There shall be much ado about this nothing.

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-defends-forthcoming-gun-restrictions-as-constitutional/ar-AAgk8Nn?li=BBnb7Kz

But Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, predicted a "dramatic impact" from the steps. 

Dan Gross must live in his imagination.

What the president is proposing , he himself downplays.

"This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country," Obama said, tempering expectations for gun control advocates calling for far-reaching executive action. "It's not going to prevent every mass shooting; it's not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal. It will potentially save lives and spare families the pain of these extraordinary losses."

Even this is very optimistic, there are very few crimes connected to this "loophole" and this proposal does not really close anything , it only moves the margins.

"The president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will," said Ryan, R-Wis.

No. This just doesn't amount to that much, Ryan is also exaggerating.

I think the point of this fight is the fight.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Good for Obama!

[Plane]

  This is Obama talking good piffle.

And being answered in the same language.

He can and always could enforce the laws that already exist, but he is just talking.

Moving the margin slightly on who is and isn't considered a seller is a small matter that might be sorted out in court someday. This is just an ordinary executive decision that might be grounds for appeal if it is past the limits.


Kerfuffle for the sake of kerfuffle , much more noise than movement.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What are all those laws that are not enforced?

They claim that they exist, but never state what they are.

Ignorant legislatures have often passed laws that are unenforceable.

[sirs]

What are all those laws that are not enforced?

They claim that they exist, but never state what they are.

Ignorant legislatures have often passed laws that are unenforceable.

Straw purchases, using a fake ID, or otherwise illegally attempting to portray yourself for the purposes of obtaining a weapon

It is already illegal across the nation and at the federal level. No rational person that I’ve ever heard from is arguing in favor of allowing criminals to illegally purchase guns by way of fraud or identity theft. Nobody. It’s against the law, and law abiding gun owners don’t want that either.

The problem is, we don’t enforce the laws that we have now.  We don’t need new laws that stop the law abiding from owning guns… we need to catch the criminals who would use them to break the law

[sirs]

You want more?.......According to U.S. Department of Justice data, only 2 percent of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted, and 85 percent of those cases were crimes of possession. That means the people illegally selling or transporting guns are almost never being charged under the firearms statutes

That means, CRIMINALS THEY ALREADY HAVE IN CUSTODY, not being prosecuted for additional gun law charges, which means these people get out sooner, and commit more crime, mahem, injury, and murders, that they wouldn't have been able to otherwise, had the current laws been enforced 

[sirs]

Here's another news flash.....remember that whopper of a lie Obama pulled, when he claimed criminals can bybass background checks, by simply buying their purchases on-line?.....THAT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL, FOR A CRIMINAL TO PURCHASE ANY GUN

Need that repeated??    Any sale from any licensed dealer first has to go through a background check. It doesn’t matter if he’s selling the firearm at a store, online, or at a gun show. When it comes to online sales, guns can only be transferred to the buyer through a federally licensed firearms dealer – that’s the law.”  A Criminal can not bypass a background check. 

That means the private seller of the gun, is using someone already with an FFL, to facilitate the sale.  He legally can't do it, by himself.  Now, the criminal can LIE on the application, in an attempt to thwart the background check, but he still has one done.  Or if the seller tries selling his gun without an FFL intermediary, is also in violation of CURRENT law

All Obama is doing is trying to place an additional burden on any seller, that they personally must have an FFL.  This does nothing in stopping the criminal, but the added mandate is designed primarly to make it harder for people to simply sell their guns, to legal customers

[Plane]

   There can be good outcomes , predictable and surprises too.

    Already the predictable , stocks in gun companies, up.

     Next,...
... buying binges , of cartridges , military looking rifles and used pistols.

       Expansion of production to cover improved sales. 
     
         Membership in the NRA expands.
     
            Not surprising everyone should expect these things.

     Next the less sure and predictable , things that are more speculative.

    There are a lot of people who sell guns less than five or ten a year. If these people are going to need a FFA, then the FFA is going to have to change. There will have to be more people monitoring the license and the license will have to be easier and cheaper to acquire.
     The background check process is already pretty good , but it will have to be better to carry the increased number of users , it will have to be easier to access without becoming less protective of privacy.

     The increased number of people with a sellers license , combined with a booming market will markedly increase the number of outlets for gun sales.

       There is right now a real lack of gun training sites and good safe gun ranges for practice, I hope that the expected increase in gun availability will not lead to an increase in unsafe impromptu shooting ranges and improper training, but it could.

       The FFA could be accepted as a good ID card for voting purposes.

       Used Guns become more valuable quickly from this point onwards.

        Crime related to gun use falls as guns become both more ubiquitous and more expensive.

[sirs]

     Next the less sure and predictable , things that are more speculative.

    There are a lot of people who sell guns less than five or ten a year. If these people are going to need a FFA, then the FFA is going to have to change. There will have to be more people monitoring the license and the license will have to be easier and cheaper to acquire.

But that's the dirty little secret, Plane.  There will be no intention to lessen any guidelines to acquiring an FFL/FFA.  In fact, the rhetoric will be crystal that in order to maintain safety and integrety of the "system", the private seller will have to obtain all the required legal parameters of all other FFL carriers.

Just ask xo if he thinks that a Federal Firearms License should be made easier and cheaper to acquire

Again, the agenda here has squat to do with preventing another mass shooting in another "gun free zone".  It has to do with making it harder and harder for legal citizens to buy and sell firearms.  The harder the Government makes it, the more people simply stop trying, and gun control is acheived by the Government, thru simple attrition

[Plane]

  That may be so.

     I once bought a Mosin-Nagant in a parking lot, from a bailiff.

     The only Gun I ever bought from a non dealer and then resold the same way , I held it for more than five years, and sold at double the price.

      A gun of a popular type , in good condition , is a pretty dependable investment.

      If the law required such a sale to include a background check, then I would either need to acquire the license and access to the background check system , or take the sale to a gun shop and conduct the sale there, including a fee to the shop for the service.

     I would not mind getting the license , if the expense didn't force me to sell a lot of guns to justify it.  I know a guy that runs a gun shop out of a building in his backyard, just a hobby to him , but he has to make some sales to keep the right.

      I would not mind paying a reasonable fee to a shop owner to make use of the FBI background check, that would be a mostly a minor annoyance , this is already the standard method for internet sales, the gun purchase is sent directly to a FFA license holder.

     Anyone that did mind the trouble and expense would just sell quietly to someone he knew well enough to trust, how would such infractions be measured or caught? Sting operations?

       The illegal sales as they already happen, would probably happen much the same because this expansion of the rules won't be applied where the rules we already have are already ignored.

[Plane]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-we-are-here-prevent-next-mass-shooting-n490566

The president is embarrassingly poorly briefed.
Selling on the internet requires the involvement of an FFA holder.

"The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules," Obama said. "A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. "

No. Not a thing.

"This is not a plot to take away everybody's guns," Obama insisted.

Yes it is!
Why would he speak these words?

Isn't this the same guy that said that frustrated people cling to God and guns?

Has he really got respect for the 45% of us that own guns?
Does he respect the Constitution and the second amendment?

[sirs]

  That may be so.

......

       The illegal sales as they already happen, would probably happen much the same because this expansion of the rules won't be applied where the rules we already have are already ignored.

Bingo

[Xavier_Onassis]

You seem to be frustrated people clinging to God and guns.

I don't see how any wise person could respect the fucking Second Amendment types that claim they need their puny weapons to overthrow the government.  There is no chance whatever that they could do this.

And in the meantime, the more guns are out there, the more people are going to get shot.

[sirs]

You seem to be frustrated people clinging to God and guns.

Actually, those are fundamental freedoms in this country.  The only thing "frustrating" is elitist leftists, who think they know better, and would prefer I not have such freedoms

I don't see how any wise person could respect the fucking Second Amendment types that claim they need their puny weapons to overthrow the government. 

One more time for the ignorant challenged.....its not about "overthrowing" a Government.  It's about protecting our freedoms from an out-of-control Government

There is no chance whatever that they could do this.

So, just ..... don't even put up a fight.  Just be the little sheep we were meant to be, and turn over all our defensive capability to the Government.  Is that it??  There was a great post/meme I saw the other day.  Priceless in its irony.  You had coming out of one side of his mouth, our community organizer & chief, declaring how we needed to ship assault weapons and guns to Syrian rebels, because they were dealing with a regime that no longer represented the people.  And out of the other side of his mouth, he's declaring how Americans shouldn't have access to assault weapons.  Priceless

And in the meantime, the more guns are out there, the more people are going to get shot.

If that means more bad guys get shot....not having a problem with that.  And given the current stats in this country, as more guns have been sold, over the last decade, violent crime keeps going down.  Imagine that

[Xavier_Onassis]

Take your bullshit and spread it on the roses. Nobody believes your idiotic crap.

Most of the people agree there should be more control of guns, and they are right.