I am pretty sure any neutral observer would find the stuff about “intimidation undermining liberty” pretty laughable.
N.B.: Two different things.
I think his statement is one big pile of blowhard, with the basic message being “I don’t know exactly what it does, but, By God!, I’m having none of it, and if you put Republicans in charge we will reverse every damn thing this does…whatever it is it does.” By the way, in your OP, you asked if he should have done more, and I think I answered that he probably couldn’t have without giving ammo for the Republicans to use against the Democrats in the election. Do you think he could have done more and, if so, what?
I’m probably not considered a neutral observer, but I think it’s mildly inflammatory. The idea is that by not having a bright line rule, the ambiguity can be used to threaten or coerce individuals who make occasional sales. The threat of prosecution by BATFE would be intimidating. Overzealous prosecution to influence otherwise legal behavior can undermine liberty.
Why wouldn’t Obama simply say, “we consider anyone who sells 25 or more guns in a year to be a dealer”. That would be within the BATFE interpretation authority and is much stronger. By leaving the guidance vague, it creates uncertainty and FUD is a method of intimidation.
You seem to be saying that Ryan is leveling an unspecific criticism. But that’s far from true. Ryan lays the specific criticism that the law already requires people engaged in the business to be licensed dealers and bemoans the level of effort dedicated to areas that lack actual problems. On this score, he is right, and Obama’s efforts are either misdirection or misguided. He goes on to state the limits of Executive action and makes pseudo campaign type promises.
Yes - I think he could have set a bright line number on who is considered a dealer (while preserving the ability to construe lower numbers as dealers based on fact pattern).
I am well aware.
A bright line rule would conflict with the statute. If I own 25,000 guns in my personal collection, the law that you quoted says that I may sell my entire personal collection without being considered a dealer. Of course, I cannot sell that many guns all at once, so I might sell 100 or more per year for the rest of my life and make big bucks off of it; that is still permitted by the plain words of the statute.
And what if during my sell off I buy a gun here or there and add it to my personal collection? Can I not then sell that part of my personal collection? At some point, it stops being a “personal collection” and becomes a business, but simply saying 25 guns per year and no more would catch people who are otherwise abiding by the law.
ETA: It is really not that hard to enforce. Cities do it all of the time to the person who has a “garage sale” every weekend.
Possibly true. But if the non-existence of the bright-line rule is the problem, then the threat to liberty is not Obama but Congress.
It’s really sad when the POTUS feels compelled to step into the national media limelight and embarrass himself like this.
What are you talking about. Trump isn’t president yet. 
And as a True Blue Democrat, I’ll bet your wittle bitty heart is just broken to wittle bitty pieces. :rolleyes:
Without a change to existing statutes the bang/buck involved in trying to “catch” flea market vendors who are crossing whatever threshold the administration outlines to determine you’re “in the business of selling firearms” versus just unloading a couple old guns (which won’t require getting an FFL or running background checks) is so poor that I doubt we’ll see significant impact from this executive activity. This is a political action, nothing more, nothing less.
Both have keys to the castle in this case I think - they are just pulling in different directions. Congress can surely act to create the bright line rules - but because the existing statute doesn’t explicitly say what “occasional” sales are, the Obama Administration could clarify the guidance that the BATFE operates under.
It doesn’t have to. The statute lays out specific items that are exempted. Clarification of the BATFE interpretation could simply say those things are still kosher, but outside of those specific items, then the bright line rule applies.
And I totally didn’t see the thread in IMHO. Looks like that one started first. Hrmph.
Yeah, but in that thread people are just offering their opinions. This thread is a Great Debate!!
That is why it is named the “gun show” loophole. The term is meant to confuse people into thinking that the myriad of gun laws somehow stop being applicable if one is selling inside a room full of other gun sellers.
When someone suggests removing the gun show loophole, usually they are wanting private sales between individuals to be banned.
Uh huh. Or maybe they don’t like people just setting up a booth every so often at gun shows and escaping a dealer classification.
I guess they just need to determine what makes one a dealer. Setting up a booth every so often seems to stretch the definition.
Not at all, in my opinion. How much medical equipment do you need to sell before you’re required to follow regulations? If I sell my dad’s old walker it’s one thing, if I occasionally rent a booth to sell all my dads old orthopedic equipment it’s clearly another.
The fact pattern matters more than the specific location though being at a gun show with a booth is part of the fact pattern. If the person is liquidating a part of a collection this could be fine without being a licensed dealer even with the booth.
Did your previous question get answered about why #1 above is a bunch of nothing? And, the BATFE released new guidance on this very subject. Pdf link here
Yes, you gave me a good answer. Thank you.