These are the executive actions President Obama plans to announce on the morning of Tuesday, 5 January, 2016 to “reduce gun violence and make our communities safer.”
Just a couple of comments off the top of my head.
Despite rumors that an actual number of transactions was going to be adopted to define “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, President Obama didn’t do it. So nothing materially changes. Status Quo. Instead, it’s just a short lived opportunity for rhetoric. This was supposed to be his anchor; closing that mythical “gun show loophole” and he couldn’t even make that happen. With one exception (see below), this whole package doesn’t do anything.
Looks like they are going to push 41P through; an interesting new take on the White House as “trust buster.” Considering the sheer number of trusts in the United States that concern all sorts of business (aside from owning NFA weapons) and how this precedent will affect those, I’m still unsure whether this new intrusiveness is even legal. But I’m not a lawyer.
Additionally, I’d hate to see be the guy who has to write those reports on how the government is going to pour money into “smart” gun technology. Of course, a smart PM can always figure out a way to make an earmark useful.
Data source: White House
One of the problems with this is they (politicians, usually leftists) start with this. Then their lawyers and department administrators start opening these up to mean more and reach further than anyone ever intended. Cases in point: the Clean Water Act and Affirmative Action.
You’re absolutely right. The next step is for liberal politicians to whine that the President’s executive order can’t be enforced because you can’t enforce compliance except with sting type police operations or if someone’s bill of sale (if there is one) is after the executive order.
The only way to ensure background checks always happen is with a national gun registry.
While I believe it’s very responsible of gun owners to get a background check done before transferring ownership of a firearm I don’t trust democrats in the least to make this happen. States where mandatory “responsible” background checks are mandated have made it nearly impossible to even go to the range with your wife and share a gun.
This is the insidious edge anti-gun advocates use against us. They use our desire to be responsible against us to slip in legislation that further restricts and eliminates our rights with the ultimate goal of eliminating them. Some gun owners are “useful idiots” and facilitate liberal/democrat tyranny.
This is unconstitutional and against the will of We The People. Congress controls the purse, so I doubt or atleast hope that they will not authorize any money for these unlawful dictates from the regime.
Since this is unconstitutional and against the law Barack Hussein Obama should be charged with treason and removed from office. Not only this dictate but the many more that he has handed down from on high.
Let’s hope Trump will counteract these ASAP.
Trump2016
Matt, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you’ll probably recall that many (most?) American presidents and members of Congress in many (most?) sessions have done things that proved to be unconstitutional. Never were they charged with teason. It’s almost like the Constitution is complex or something.
Also, I think it’s great that Trump has somehow convinced people that he gives two shits about the Constitution. To believe that he’s going to be some kind of Calvin Coolidge president who is little more than a steward of the office strains credulity. If anything, I’d say that Trump’s ego lends itself toward expanding executive power more so than restricting it.
You would think that with the Constitution being the all important document of our nation that it would be followed. Who gave these people the power to ignore it? How do we make them stop ignoring it?
As a non-American checking in, there is never one sacrosanct interpretation of any law – constitution or otherwise. Matt is right – it is complex. How you view the constitution should be interpreted is completely different from others.
It’s like saying you believe in democracy – what that means can be completely different from how someone else interprets it.
I recommend reading ‘Democracy in Decline’ by James Allan for a look at how to interpret democracy, constitutions, rights, and actors.
Bluenoser – You’re absolutely right if you have a country which does not respect “rule of law”. Part of “rule of law” is a respect for language (not reinventing it), respecting the intent and spirit of the law’s originators, respecting the legal concept of “precedent”. Many modern democracies have bastardized “rule of law” the US included.
The sad fact is the US, the great experiment, has succumbed and is becoming no better than the next banana republic.
Thanks to situational/relative ethics.
Ah and you just hit the nail on the head.
Thats the exact purpose behind what I call “PC doublespeak” as well; to destroy language and reinterpret the meaning of words, in particular, our legal protections to justify some kind of kafkaesque ‘common good’ line of ‘reasoning’ (using the word ‘reasoning’ very lightly).
Correction, Mr.E.G is right.
Matt is off his rocker.
Well, sure. We can all get behind that. But I’d respectfully argue that the part that may not be so obvious is that it’s the pursuit of adhering to the Constitution that makes America great. Doing so is not always obvious. A really good example would be the Steel Seizure Case. Long story short, steel workers were having a labor dispute and went on strike. Truman thought that we needed the steel on account of the Korean War, so he claimed that it was a mater of vital interest to the country and he used the military to take control of the steel mills. The Supreme Court took the case quick, fast, and in a hurry, they ruled against him, and then they sent him an order to undo what he had done. He immediately complied.
Did he violate the Constitution? Yes. Was he aware that he was doing so? Arguably, no. At best he was straddling the line. But in what other country in the world, even so-called democracies, would a judge’s ruling have compelled the commander of the military to comply with the law? Very few. Had Truman eschewed the court and used his military might to defy their order, then that’s probably something of the magnitude of treason. But president because we have a system that checks the power of the president, our courts, even a violation of the Constitution is not the end of the world. I’m not saying it’s not a bad thing, and it’s certainly bad if a President knowingly does so. But, at a minimum, the second amendment is subject to interpretation, and the courts have said that some amount of gun control is indeed constitutional. Exactly how much is the question, and while I strongly disagree that gun control is generally a good thing, I also can’t get behind the idea that any legislation related to gun control is tantamount to treason.
Matt – Not a chance. This Congress will not use the power of the purse even while using that promise to get elected e.g. obamacare, dream executive orders, increased refugee programs etc.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.
Since that is the case, they have to go too.
We The People must take our country back, if we are to ensure our grandchildren will still have a prosperous land to live in.
The traitor in the White House spends his time restricting the rights of we the people but he will allow Iran to continue to build nuclear weapons. How does this make sense? How do we let this treasonous fool in the White House continue to degrade this countries founding principles without consequence? An American citizen having a gun is more dangerous in the eyes of Hussein than Iran having a nuclear weapon. Is it not plain to see that Hussein cares more about a terrorist regime than his own, supposed, country? Where is his patriotism? When will he be held accountable for the damage he has done?
Trump2016
Your fun hashtag is going to do fuck-all. And your jackass of choice is just another round in a hopper full of jackasses.
Don’t rely on narcissism for rights, rely on yourself.
And nothing, repeat nothing in his proposed actions will hamper the availability of firearms. Unless a person only buys their firearms off of a guy with homemade tats named Cletus from the tailgate of his pickup, who just happens to be at the same flea markets all the time, with a bunch of guns.
Bill – No. Cletus and his customers aren’t the only ones this impacts. If you belong to a gun club, have close friends or relatives that exchange guns and want to transfer ownership you’re impacted.
More importantly, it sets the ground for further regulation to be able to enforce the President’s decree.
There’s a saying about what happens when good men stay quiet…
The aristocratic politicians have got us into this mess. Who would you pick to get us out of it? A successful business man who says what he means, or a politician who has never had a real job in his life? Politicians got us into this mess. Politicians will not get us out. If we just continue to put politician after politician into the office things will continue to slide down the slope to third world conditions in our once great nation.
Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results each time is the definition of foolishness. It is time to try a different way.
Trump2016
P.S. Why so angry and full of curse words? I get your mad, you should be. But being uncouth will not fix the problem.
HAH.
Matt thinks that was “uncouth”
I don’t think The Donald is all that’s cracked up to be.
If anything he’s as good as a liar as Hillary or Barack.
Then again I have no right to vote for representation in the USA, just an outsider’s opinion.
At this point I support the Trump, even despite his past, I feel he can at least undo some of the damages from this current muslim ass-kissing traitor-in-chief.
Best thing about Trump is he speaks his mind like a man should, not afraid to offend the pathetic masses known as Americans today.
And look at the other choices, last thing we need is that cunt Hillary or that old clown Sanders as the next president.
Outsiders are a big part of why the US is having the issues its having. E.G. foreign government provided health care, out of control immigration and gun control are all cited by our leftists as examples of success.
Maybe outsiders should remove the plank in their eye before talking about the splinter in ours?
I hear you, Matt. Career politicians are an ugly thing, and an outsider may bring something fresh to the table. I just think that some of us are skeptical that Donald’s outsider status can do enough good to outweigh all the bad he brings with him. I personally find all of his bigoted comments to be un-American and unbecoming of the office. However, I’m not bothered by someone who is a straight shooter or even rough around the edges. It’s not a desire for him to be politically correct; just a desire for him to not be so darn caustic and downright mean spirited.
At a minimum, he is going to push away a lot of political moderates, and I’d like to believe that our next president could be someone who doesn’t completely divide the nation again. Wishful thinking, I suppose.
Trump is no “outsider.” You don’t do the amount and level of business that he does with bedding down with the politicians.
Oh, I agree. I’m just saying that I can see the appeal of a supposed outsider.
Mr. E.G. I challenge you to quote (in context) Trump’s bigoted comments. If you do the research, you’ll find the media often twists what he says.
I don’t like the way Trump says things sometimes but I refrain from calling someone bigoted simply because I don’t share their position.
It’s become acceptable to call someone a racist simply because one doesn’t agree with this President. Participating in personal attacks with no evidence just demonstrates one’s lack of knowledge and/or weakness of position or character.
Note that I said bigot and not racist. The two are not the same. Also, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t appreciate you insinuating that I can’t read or think for myself. He’s said no shortage of biggoted statements. Let’s imagine that you’re totally correct and he has been misatrributed, my opinion remains the same on account of his whole “birther” movement participation, what he said about John McCain (never mind his politics, the man is a brave veteran who should not be made fun of for being captured by the enemy), his subtle jabs at Ted Cruz with respect to whether or not he is likely to be an evangelical Christian due to his Cuban origins, etc. He says enough offensive stuff that he seems like a bad choice for president.
Still waiting on a quote…
The stupid thing is that background checks and licencing are not in fact a bad idea but as usual they would be hijacked by the ‘anti’s’ if enacted to bring in defacto ‘gun control’. The background checks and licencing are the only things that worked here in Australia but I can’t see it working in the USA due to the shear number of firearms in circulation and the number of people who will willing hide them.
cant hide mine lost them in a devastating groundhog attack 🙁
Correct me if I am wrong, but dealers are already licensed via their FFL. How else would you license a dealer/seller as this proposes doing?
It’s window dressing. Telling people you’re doing something new that’s already a law.
“We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns… ordinary citizens should not have weapons.”
“There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don’t. And one of the things I don’t admire about America is their slavish love of guns. They’re evil”.
— John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia
That doesn’t sound like someone who’s out to curb violence or save lives; it sounds more like a gun hater with a personal agenda who exploited tragedy to get their way and coerced the rest of the elected legislature into compliance, much like some politicians are trying to do here in the States. Gun control isn’t about guns or violence, it’s about exerting authority. An unarmed populace is much easier to influence and control. A free people don’t (and shouldn’t ever need to) ask permission to bear arms.
I love the Australians, I really do. Was deployed with them and they were some of the most fun people you’d ever want to be around…but the sheer ignorance and hoplophobia of many is astounding. Gun ownership came up during chats at the smoke pit quite often. Many don’t understand (or downright reject) the idea of self-defense and gun ownership as a right because they’ve been told it’s not a right and that guns are evil for so long.
I have said before, existing laws surrounding the sale, transfer, usage, and ownership of weapons would suffice if actually enforced. Criminals will always have access to weapons and don’t care who or where they come from. Making it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen to acquire weapons does nothing to stop criminals, it merely enables them.
I’m Australian and serving with the ADF. I do not agree with what happened post Port Arthur and unfortunately I was too young / inexistent to have anything to do about it.
Being a responsible and licenced firearms owner in Australia, I did mention in another thread on SSD advising those who have the means to to hold on and exercise your rights to responsible firearms ownership because once that right is gone it’ll be gone forever and you will never get it back.
TL;DR don’t give up your rights and responsibilities, do whatever legally necessary to exercise and protect your inalienable rights.
The right to bear arms is much simpler than people make it out to be. Its not about hunting. Its not about target shooting. And, its not about deterring the development of a tyrannical state. It is about the ability to procure and keep ready the tools well suited for self defense.
The fact that privately owned arms can be used for so called sporting purposes, and they can act as a deterrent to both crime and tyranny is just icing on the cake.
bloke from Ohio – You nailed it.
Many fail to realize that the right to own a gun/defend yourself stems from the unalienable human right of “life”. The same “life. liberty and pursuit of happiness” mentioned in a “haphazard” manner in the Deceleration of Independence
Australia and the UK are perfect examples of what happens when the anti-gun side seizes control of the narrative and successfully applies the divide and conquer strategy. Pitting the sports shooters against the target shooters and collectors, etc.
Howard even went as far as wearing a bullet proof vest when addressing gun owners in australia to paint a very ugly picture that they were somehow the threat, and he was there as their ‘benefactor’ (for the common good of course).
David – “The background checks and licencing are the only things that worked here in Australia.” Pardon, most of us Americans don’t think it worked so well in Australia unless you think anti-gun gun confiscating Americans make up the majority of our population.
I keep telling people he can’t do anything. These are basically the same things he did after Sandy Hook. Everyone needs to chill, he’s gone in a year.
An Executive Order is something he CAN do. Remember that whole “pen and phone” speal?
Yes, this demonstrates how limited his reach can be. This was supposed to be him pulling out all the stops. He couldn’t even define “engaged in the business of.”
Every President’s reach is limited.
We all tend to give the office too much credit or blame for everything that happens or fails to happen.
It shouldn’t be a surprise since this is how checks and balances to power work.
That is the beauty of our system of government.
TLB
And everything done here can be undone with the stroke of a pen. Ask Kentucky how long all of the executive actions by their last Governor lasted.
Kentucky doesn’t have the huge bureaucracy infested with liberals that DC does. There’s a reason Louis Lerner was able to attain the position of power she did and was able to do the damage she did without sanction.
Saying the next Pres can roll back the law doesn’t help those losing their life, liberty or “fortunes” today or in the next year. Ask those that had to fight the IRS for targeting them or those who had their guns confiscated in Katrina who were NEVER compensated…
So with the trust thing, I am active mil and I possess a suppressor in a trust incase I PCS to a non free state or deploy. In either case, I can move the suppressor to a free state to be safeguarded while I can not possess it. Now with out the trust option what is another option for me and my loved ones so they will not be defacto criminals due to the NFA laws?
We are going to have to see how this plays out.
Trusts are still valid, with regard to 41P: https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download. The biggest change, from what I have read, is related to the making and transferring of new items after the 180 day grace period and that these will require photos and finger prints from all settlers/trustees. I may be wrong, but this is how it reads to me. It also says that the CLEO sign off is no longer required for individual and trust purchases, but you do have to notify the CLEO in your area that you are making or transferring NFA items.
Even with a trust, you are still required to notify the ATF if you move the NFA item across state lines via a 5320.20 form.
Does this notification have to be in writing, or can I just stop Dave when I see him at the gun range, and say “Hey Dave! I’m gettin’ a cool toy soon.”
Depending on your CLEO? Depends on whether this sucks or not. The local Sheriff here loves gun owners, and owns his own “arsenal” (Using the Anti-gunners term).
There will be a process and I’m sure it will be different in every jurisdiction and I’m sure that some applications will enter that local process and never leave.
I said it above, but the comments make me feel like it needs to be reiterated. Do not underestimate what actions like these do. Loss of rights happens over generations, one small step back at a time. Death by a thousand cuts. To preserve the rights for posterity, you have to block every one of the enemies thrusts. Zero tolerance.
Exactly. Liberals are masters at eroding freedoms. It’s the death by a thousand paper cuts strategy like you said.
We must fight every issue down to the smallest thing. We must become just as gung-ho as the liberals seem to be. We must not comply.
Anyone that is in favor of any gun control is anti2a and must be fought, because ultimately they are the enemy of you, your children, and your grandchildren.
Many of those preaching “calm” don’t get this fundamental reality.
Actually, you read the regulation wrong. You read “no actual number of firearms will be required to be in the business” in order for the ATF to regulate the sellers of private property as an FFL; when really what it meant in lawyerese is, “no actual number of firearms will be required in order for the sell to be regulated as a business, because any and all sales will be regarded as ‘in the business”. Meaning that if you sell just one firearm, you are regarded as “being in the business”, excluding collector’s.
So instead limiting ATF oversight of private sells to say, ten or twenty a year, Obama is saying that if you engage in gun commerce, you are in the business and subject for regulation, even though he has no authority to do so. He can’t create law. Congress can. What we have is a dictator.
What this is about is the spitting on the Constitution in broad daylight, and not anyone doing anything about it, and getting away with it- one more step in the “Fundamental Transformation of America”. Obama has taken it upon himself to determine what is legal and what is not. Violating the treaty clause of the Constitution and letting Iran go nuclear: Legal. Unilaterally bypassing Congress and dictating that 5-12 million illegal aliens are here legally: Legal. Ignoring statutory law and exchanging a deserter for five Taliban/Al Qaeda generals without notifying Congress: Legal. Intentionally abandoning strategic against in the war against the Global Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan, while decimating the military and racking up $10 Trillion in debt in seven years: Legal. Stating when Congress is in recess or out of session so that he can stack the courts with Left-wing radicals: Legal. Arming Mexican drug cartels with thousands of assault weapons so that you can crack down on 2nd Amendment rights:Legal. I could go on, the point is that Obama is a traitor, and his intent is to destroy our beloved America.
What we have here is a Communist, pro-Muslim tyrant destroying America from within, and a political class that is content to sit back and bankrupt and destroy our children’s future, because their pensions are already paid with the blood of my brother’s in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does that worthless POS, James Comey or Martin Dempsey, live with himself? They used to put people up against walls and shoot them, or string them up by their neck for far less then what Obama and his cabal has done to the United States of America.
Arm up, Prepare your children for the fight, teach them the history of their great nation and its foundation in the Judeo-Christian ethos, and get ready for what’s coming.
Yes, you could interpret it that way. But it’s always been that way, without a clear definition. He didn’t change anything. However, there’s the possible and the probable. There aren’t enough ATF agents to cover every sale of two guys at work or an uncle to a nephew.
This was window dressing because he couldn’t really get anything substantive through. Even the 41P change, while quite PITA to NFA owners, is just as ineffective at preventing crime as the other measures.
He is playing to his base here and inadvertently energizing the conservative base as well, in opposition. It’s something conservative candidates can get behind, the over reach of executive action and the erosion of 2A rights. Awhile back I told friends that I’d like this election cycle to be all about 2A. If it’s a core issue, it can bring democrat voters over to the republican cause and get out the republican vote.
SSD – “There aren’t enough ATF agents to cover every sale of two guys at work or an uncle to a nephew.”
There are enough agents when it’s YOUR nephew, uncle or you. I agree with your bigger picture comments but I don’t think minimizing this in any way is helpful or right.
Makes it sound like since they can’t get us all it’s OK for now. No. I don’t buy that. That approach is fraught with much greater repercussions (not to mention the oath doesn’t say if you don’t support and defend the constitution a “little” it’s ok). Louis Lerner didn’t have to audit every conservative to have a huge impact on the process and impending result.
Nothing has materially changed in how this law is interpreted by the Administration.
Great post majrods.
1) Lame duck President announces he’s going to do gun control by executive order.
2) As usual in Washington, and with this President, nothing happens.
3) But paranoid gun owners go into lunatic hoarding mode and buy up all the guns, ammo, and gun accessories in America.
4) No one can find any ammo in the stores.
5) Paranoid gun owners of America accomplish what the President never could–gun control.
6) President laughs; gun companies celebrate; Wall Street smiles; gun owners of America screw themselves.
I am curious how much stock he has in gun manufacturers. He has been the best gun salesman of all time.
You made yourself negligibly foolish when you said nothing has happened with this President.
Are you saying people should not buy as much ammo and firearms as they can?
If a political movement and a president of that political movement was actively trying to restrict your ability to buy food, would you not buy as much food as you can, while you still can, before it is to late? Would that not be the prudent way to go about insuring that you have ample supply?
I get what your saying. But it is not the average citizen that causes the shortage. It is the scampers that sit in walmarts parking lot and then buys out all the ammo then goes home and puts it on gunbroker or armslist for an outrageous markup. It is these folks that should get your scorn. I know of atleast three people that do not even own guns but will buy up every box of .223/5.56, .308, x39, and .22lr that they can find, then goes and sells them online. You also have a lot of local gun stores that do the same thing, they go to the big box stores, buy the ammo, and then goes right around and sells it at their store for a big mark up.
You would think that the ammo mfg’ers would increase their production with the huge demand that has been happening for the past four years. The ammo industry is the only industry I know of that does not try to produce enough to meet demands. I guess they are content in making the amount of money they are.
Hey, the free market in action, that’s the American Way!
Why spool up a new production line when the powers that be keep talking about banning this bullet and that bullet?
Nobody panics like gun people panic.
Have you heard of Black Lives Matter and Climate Change?
I don’t know how many of you read into the last paragraph: he’s giving our earnings (aka tax dollars) to grow the ability to trace lost/stolen firearms.
*** I have a question for everyone above that thinks everything here is OK: if they’re going to trace lost/stolen firearms, how do they do that without setting up a gun registration?
Are you suggesting lost/stolen firearms should NOT be traced? Seems like a pretty damn useful thing for law enforcement.
With the rabid anti-gun agenda of so many politicians and officials within the judicial system, I see it being used as more of a stepping stone to usher in wider prosecution of gun owners whose weapons were stolen, especially if that stolen firearm gets used in a crime.
I can see it now: some anti-gun nut will want to sponsor a new bill declaring what they think constitutes safe storage and desire to make noncompliance a punishable offense should the weapon get stolen. The logic of “able to be stolen = improperly secured” will dictate charges.
Fast and Furious proved that even with tracking, crooks still got guns, still committed crimes, and the weapons still disappeared never to be seen again anyway… a registry of guns will do nothing.
I believe a federal gun registration would have widespread, terrible ramifications. I think the negative results of it outweigh the positive results of a few firearms returned to their owner.
What, you never realized that the National Tracing Center was a thing? It’s been around for decades and firearms manufacturers have always had to serialize their items to sell them and they’ve long been required to keep records (Bound Book) of who they sell to. It is not in fact registration which would mean the records are input and kept at the tracing center but it is a requirement of doing firearm business that the business keep a bound book of transfers. The tracing center specifically has to start at the manufacturer and follow the bound book bread crumb trail to find who the last person to own the item was.
This will only open doors for definitions and regulations that bridge a gap the anti gun movement until now saw as a legislatively blocked hurdle.
Engaged in business of… a guy who buys ten dime bags may not be a dealer, but in court with a shitty lawyer he can be found guilty as one… now apply this to guns.
This can easily be tied into future full registration requirements to facilitate proof future sales didn’t happen off books before the law.
I’m far from a conspiracy theorist, but even Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder can see the linkeage here.
See my comment above. He didn’t change/amplify anything with this statute. The definition has always been fuzzy.
He doesn’t change anything, except for the amount of tax payer money being spent. Yea. Ok.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”- Marcus Tullius Cicero
How many NFA firearms owned by a trust have been used in a crime? Ever? I just don’t understand the administrations fascination with this issue. It’s a non event as far as crime guns go.
Bingo! Ding-ding-ding… You win the prize.
I wish a reporter would ask that very question during today’s press conference.
I believe it was one incident years ago, and if I recall it was a LEO that went a little “off the reservation”………domestic issue.
I believe there were two and both LEOs.
I thought it was waaaaay back too. like 1934 or something but I heard it so long ago I’m pretty fuzzy on the details.
Christopher Dorner had suppressors and aSBR he puchased through a trust in Nevada IIRC. I can’t find any info on him actually using them.
Let me see if I’m getting this right. Actual changes by section:
1) Dealer definition. Words shifted from one useless definition to another. U.S. Attorney’s Office’s only take sure winners and HIGHLY publicized cases. We’re not gonna see many prosecutions unless it’s VERY clear the person was an unlicensed dealer.
2) Background checks for the NFA. Already exist. The trust changes are annoying (and I’m not sure they’ll withstand challenge) but as a practical matter it looks like this mostly just encourages making purchases every two years to prevent extra paperwork.
3) State background check reporting. Already the law. I don’t see writing letters reminding states of that as doing any harm. Only harmful to those who fell through the cracks.
4) Updating NICS. Not a change in the law. Making the system more efficient is a good thing.
5) Throwing more money at the ATF. Doubtful this is a good use of resources.
6) Smart gun funding. Somebody is gonna make a lot of money off of this, but it won’t be gun makers. Taking the money would be suicide in the civilian market.
Good summary.
the irony is that smart gun funding means financing certain sectors of the firearms industry, which is supposed to be sacrilegious to the gun control tribe.
MGS4 actually portrayed one of the practical military and law enforcement concerns regarding smart gun technology 😀 and how they could be feasibly defeated. Good stuff.
I actually have no issues with modernizing and funding NCIS, as well as actually enforcing existing laws and making enforcement much easier.
Many of these proposals are meaningless, ineffective measures intended to make it look like BHO ‘did something’, although I dont necessarily disagree with them.
Where I do disagree very strongly is the potus’ point about the UK and Australia, which he and hillary brought up recently. That is the primary reason why gun owners and the NRA are rightfully apprehensive about any proposed measures, even if they are good measures theoretically speaking.
That is not even getting into the politicians that really do want to disarm americans, who view laws as the necessary stepping stone to get what they want. Some what outright disarmament: fact.