Pending Gun EO Chatter, Update See Post #114

[Moped]

For those that have questions about who need or does not need an FFL to sell firearms, read the examples on pg 7 and 8 of the ATF Bulletin embedded in this Foxnews article. It's fairly clear cut and was issued today.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/atf-guidance-on-who-qualifies-as-firearms-dealer.html


Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk Edited January 5, 2016 by Moped

[Moped]

Hozzie, Judge Nataliano has a different opinion from you. He just said that you would have to be licensed to sell that gun to your brother and said it is an assault on the 2nd amendment. In essence, we can buy firearms but cannot sell them.

Nataliano is pandering to his audience IMO.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[graycrait]

deleted, found out.

Edited January 5, 2016 by graycrait

[Moped]

How does a fella buy a gun from non-dark web website without the gun being shipped to an FFL?

One doesn't. More hype from our dumbass of a President trying to look like he matters.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[Hozzie]

How does a fella buy a gun from non-dark web website without the gun being shipped to an FFL? 

 

Easy, he buys it from a member of TGO, or GOC, Facebook, or Armslist, etc.  People buy from websites all of the time and meet locally and do the sale.  Those are the types of "online" sales they are mostly referring to.  Not buying from Bud's and having it shipped to an FFL.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Hozzie

[E4 No More]

BTW....no one is mentioning these high tech safety mechanisms that he is proposing for new firearms. A fingerprint type release would be fine if i was the only on etpo ever use my gun. Occasionally, my wife, adult children and friends may want to shoot my firearms. With a huge supply of firearms now in circulation in US, will this older firearms now be more valued and worth more? :2cents:  

I caught that. That technology is a long way off from being viable. Heck, they can't get biometrics working reliably on larger items as it is now. Invest all you want, but he can't mandate it to my knowledge, and it'd sure take congress to authorize the spending.

[Moped]

Easy, he buys it from a member of TGO, or GOC, Facebook, or Armslist, etc. People by from websites all of the time and meet locally and do the sale. Those are the types of "online" sales they are mostly referring to. Not buying from Bud's and having it shipped to an FFL.

But if you look at example 1, on page 7 in the ATF Bulletin embedded in this Foxnews article, buying and selling online is NOT ILLEGAL, as long as you are NOT MAKING A LIVING.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/atf-guidance-on-who-qualifies-as-firearms-dealer.html

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[Hozzie]

But if you look at example 1, on page 7 in the ATF Bulletin embedded in this Foxnews article, buying and selling online is NOT ILLEGAL, as long as you are NOT MAKING A LIVING.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/atf-guidance-on-who-qualifies-as-firearms-dealer.html

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

I didn't say it was.  I was simply explaining what Obama is trying to push off as online gun sales.  

 

The implication is that it is easier for a felon to "buy" (more like find) a gun to buy online on a forum, facebook, etc than having to go to a dealer and have a background check.  As we know, those things have nothing to do with one another, but it doesn't matter when the general public knows no difference.  It's easy to make it sound like the world will end when your audience has no clue what is really going on.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Hozzie

[CJDore]

FYI[/size]Are you repetitively buying and selling firearms?[/size]
As noted above, there is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or[/size]sold that triggers the licensure requirement. Similarly, there is no “magic number”[/size]related t[/size][/size]Are you repetitively buying and selling firearms?[/size]
As noted above, there is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or[/size]sold that triggers the licensure requirement. Similarly, there is no “magic number”[/size]related to the frequency of transactions that indicates whether a person is “engaged[/size]in the business” of dealing in firearms. It is important to note, however, that even[/size]a few firearms transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient[/size]to establish that a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. For[/size]example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as[/size]two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place.[/size]
That said, courts have looked at both the quantity of firearms sold, as well as the[/size]frequency of sales, as relevant indicators. When combined with other factors, selling[/size]large numbers of firearms or engaging in frequent transactions may be highly[/size]indicative of business activity.o the frequency of transactions that indicates whether a person is “engaged[/size]in the business” of dealing in firearms. It is important to note, however, that even[/size]a few firearms transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient[/size]to establish that a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. For[/size]example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as[/size]two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place.[/size]
That said, courts have looked at both the quantity of firearms sold, as well as the[/size]frequency of sales, as relevant indicators. When combined with other factors, selling[/size]large numbers of firearms or engaging in frequent transactions may be highly[/size]indicative of business activity.[/size]

Edited January 6, 2016 by JohnC
Fixed color

[Moped]

FYIAre you repetitively buying and selling firearms?
As noted above, there is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased orsold that triggers the licensure requirement. Similarly, there is no “magic number”related tAre you repetitively buying and selling firearms?
As noted above, there is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased orsold that triggers the licensure requirement. Similarly, there is no “magic number”related to the frequency of transactions that indicates whether a person is “engagedin the business” of dealing in firearms. It is important to note, however, that evena few firearms transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficientto establish that a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Forexample, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few astwo firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place.
That said, courts have looked at both the quantity of firearms sold, as well as thefrequency of sales, as relevant indicators. When combined with other factors, sellinglarge numbers of firearms or engaging in frequent transactions may be highlyindicative of business activity.o the frequency of transactions that indicates whether a person is “engagedin the business” of dealing in firearms. It is important to note, however, that evena few firearms transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficientto establish that a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Forexample, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few astwo firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place.
That said, courts have looked at both the quantity of firearms sold, as well as thefrequency of sales, as relevant indicators. When combined with other factors, sellinglarge numbers of firearms or engaging in frequent transactions may be highlyindicative of business activity.

Huh?

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[E4 No More]

Huh?

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

He's a man of few words. :)

[MrsMonkeyMan2500]

He's a man of few words. :)

There are words there. In a white font. Highlight it.

[E4 No More]

There are words there. In a white font. Highlight it.

You're gonna give me flashbacks to my CIA days!!! :)

[TripleGGG]

A good breakdown/recap from the Virginia Citizens Defense League:

 

 Before I begin my analysis, I’d like to point out that the number the President uses for deaths caused by the use (or misuse) of a firearm includes suicides (much more than half of the total) and lawful self-defense shootings by citizens and police.  Should suicide and lawful self-defense be considered “gun violence?”  No.

ANALYSIS

Much of the Executive Orders (EOs) really don’t change anything, but try to put a menacing or intimidating spin on them.  Others simply double-down on existing enforcement (yawn), some are bad, and one VCDL likes.  Here is what they really do (or don’t do).

1.  A dealer who sells guns exclusively over the internet or at gun shows is still a dealer and needs to have a license and do background checks.  This is a “yawn” as it is simply restating current law and how it has always been enforced.  Net effect: zero.

2.  There is no specific threshold on the number of guns sold, as to what makes you a dealer.  That has always been true.  The BATFE takes into consideration several factors in determining if you are just a person selling a few items from your private collection or if you are trying to earn a living, or part of a living, by buying and selling guns.  Here Obama tries to scare gun owners by saying that someone had been found to be in the business of selling firearms “when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, WHEN OTHER FACTORS ALSO WERE PRESENT” (emphasis mine).  Here he’s obviously found some obscure cases that must have had some unusual “other factors” that made it clear the person was actually selling guns for a living, even with a small number of sales.  This EO is implying that BATFE might be looking harder at people who sell guns regularly to make sure they are not really “in the business.” Other than trying to scare people by also pointing out the penalties for being in the business without a license, I don’t see this as changing the status quo on private sales at all.  Net effect: zero, but meant to intimidate people into not doing any private sales.

3.  Requiring everyone in an NFA trust to have a background check.  This will have ZERO effect on crime, as criminals are NOT setting up trusts to buy NFA items!  No one has been killed with a lawfully owned machine gun since the 1970s, when a police officer murdered his wife with one.  This is simply a waste of time - doing something just to do something.  Net effect: all those who are part of an NFA trust must have a background check.

4.  Push for states to include more mental health data.  Virginia has been doing this for a long time, predating the Virginia Tech massacre.  Net effect:  no effect on gun owners generally and no effect for Virginia gun owners at all.

5.  More NICS employees will be hired to make NICS checks quicker and available 24/7, which is fine with VCDL as it will make it faster to buy a gun through a dealer.  Net effect: positive because of quicker gun purchases.

6.  Centralize tracing bullets used in crime.  Net effect:  zero for gun owners.

7.  Step up investigating those who are illegally selling guns over the internet.  Net effect:  zero for gun owners.

8.  Clarify that dealers are to notify the  police about the loss or theft of guns.  Net effect: zero for gun owners and zero for gun dealers, who already do this anyhow.

9.  Direct U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.  This requires coordination with state and local police on domestic violence crime.  BUT it also requires coordination with “community groups focused on domestic violence.”  I do not trust giving such "community groups” special treatment by the government. Net effect:  no real change for gun owners.

10.  Get information from the Social Security Administration on mental health issues for the purpose of disqualifying some people from owning a gun.  Net effect:  this is DANGEROUS, as it can strip people of their right to own a gun WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. A very tiny minority of those with mental health issues are dangerous.  Just because you let someone else balance your checkbook doesn’t mean you should not be able to own a gun, but that’s what Obama is doing.  Obama is casting a huge net for the purpose of catching what actually boils down to a handful of people.

11.  Change HIPAA laws to allow states to share “certain” information from a person’s health records.  Net effect:  this is DANGEROUS, as it can strip people of the right to own a gun WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  No cookie cutter, bureaucratically controlled, examination of a person’s medical records should be used to strip someone of any of their rights without DUE PROCESS!

12.  Encourage the development of “smart guns.”  If there is a market for “smart guns,” they will be developed with or without government help.  Hint:  if police, government agencies like the Secret Service, or the military don’t want smart guns, then they probably are not going to be successful.  Net effect:  none for gun owners, just government wasting more tax dollars on another boondoggle.


-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

Edited January 5, 2016 by ggwilde

[MrsMonkeyMan2500]

You're gonna give me flashbacks to my CIA days!!! :)

It's ok. There are meds for that. Being NSA, I can't take them right now, but I see it in my future. ;)

[Sam1]

it will be great to have an expert like Chip Cain or others talk more about this and how it involves trust owners going forward

Already pm'd him about it, just set up a trust last month, my mp5 arrives next week and I have no clue what will be needed now to SBR it.

He knows we anxiously await, but I'm sure there's a ton of stuff that needs to occur before he even knows what the hardline is.

[Sam1]

He's wrong. I don't care if he is a judge or not. Being a judge doesn't make you any smarter. Go read the laws and any EO's. You have to be in the "business" of selling guns. That is already defined and Obama isn't changing it. The "livelyhood" provision still remains. I am referring the the guy who sells a gun periodically, not someone who has a table at every gun show.

At the end of the day, do what you feel is best, but I will sell guns and I will not do a background check. I will ask to see ID, ask if they are a felon, and tell them to have a nice day so long as something else doesn't concern me. That is the law for an individual seller, no REASONABLE suspicion someone should not own a gun.

Judge napalitano<sp> is one of the most hard core constitutional supporting judges that exist, he is the kind of person that we need in scotus. If his analysis of this situation is as stated above, I would believe it without doubt.

He is looking at it from an objective legal angle where we look at it as 'past practice' or with personal investment.

[Hozzie]

Already pm'd him about it, just set up a trust last month, my mp5 arrives next week and I have no clue what will be needed now to SBR it.

He knows we anxiously await, but I'm sure there's a ton of stuff that needs to occur before he even knows what the hardline is.

 

Talk to Chip of course, but you shouldn't need anything extra.  The effect of this won't become pertinent until 180 days after it goes in the register.  Not sure when that is.  I suppose the ATF could delay approving Form 1's and Form 4's on Trusts, but I don't see that happening.  A Form 1 for a SBR shoudn't take 6 months, especially since you can e-file.

[Hozzie]

Judge napalitano<sp> is one of the most hard core constitutional supporting judges that exist, he is the kind of person that we need in scotus. If his analysis of this situation is as stated above, I would believe it without doubt.

He is looking at it from an objective legal angle where we look at it as 'past practice' or with personal investment.

We can agree to disagree.  He is wrong and just pandering to the Fox audience, but that is just one man's opinion.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Hozzie

[CJDore]

Huh?

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

I copied and pasted but nothing posted.

[CJDore]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/

 

hmmm.......one or maybe 2 guns sold could qualify you as a dealer. No wonder we do not trust BO's administration.

[Hozzie]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/

 

hmmm.......one or maybe 2 guns sold could qualify you as a dealer. No wonder we do not trust BO's administration.

 

So they pick one case out of millions that almost certainly had massive extenuating circumstances AND that they actually prosecuted to now try and scare people into thinking they are now dealers.   I am not trying to put your posts down, but if you believe that selling 1 or 2 guns is going to make you a dealer or that they will come after you for it, then you are the perfect mark for what Obama is trying to do.   If you are really concerned about it and want to sell something and force someone to go through a background check, by all means go for it.  I don't think you are going to get much interest, at least in a local face to face scenario.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Hozzie

[Sam1]

Hozzie, you bring up my exact point in another thread. Specifying what they are, scares people into subordination. They are being very specific mentioning that, and fear is what will cause the intended effect.

[Oh Shoot]

We can agree to disagree.  He is wrong and just pandering to the Fox audience, but that is just one man's opinion.

 

Yeah, he is wrong.  There is no change whatsoever regarding selling firearms in BHO's directives. FOX is getting it wrong over and over this afternoon on that particular issue, keep hearing "experts" talking about how all "gunshow transactions" will have to have background checks, or all transactions period, stuff like that.

 

As far as the trust issue, it's my understanding that unlike an individual NFA transfer, TN already requires TICS on whoever actually picks up the firearm transferred on a trust, changed in the last year or less,  yes?

 

- OS

Edited January 5, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Hozzie]

Yeah, he is wrong.  There is no change whatsoever regarding selling firearms in BHO's directives. FOX is getting it wrong over and over this afternoon on that particular issue, keep hearing "experts" talking about how all "gunshow transactions" will have to have background checks, or all transactions period, stuff like that.

 

As far as the trust issue, it's my understanding that unlike an individual NFA transfer, TN already requires TICS on whoever actually picks up the firearm transferred on a trust, yes?

 

- OS

 

You might for a Form 1 SBR, but I don't think you do on a Form 4 suppressor as I don't think it is technically a firearm.  G&L did have me fill out a 4473 when I picked up my suppressors, but I think that was more of a bookkeeping thing for them.  I didn't get charged a background fee if I recall, but my memory isn't always the best these days.  

Edited January 5, 2016 by Hozzie