Thanks, Laz.
Posted on 01/05/2016 2:03:33 PM PST by Lazamataz
A bit indignant? Insulted perhaps?
Besides, this has already been settled.
Go back to sleep, Clyde.
In effect on paper and enforced on the ground are different things.
A steal for a perfect record of prediction. Which we have RE the GOP. Sure upsets people here though. you’d think we were infiltrated with leftists. I mean why would conservatives be upset by truth and accuracy?
Norm you have just won 13 silver dollars. Just ignore Ofail and his illegal EO. He is a lame duck with 12 months to go until he will be back in Chitown hitting the bath houses with Rahm.
I wish we could. But you know he does not ignore us. He might be a lame duck by the traditional definition, but the GOP ensures he’s avoiding all the political lead amidst all the hunters in duck season rather well.
To look at liberal forum comments on Washington Post/NYT/DailyKos, etc. you’d think they’d won some profound achievment against the hated gun lobby. Good show, Mister President! It’s high time, and so on.
Yet to look at the gun enthusiast comments of forum participants on gun boards who’ve actually read these executive orders and BATFE documentation that’s presently being updated to match, you’d come away with the notion that Obama’s EOs are meaningless to near harmless and perhaps even an improvement in at least one area. Perhaps two.
I think the intention of the White House and DOJ is/was to chill casual gun trading and give marching orders to the BATFE to prosecute unlicensed sellers, but I have to wonder if they’re actually reversing themselves on President Clinton’s effort to diminish the number of ‘kitchen table’ gun dealers: In 1994, the ATF went after small time gun sellers who had Federal Firearms Licenses (FLLs) yet didn’t own a storefront. The number of ‘kitchen table’ dealers diminished when the ATF refused to renew their licenses if they didn’t have a genuine place of business. Difficult to get an FFL if you didn’t own a gun store. However in recent years the BATFE is telling people in the business of merely refinish hunting rifles (and not selling a single gun) that they also need to have an FFL.
Today, Obama’s latest EO is saying that not only are FFLs no longer highly restricted, but are practically ‘Take One!’ for a grand total of $150 renewable every three years. Also, those of you with NFA trusts because your local CLEO won’t sign your ATF form to allow you to own a machine gun or a silencer are now welcoming the news that the CLEO’s signature is no longer a requirement! If your state allows restricted NFA items, you can individually own them and who cares what your local Sheriff thinks?
Rather than expressing horror, gun boards are generally saying “What? Really?!” in response to these new policy changes at BATFE. They’re not registering guns, they’re seeking to register people. But hell, anyone already owning any store-bought Title I and Title II guns is already well known to the BATFE and has been for a pretty long time. Those who didn’t still aren’t.
We’ve been looking for poison language in these executive orders and are so far only finding reversals of prohibitive BATFE policies. Overall, it’s merely a restatement of the facts as far as anyone can tell at the moment.
The fed govt cannot keep up with overstayed visas so how well will they do with private gun sales?
Thanks, Laz.
The sole new area of inspection is the internet, which did not practically exist at the time of most of the effected legislation. (It existed, but in far too small a measure to pop the radar of the Elitists).
True indeed. But the Feds don’t want to interfere with illegals and they do want to stop guns and jail their owners.
I wonder what your thoughts on that would be. I mean, I could be sued by someone who might have been harmed by a weapon I sold to another individual, but with a mandatory check at gun shows for ALL sales, the legislation could be written to void any further responsibility on my part for selling to another individual.
Just wondering what your thoughts on that are. I don't know if you've ever sold something at a show, but I have a few years ago and that lingering issue of lawsuit has haubted my thoughts.
Awww, com’on Humble.
*Somebody* has to be at the top of the heap.
Sold, no.
Bought yes.
Things seem fine the way they are.
When I purchase from a dealer I expect a background check.
When I buy or trade with friends and family not so much.
See #46.
Mr. RR asked me what I wanted for Christmas. I had two things on my list. A small pistol (purse friendly)and a new toilet seat for our master bathroom.
I got the Ruger LCR double action revolver....small, light weight..holds eight 22 hollow point shells. Lessons tomorrow from a dear friend who is a firearms instructor.
When we get back to the Black Hills from doing our Snowbird thing here in Arizona, I hope to get my new toilet seat.
Mr. RR and our firearms instructor friend visited with a local gun shop owner this morning. He said Obama would kill his business.......as he is killing our country.
More important in naked Rugby than in Politics.
Just to add perspective.
Perhaps, but that’s nothing really new to me. I participate on gun forums where there are BATFE members openly present as enthusiast participants, often helping others understand the arcanum of the NFRTR. Sure, I’ve even seen ATF agents at gun shows, running tables even.
I admit that I haven’t participated on such things as ‘The Dark Web’ where illicit gun traffickers sell firearms to criminals for BitCoins, or whatever, presuming that such things actually exist. Perhaps they indeed have Constitutional jurisdiction in such places regarding illicit transactions.
I’m a solid RKBA type, but I’m not about to say that some guy has a pure Constitutional right to thumb his nose at his HOA after mounting a ZSU-23 AAA gun on the roof of his house. Own a ZSU-23 battery? Okay, I guess. But I think Highway and Fish and Game laws can prevent you from having one mounted in the back of your truck with rounds chambered like a ‘technical’ armored vehicle in Mogadishu or shooting high-flying game birds with it.
At the risk of butting in, and I also state I am not a lawyer — but I don’t think you have any liability. I’ve only heard of liability when the intent of the seller was to straw purchase. Like the guy in San Bernadino who demonstrably bought the two rifles with the express intent to sell them to the terrorists so that they would not get NICS-checked. The evidence in that case was the short possession time of the seller and other undisclosed evidence (I’d guess text messages that established intent).
“The cost would be ten buxks”
Annoying when the gun is $30.
There is no controlling legal authority! LMAO
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.