage is unconstitutional.
With that, any American who refuses to recognize this decision as the “law of the land” ( Kim Davis, Christian bakers and photographers, etc ), are persecuted.
What makes you think this Alinsky-ite tactic can’t be implemented for the second amendment?
It might take years, but THAT is Alinsky’s genius. He HAS time and national complacency on his side.
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
O is using the term “dealer” to mean anyone who sells any number of guns for profit. We all now that a “dealer” in firearms must have a FFL. Contrary to some ignorant BS I have been reading in the media only licensed dealers can sell new guns. New guns come from the manufacturer, to a distributor and then to a FFL dealer. Each step is documented and traceable by the ATF to that first retail customer. Now, I used to explain this to my customers. If they transfer that gun to someone else and it is used and recovered in a crime, guess what? There is going to be a loud knock on their door and some explaining to be done. In my opinion it is not smart to dispose of that firearm that you bought new to someone with no questions asked.
38
posted on
10/09/2015 9:22:22 AM PDT
by
bruoz
To: SeekAndFind
"...more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals..."None of the so-called mass murderers were criminals before they committed their acts. They obtained guns legally and passed background checks. And your run-of-the-mill street criminals don't comply with registration laws or background check laws when they get their guns to commit their crimes with. Why do you think we call them criminals! Duh!
So again this is all for naught and just makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get their guns. Obama is playing to his base and the non-information voters of the democRAT party.
39
posted on
10/09/2015 9:40:55 AM PDT
by
HotHunt
(`)
To: SeekAndFind
HEADLINE:
Obama Seriously Considering Using Executive Authority Unconstitutional Power to Tighten Gun LawsThere. I fixed it.
40
posted on
10/09/2015 9:42:09 AM PDT
by
Gritty
(The question is not will Muslim migrants kill Americans but how many will they kill?-D.Greenfield)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson