18 U.S. Code § 923 - Licensing
(a) No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General."
There is NO exception in this law based on venue. It doesn’t matter if you’re engaged in the business of selling firearms at a gun store, a gun show, your garage, or in parking lots. You need a Federal Firearms License to do so.
So does that mean Obama hasn’t, through his Attorney General and Dept of Justice, been enforcing that law in the 7 years he has held office?
Why not?
So would it be unreasonable to make a law that said you could only get rid of your collection by selling to a licensed dealer? That way the used gun market could be just as regulated, though of course you wouldn’t get as good a price.
Which law are you referring to? The law that requires people “engaged in the business” to get an FFL? He definitely has been enforcing it. His Attorney General told reporters on a conference call that they’ve convicted people for selling as few as two guns of being unlicensed gun dealers (I don’t know which case Lynch was referring to). Here are some examples of prosecuting unlicensed gun dealers during Obama’s term.
Congress could make such a law, but they’ve chosen not to. Obama can’t do it through Executive Order.
What you are asking for is a safe harbor. E.g. as long as you don’t sell more than X number of guns/year we won’t bother you.
Why should we make getting an FFL easier? Is there a shortage of FFLs? Are there so few that they are able to exert monopolistic pricing? AFAICT FFLs don’t make much money unless the gun control folks try to pass some legislation.
Are you serious? They are finally committing resources and energy into enforcing the law and addressing mental illness. Something gun owners and gun rights advocates have been asking for. And now its ineffective and pandering?
If someone puts themselves forward as a dealer in arms and appears to be engaged in the business of selling guns then I don’t think the fact that he is really bad at it should exempt him from complying with the law.
Seriously. Every time new gun regulations are proposed, the NRA and their ilk start up their talking point that we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Now that Obama announces that we are going to more stringently enforce the laws that are on the books, they declare that this is ineffective and pandering.
I wonder if it’s possible that they are just dishonest.
My question was directed to CarnalK’s assertion re: FFL holders, that there was NO exception to 18 U.S. Code § 923 - Licensing concerning the sale of firearms at a gun store, a gun show, your garage, or in a parking lot. If that were the case, there were gun sales by non-FFL holders at gun shows, garages and parking lots that were not prosecuted during the Obama’s term.
Or perhaps those sales were by individuals that did not meet the criteria of being “engaged in the business”/requiring a FFL.
I think this will effectively force almost all gun show vendors to be FFL or clear through an FFL. It doesn’t require many bucks to get that particular bang.
I agree that this is not a big deal but they are finally getting themselves that fig leaf that they couldn’t get after they were made to look like idiots after the push for an AWB.
It is relatively benign but they are committing more resources to mental illness and the NICS system so those are good things, right?
Or they are wondering why, after 7 years in office, Obama finally decides that we are going to more stringently enforce the laws that are on the books.
I wonder if it’s possible Obama sincerely wasn’t aware that he could more stringently enforce the laws that were on the books before now.
Like I said earlier, ban private sales.
I don’t think that would be a good idea, but what I think you mean is for the FFL to act as a go between to facilitate the sale, not be sold to the FFL themselves. But forcing all sales through an FFL has its own hurdles. Whether that’s reasonable is debatable. Several states already do this, CA is one of them. All PPT sales must go through an FFL first to conduct the background check and impose the 10 day waiting period (save for current litigation based on specific circumstances that was won but is being appealed, and certain interfamilial transfers).
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.
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.
There’s a bit of nuance that you’ve missed. Much of the Executive Actions are just fine. Increasing NICS coverage to 24/7 is great. Increasing mental health funding is great. But it’s not a complex idea that current laws should be enforced. If enforcement of current laws doesn’t happen, why would we expect enforcement of new laws to happen? It seems like more laws are drafted to ensnare otherwise law abiding folks and not much else.
And about that guidance that the BATFE just released linked in post #39, I especially like this part on page 2:
In other words, here is some guidance - if you follow it we still may arrest you.
As a side note, I just acquired a new long gun in CA. No background check, no registration. Certain interfamilial gifts are exempt, though you can voluntarily report. Voluntarily - totally going to get right on that.
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?
That is standard boilerplate language for agency legal memoranda. It is intended to distinguish the memorandum from a rulemaking instrument, which is binding on the agency and carries the force of law, but cannot be adopted until public notice and comment.
I would object to more hurdles being placed between buyers and sellers, and the government having a monopoly on determining who gets placed on the prohibited list. Just recently there have been two significant efforts to expand the list of people who are prohibited. In July of this year, the idea that anyone who is on Rep Payee from SSA would be prohibited was advanced. In other words, if you need assistance balancing your checkbook or managing your finances, you are no longer allowed to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. And even more recently, there was effort to include anyone on any watch list to the list of prohibited persons. So with no due process, a person would be prohibited from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
Funneling more sales or even all sales through an FFL means the government has more power to add and restrict people. The way they have been trying to exercise that power just this year has been quite poor.
I am part of the NRA ilk. I have been for decades.
To be fair, this is largely a fig leaf. He could have done all this without saying a word, I doubt anyone would have noticed.
The press conference appears to largely be a fig leaf to placate the gun control folks so they will STFU during the general election. The gun issue is very very bad for Democrats in a general election. The gun issue hurts Democrats in just about every swing state. I expect to see Hillary getting “caught” duck hunting in Virginia with McAulliffe in “leaked” photos.
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.
That suggests that Obama is sacrificing his own priorities for those of an as-yet-unnamed successor.
A representative payee is equivalent to a guardianship. In other words, they are appointed for people who are incompetent to manage their own affairs. It’s not just somebody who helps balance a checkbook, and though I presume you are just repeating what someone else told you that is a huge misrepresentation.
No, I actually worked for a company that acted as Rep Payees - albeit on the finance side. Here is the definition:
While a person who is legally incompetent would necessitate a rep payee, this is not a necessary condition. The rep payee is primarily concerned with financial matters and the associated SSA benefits. “balancing a checkbook” is shorthand for this. But in any case, unless there are additional facts, drawing a connection between rep payee status and ability to exercise 2nd amendment rights is a giant fucking stretch.