# Obama Executive Actions on Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260 "2016-01-05T19:57:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/61 "2016-01-06T16:49:02Z")
The idea that a person who cannot manage her own finances is competent to safely handle a firearm is a much bigger one. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/62 "2016-01-06T16:53:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes I’m aware. I just find it amusing. Obama has been saying he will do everything in his power to move his agenda forward - but this clearly is not. He could have started the actual rule making process. He could have set lower limits. He could have issued actual orders. I think he balked. Czarcasm raises this point in post #2, asking if Obama went further would it be used as a weapon in the upcoming elections. Could it be that he sacrificed his goal for political expediency? Nah, he wouldn’t engage in that kind of petty politics while invoking the image of dead children. That’d be too obvious. Way to twist things around…but totally expected, of course. My point was that if he had tried to do more, the _Republicans_ would have used it as a petty political weapon, tying anything he did to their Democratic opponents. As it stands(and as has already been pointed out), he has done what he could do without having to go through a Republican Gauntlet Of No. It is this balance, this area where the Republicans can neither put up roadblocks or use his words as electoral weapons that is _really_ pissing you and your ilk off. That is what is _really_ amusing here. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/63 "2016-01-06T16:54:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Why not? FFLs are subject to higher standards of scrutiny, subject to all sorts of different laws, and subject to much stiffer penalties for violations. If a person is willing to go through the hoops and subject themselves to that why is that a bad thing? More FFLs mean more transactions through FFLs. Isn’t that a goal of the people who push background checks? If people really wanted background checks for all transfers, increasing FFLs helps that. Opening up NICS helps that. That these simple steps aren’t taken reveals more about the true motivations of gun control folks. I don’t think we need a whole lot more FFLs. The only time I can’t get immediate service at my local gun shop is when people think that there is a gun ban on the way. I think we should open up NICS to all and I believe that the people who crushed that are much more interested in banning guns than they are in “common sense reasonable gun laws” (I was honestly shocked that they would not support the bill and wondered if there was some other poison pill attached to the bill but could not find one). > [@](#): > > Of course not. If you put yourself forward as a dealer, you should expect to be treated as a dealer. The entire fact pattern matters. But it’s not a stretch to imagine BATFE going bonkers and threatening and harassing otherwise law abiding folks for either clearly occasional sales or even grey areas in an attempt to intimidate. They recruited mentally disabled people to commit crimes and then arrested them for it. And they get slapped down for pulling shit like that, don’t they? Abuse of police power is ALWAYS a risk in any well ordered society. I consider myself on the gun rights side of the debate (you may disagree). I don’t think guns are dangerous per se. I think people can be dangerous so I support pretty much anything that isn’t overly onerous and helps ensure that guns stay out of the hands of dangerous people. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/64 "2016-01-06T16:56:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The idea that a person who cannot manage her own finances is competent to safely handle a firearm is a much bigger one. A person over indulges and spends too much money on smokes and lottery tickets and can’t pay rent. That person shouldn’t be able to defend themselves in their own home? Is there any evidence of misuse of firearms by people on rep payee greater than the population at large? This is why funneling more and more through FFLS and adding more to the list of prohibited persons is opposed. The gatekeeper can always close the gate. Combine that with the effort to reduce the overall number of FFLs and the goals become questionable. What other targeted group of people should be prohibited? It wouldn’t be a stretch to say those with moving violations, maybe bankruptcy? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/65 "2016-01-06T17:00:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Way to twist things around…but totally expected, of course. My point was that if he had tried to do more, the _Republicans_ would have used it as a petty political weapon, tying anything he did to their Democratic opponents. As it stands(and as has already been pointed out), he has done what he could do without having to go through a Republican Gauntlet Of No. It is this balance, this area where the Republicans can neither put up roadblocks or use his words as electoral weapons that is _really_ pissing you and your ilk off. That is what is _really_ amusing here. Oh I’m not pissed. I’m glad he didn’t go further - less to litigate. I think Obama was and continues to be ineffectual in this area, his proclamations and tears notwithstanding. But I didn’t twist anything around - I took your point exactly as you restated. My point is so what if it’s used as a petty political weapon. If it’s the right thing to do he should have done it no? If it saves just one life! He’ll do everything in his power! > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And they get slapped down for pulling shit like that, don’t they? If I recall - I think the people involved were actually promoted. My memory may be off on that one though. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/66 "2016-01-06T17:07:27Z")
On one hand you claim to wonder why he didn’t do more, then you betray yourself by saying “less to litigate”. I’m soooo sorry he didn’t give you a bigger target. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/67 "2016-01-06T17:08:51Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Oh I’m not pissed. I’m glad he didn’t go further - less to litigate. I think Obama was and continues to be ineffectual in this area, his proclamations and tears notwithstanding. > > But I didn’t twist anything around - I took your point exactly as you restated. My point is so what if it’s used as a petty political weapon. If it’s the right thing to do he should have done it no? If it saves just one life! He’ll do everything in his power! > If I recall - I think the people involved were actually promoted. My memory may be off on that one though. Wait. You’re not talking about the cases where they run sting operations on prohibited persons (including the mentally ill) to catch people buying guns who are not supposed to try and buy guns, right? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/68 "2016-01-06T17:11:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I would object to more hurdles being placed between buyers and sellers, So would you say it’s a reasonable idea but you object solely on the “give them an inch, they’ll take a mile” principle? > [@](#): > > and the government having a monopoly on determining who gets placed on the prohibited list. Well, there isn’t any other way is there? If there is going to be a prohibited list who else could determine it? Of course, I could see you not wanting anyone prohibited. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/69 "2016-01-06T17:16:46Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well that wouldn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment. I am not someone who has been calling for closing the gunshow loophole while secretly hoping to ban private sales. Until I recently moved to America/Texas I was just a casual observer of the gun debate. But it seems to me banning private sales between individuals or requiring even those sales to include background checks is a pretty obvious way to stem the flow of guns to criminals. What’s your objection to the idea? I’ve long supported the idea of offering a background check system to the public for firearm sales. In my own transactions, I will not sell to anyone who does not possess a CCW permit. If they have such a permit, I know they have passed a background check. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/70 "2016-01-06T17:20:19Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I’ve long supported the idea of offering a background check system to the public for firearm sales. In my own transactions, I will not sell to anyone who does not possess a CCW permit. If they have such a permit, I know they have passed a background check. Great idea. Let’s make it mandatory. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/71 "2016-01-06T17:21:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > On one hand you claim to wonder why he didn’t do more, then you betray yourself by saying “less to litigate”. I’m soooo sorry he didn’t give you a bigger target. :rolleyes: Rolling eyes makes your point stronger. I suggest you keep doing it. There is nothing to betray - I’m being as straightforward as possible. I can wonder why he didn’t do more while at the same time be glad he didn’t - there is no contradiction there. I expected him to do more with all of the hulabaloo in the lead up and his protestations that he’d do everything in his power. The Executive Actions are not consistent with that. In case you were wondering, litigation is not the desired route for gun issues - it’s legislation. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, and risky. If I had my druthers, gun issues would be worked out in the legislature and there would be no need for litigation. Any time litigation can be avoided it’s better. But sometimes litigation is necessary. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Wait. You’re not talking about the cases where they run sting operations on prohibited persons (including the mentally ill) to catch people buying guns who are not supposed to try and buy guns, right? That is the first that came to mind, so yes. > [@CarnalK](#): > > So would you say it’s a reasonable idea but you object solely on the “give them an inch, they’ll take a mile” principle? Not solely, but that is a significant part. I do this currently in CA, and buying a firearm through PPT is a hassle. Out of state purchase is basically never because FFLs charge so much for it. And on the contrary - I think certain people should be prohibited. Our current list seems adequate - but I’d be open to additions if there was sufficient justification. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/72 "2016-01-06T17:22:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Great idea. Let’s make it mandatory. Democrats blocked this bill when it was proposed. Did you know that? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/73 "2016-01-06T17:25:40Z")
Rather than number of transactions or numbers of guns, how about distinguishing a dealer from a nondealer by considering age of inventory? If you buy a gun and sell it less than a year later, you could be considered a dealer. If the gun has been in your possession or your family’s possession for five or more years, you could be considered a private seller. The theory being, of course, that someone who is actually making a business out of guns will be trying to turn inventory over quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/74 "2016-01-06T17:28:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Rather than number of transactions or numbers of guns, how about distinguishing a dealer from a nondealer by considering age of inventory? If you buy a gun and sell it less than a year later, you could be considered a dealer. If the gun has been in your possession or your family’s possession for five or more years, you could be considered a private seller. > The theory being, of course, that someone who is actually making a business out of guns will be trying to turn inventory over quickly. In the BATFE guidance, that example is specifically stated as not a dealer in the case of a person who likes to have newer model firearms and sells existing ones to fund new purchases. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/75 "2016-01-06T17:32:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Great idea. Let’s make it mandatory. It’s mandatory in Chicago and the rest of Illinois. The Firearms Owners Identification system has been in place since 1968. Q: How’s that working for them? A: 2986 shooting victims in Chicago 2015. I do it for my own peace of mind. I am under no illusion that a mandated system requiring same would make a bit of difference. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/76 "2016-01-06T17:43:19Z")
Little stuff like these executive actions will have very little impact except perhaps at the margins, in my opinion. As long as there are hundreds of millions of guns in America, they will be easy to acquire, whatever the law says, and gun violence will be relatively high compared to other advanced and wealthy countries. I don’t believe more “good guys with guns” (in the sense of random Americans who choose to be armed) would help, and would probably hurt, overall, because I don’t think many “good guys” in America have enough training and skill, if they are armed, to be a net asset in the chaos of a random/mass shooting. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/77 "2016-01-06T17:47:05Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > It’s mandatory in Chicago and the rest of Illinois. The Firearms Owners Identification system has been in place since 1968. > > Q: How’s that working for them? > A: 2986 shooting victims in Chicago 2015. > > I do it for my own peace of mind. I am under no illusion that a mandated system requiring same would make a bit of difference. The New York Times recently did a piece about how easy it was to run guns from easy-access states and cities to hard-access states and cities. It’s as if you are trying to prove that quarantines don’t work by declaring Chicago to be a quarantine area…but doing nothing to control access to and from the city. Why not have it mandatory throughout the country? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/78 "2016-01-06T17:49:01Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > It’s mandatory in Chicago and the rest of Illinois. The Firearms Owners Identification system has been in place since 1968. > > Q: How’s that working for them? > A: 2986 shooting victims in Chicago 2015. > > I do it for my own peace of mind. I am under no illusion that a mandated system requiring same would make a bit of difference. Well, I’ve seen enough of these debates to know the standard reply to that is these types of regulation won’t work in isolation. If this standard is not enforced throughout the country, there’s always going to be an illegal pipeline from less strict States. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/79 "2016-01-06T17:56:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, I’ve seen enough of these debates to know the standard reply to that is these types of regulation won’t work in isolation. If this standard is not enforced throughout the country, there’s always going to be an illegal pipeline from less strict States. [Here is that New York Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html?_r=0) that explains where the guns come from, and why this piss-ass piecemeal regulation system is a joke. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/80 "2016-01-06T17:57:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The New York Times recently did a piece about how easy it was to run guns from easy-access states and cities to hard-access states and cities. It’s as if you are trying to prove that quarantines don’t work by declaring Chicago to be a quarantine area…but doing nothing to control access to and from the city. > Why not have it mandatory throughout the country? Haven’t we already talked about this time and time again? Running guns from other states is just as illegal today, as not consenting to a background check would be should it become mandatory. It is already mandatory to consent to a background check AND FFL recorded sale if you buy a gun from out of state. In Illinois, the FOID system is statewide, not just for Chicago. If you have people who are happy to ignore the federal and state laws already in place today that call for a background check for an out of state sale, why do you think those who are currently breaking the law will stop doing so and follow a new with the same restrictions? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260.md?page=5)