What executive action is Obama taking on guns?

While it’s all over the news, I haven’t seen what exactly what the changes are. All I know is that what sellers will require an FFL is changing.

Thanks,
Rob

I’ve read that he wants to close the gun show background check loophole.

Yes. gun show sales must now go via FFL. Enforcement is also to increase by hiring 230 new inspectors.

It’s not just gun shows, but private sales in general where a person is selling more than a dozen or so guns a year. You got people who set up at flea markets and outside of gun shows who sell quite a bit of guns and ammo to anyone with cash over 18 years old. This is a good place to get a gun if you have a felony on your record.

These actions appear to be more window dressing than actual substance.

  1. Actually enforcing the FFL for peddlers of guns at gun shows, etc. that are not hobbyists.

  2. Adding FBI staff to respond to FFL requests 24/7. Otherwise staffing so they can actually follow the law established by congress.

  3. Requesting congress to fund $500 million for mental health research and smart gun research.

Two of these appear to be doing what they are supposed to be doing, and one is a legislative request.

It’s my understanding it is not a numerical threshold, but rather a set of criteria that indicates one is likely selling guns professionally, such as accepting credit cards, advertising, web sales, having business cards, or using a regular venue like a table at a gun show.

The additional staff increase is to man call centers to take FFL requests, not to patrol gun shows.

And sales at gun shows made by a dealer are already required to have FFL clearance. The last gun I purchased was done at a gun show, and the FFL clearance was handled there over the phone.

Got a cite?

No, he’s not really closing the ‘gun show loophole’, since that never really existed as such.

There are a few semi-professional sellers who dont have a FFL, apparently. The new regs just define who is a seller who is required to have a FFL.


*"Lynch was referencing the portion of Obama’s pending executive-action gun-control measure that will require gun-sellers to register as federally licensed gun dealers if they meet criteria demonstrating they are “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms…One problem is that the White House executive action fact sheet does not present any numerical minimum on the number of sales that a private seller must conduct before he is considered to be “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms.”

Rather, it indicates a private seller can be considered to be “engaged in the business of selling firearms” regardless of the location from which she sells, the frequency with which he sells, or the number of guns he sells…”*

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:
A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

Not unreasonable at all.

I’m not sure why you’d say that. He is constrained by the limits of existing legislation.

Enabling your agencies to enforce the laws that are already on the books is worthy of a press conference? Wrong forum for this discussion.

and the Bill of Rights.

I wonder how many guns sold in this manner actually end up being used in crimes.

A 1997 study by the NIJ showed that 2% of guns used in crimes came from gun shows. Of course, we now have a substantial Internet-based gun trade, so it’s likely that a larger number of gun sales will actually be affected.

Then the POTUS should never have any press conferences about policy changes, since he can only enforce laws that are already on the books. In point of fact, you are incorrect, since the FFL expansion requires the administration to promulgate a new administrative order. Thus, there will actually be new law “on the books.”

One thing I have seen is FFL holders selling guns from their private collection as a private individual. Some people set up tables with things like leather goods or allied merchandise who also have a few guns on the table from their own collections. I haven’t enquired, but presumably these aren’t FFL holders either. Every time I go to a show, I will see several people carrying a personal firearm they are trying to sell, often with a sign displaying a description and price. I have not seen flea markets set up outside of gun shows.

I would still guess that most guns used by criminals are stolen, obtained through straw purchases, or purchased from an individual, so I don’t see how the order would really change anything. Still, I don’t know of any comprehensive statistics that describe where criminals get their guns. While your “domestic terrorist”-type would blend right in at a gun show, a gang-banger would stand out like a sore thumb and I don’t see these types at the shows I go to.

ATF: “Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.”

My main concern is expanding our already broken mental health system to report people to be put in a background check database. The DSMV already labels most human behavior as being problematic, and at least 25% of Americans take legal prescription anti-anxiety or anti-depressants, 70% are on other prescription drugs, and who knows how many are on recreational drugs.

Bottom line: anyone could be reported. The database will eventually be used at airports, passports, credit checks, and employment checks.

And, what does that have to do with Gun Shows? There’s nothing magical about Gun Shows. Either you are a private party, selling your gun to another private party or you’re a dealer. A private party* might* sell his gun at a Gun Show, sure, but there’s nothing about them that makes the sale legal. In fact, most gun shows have rules about private party sales- with reason since they want to sell tables.

In CA private party sales are banned, anyway, gun show or not.

This is a very reasonable concern.

No, the loophole doesn’t apply only to gun shows. It’s just called that because gun shows are a convenient venue for a non-FFL seller. There are, of course, other such venues.

Definitely, and not just concerning gun ownership. The way the DSMV is written, pretty much any personality quirk could be construed as a symptom of a mental disorder. Expanding access to that sort of database will lead to large numbers of people having trouble getting jobs, housing, etc., because they ended up on a mental health watchlist for some dubious reason. It will likely end up creating a perverse incentive where people avoid psychiatrists or counseling for fear of ending up on the “Crazy List.”

I thought the VCDL (Virginia Citizen’s Defense League) wrote a pretty good summary.