Well ok, but if Obama was to slam in all the required laws to be effective at gun control, you’d say it was too much too soon, it was over reaching the mark and impinging your constitutional rights and so on.
Other people may be saying “well lets see if you can get a SIMPLE change through before we start on a more complicated change !”
You test a simple thing first…
You can’t go around saying "That law change has no effect, obviously the law shouldn’t be changed, obviously he is doing this to confuse them "… (them being whoever could stop the pres from doing what he is doing.)
Those people might also say "We can’t be bothered with dealing with this " if there is a mild problem, so its better to get the sure things through first, and then see how far you get before you use up their patience.
Now as to whether a seller does not have a reasonable suspicion the buyer would be unable to be approved , surely with internet and so on, in the modern context, the seller should always check to see if the buyer is approved, otherwise the seller would be recklessly selling. Thats the real bizarre thing in this,
it seems to be giving condoning a private gun owner selling to a random person on craigslist …
Anything can be a symptom of mental illness, but no mental illness is diagnosed based on a single symptom. The whole point of the DSM is to set out what patterns of symptoms correspond to which diseases. And even at that, there are plenty of mental disorders which would not be contraindications for gun ownership, or for any particular job.
Senator Tom Coburn actually tried to change this: to give private citizen gun sellers a way to verify that a gun buyer passed a background check, and ironically, it was the Senate Democrats that opposed him.
Coburn’s plan was completely unworkable, and you know it.
I read it in this CATO piece, which seems to have slightly misstated the report’s actual finding. It actually says “less than 2 per cent.” (Page 113 of the PDF).
I don’t know, actually. What was so unworkable about Coburn’s plan? That it didn’t give Dems the universal registration they really want?
Regardless of whether you think it’s unworkable or not, wouldn’t it have given Isilder exactly what he wants (an easy way for private sellers to verify that they’re not selling to a criminal)?
Isilder’s post is not a model of clarity, but he seems to want some way to enforce a requirement that they do so. Which was conspicuously absent from Coburn’s legislation.
Ironically, one of the major changes actually makes it easier for individuals to purchase machineguns. They have removed the requirement to obtain a signature from the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the county on the ATF Form 4. In many counties across the country, the CLEO has outright refused to sign any Form 4s, thereby enacting a de facto ban on the sales of NFA firearms and silencers in his or her county. This is arguably an abuse of power, as such a ban does not need to go through the legislative process.
This signature is no longer required. However, the fingerprint cards, photos and Form 4 are still submitted to his agency. So now, not only are individuals able to purchase machineguns in those counties, they get to rub it in the face of the sheriff since all those forms are going across his desk and he/she can’t do anything to stop it!
One way people have gotten around obtaining a CLEO signature in the past is by purchasing the NFA items through a trust or corporation. Since the trust or corporation is actually buying the item, and since entities do not have fingerprints or other biometrics, nothing has to be submitted to the CLEO. Obama’s new executive action changes this part. It is now required for all principle parties named on the trust to submit fingerprints and photos. The CLEO does not sign anything, and cannot prevent it, but he now has oversight of all NFA transfers in the county because all transfers through a trust must be submitted to him with pictures, data, and fingerprints of ALL parties involved. The sheriff would never have been aware of these transfers in the past. Again, this kind of just rubs it in his/her face.
It’s slightly more inconvenient for people purchasing through a trust, and now much easier for individual purchases.
This thread is straying a bit from GQ territory (no real surprise there, given the topic).
Let’s try to keep things GQ appropriate here. Stick to the facts. There are other current threads on Obama’s executive action in other forums where you can visit the non-factual aspects of this topic.
Actually, I meant that the action won’t do enough. As I have stated before, I think it should required to have a CHL or the equivalent to buy firearms or ammo and then you can buy what you want and carry where you want. I don’t think that it would be particularly effective without registration though. Many people oppose this because they fear that registration will lead to confiscation (not that likely in my opinion) or that they could make the process of getting a CHL so onerous as to create a de facto ban (which is more likely in my opinion).