The Obama EO('s) So, are we all felons yet?

[Scout26]

Anybody know what time Obama is going to announce his "For the Chillin's" EO's to ban guns?

I'd like to know what time I need to go underground and on the lam...

[Ben]

I thought it was gonna be tomorrow, because he's scheduled to meet on it with the AG today. From what I read, today's meeting was supposed to be about "what can be done", so if he actually announces EOs tomorrow, that's some fast legal work - almost like things were already planned out. 

[RevDisk]

Anybody know what time Obama is going to announce his "For the Chillin's" EO's to ban guns?

I'd like to know what time I need to go underground and on the lam...

He has a meeting at 2:10 with the ATF, AG, and FBI. Apparently still under discussion. Essentially, he can only work within interpretation of existing law. Only area where he has fairly unchecked power is imports. Even then, Congress can overrule him. EO's are the second to lowest rung of law. Technically, it's only instructions on how to interpret existing law. It's one step above say a technical determination by Joe Sniffy the ATF tech branch examiner, but lower than any law or court ruling.

So probably expect some import/export shenanigans, maybe some monkeying with existing definitions on 'gun seller vs dealer', maybe some monkeying with background checks. It's pretty limited in scope. He could try the "clearly exceed the scope of existing law and see what the courts do", but that's rolling the dice. I think it's likely with the terrorism and no-fly list, unlikely with everything else. Yes, legally there's no difference between putting people on secret government watchlists allegedly related to terrorism and say, flagging all persons of Dutch ancestry or left handed individuals from purchasing firearms. But politically, it is a world of differences. It's already started. "NRA wants to keep guns in the hands of terrorists" and whatnot.

Most people don't understand that there's absolutely no public guidelines or criteria for how you get put on the list, and theoretically no way to get off said list. Except to say, virtually everyone on the list is not a criminal. That's the whole point. If the government actually had something on persons in the US, they'd bring charges. The domestic watchlists are for suspicious persons, but not anyone we have proof of wrong doing.

[T.O.M.]

Read an article this morning from Reuters on this.  Interesting that the article kept stressing that an E.O. "has the full force of law," which it doesn't.  Anyways, the article was talking about the "loophole" under which small dealers who operate online and at gun shows can sell firearms without doing background checks.  (Chuckled at that one.)  It discussed whether they could outright prohibit these types of sales, require that they do the checks, or that they can change the interpretation of law to include these types of sales.

My wonder at this point, given all of the hype, the publicity (Obama is doing a special about gun violence with Anderson Cooper), and all of the focus is if he's going to swing for the fences.  Go big.  Re-institute the AWB with 10 round mag cap limits and the while nine yards.  My thinking is that, in their mind, such an act with concurrent enforcement attempts will force Congress to come to the table and a compromise will be negotiated, in their favor, and he'll come off looking like the man who beat the gun lobby by forcing gun control laws through an unfriendly Congress.  We can whine, and fight, and sue, but it would be years before any cases come to resolution, and in the meantime Obama will be retired to his new estate in Hawaii, collecting $250K per speech.

[brimic]

My wonder at this point, given all of the hype, the publicity (Obama is doing a special about gun violence with Anderson Cooper), and all of the focus is if he's going to swing for the fences.  Go big.  Re-institute the AWB with 10 round mag cap limits and the while nine yards.  My thinking is that, in their mind, such an act with concurrent enforcement attempts will force Congress to come to the table and a compromise will be negotiated, in their favor, and he'll come off looking like the man who beat the gun lobby by forcing gun control laws through an unfriendly Congress.  We can whine, and fight, and sue, but it would be years before any cases come to resolution, and in the meantime Obama will be retired to his new estate in Hawaii, collecting $250K per speech.

Obama may be a fool in many ways, but he's the master of Hegelian Dialect.

[Perd Hapley]

Anybody know what time Obama is going to announce his "For the Chillin's" EO's to ban guns?

I'd like to know what time I need to go underground and on the lam...

I'm the opposite. I want to know when I can come out of hiding, and be safe from the scourge of GHOST GUN VIOLENZ!!!111

[Ben]

Latest news. Interesting that they mention the FBI Director by name, but no mention of the ATF Director, who would be the lead on the whole licensing debacle. Looks to me (from the available info) like they might be going the "terrorism" route. Proud to be one of you, my fellow terrorists!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/04/obama-meeting-with-ag-on-gun-control-actions-faces-gop-backlash.html?intcmp=hpbt2

[Ben]

Also, this is an interesting quote from the above article:

The administration is expected to reclassify some of those dealers using a mix of criteria, such as the number and frequency of guns sold, whether sellers profit off sales, whether they advertise, rent space or tables at gun shows and pay taxes.

Guns appreciate in value.

[brimic]

Latest news. Interesting that they mention the FBI Director by name, but no mention of the ATF Director, who would be the lead on the whole licensing debacle. Looks to me (from the available info) like they might be going the "terrorism" route. Proud to be one of you, my fellow terrorists!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/04/obama-meeting-with-ag-on-gun-control-actions-faces-gop-backlash.html?intcmp=hpbt2

So what are the rules when roughly 1/2 of the country's population are considered terrorists?

[RevDisk]

So what are the rules when roughly 1/2 of the country's population are considered terrorists?

*shrug*

Won't happen.

If it did happen, which I actually wish would be the case, it'd be cracked like an egg. The No Fly List is barely legal to begin with. There haven't been many cases, and the US government has essentially plea bargained their way out of those. I'd actually love if exercising a Constitutional right was a listed criteria.

Secret government lists involving somewhere between allegedly tens of thousands to allegedly million Americans are kinda contrary to the point of our way of life.


Suppose for a moment however that automagically it was found legal. And now 120 plus million Americans were not legally allowed in an aircraft. Including a large percent of the military. That'd be flat out awesome. The following election would be hysterical.

[AJ Dual]

Predictions:

- Partial attempt to close the "gun show loophole" by making some firm determination of the number of guns, and how often, and some other characteristics that make you a "dealer", like selling guns repeatedly you've owned for less than a year etc.  (editorial note, this is "Realpolitik AJ Dual" not "Libertarian AJ Dual") Which is something that many of us who buy/sell guns in personal transactions have WANTED since the '68 GCA, and that many FFL's who do jump through all the hoops would like to see too. Especially when these FFL's see the same "personal seller" at all the same gun shows they attend selling a table full of NIB guns.  

- More messing around with NICS, adding in everyone they can for Vets/PTSD, SSI-financial stweardship etc.

- More messing around with NICS, adding in everyone they think they can get away with on terror watch lists.

- More messing around with NICS, trying to dig, scrape, and dredge up every last "domestic" case they can by stretching the Lautenberg Act/Amendment as far as possible, and improving record collection with various state databases. (Watch for more cops and .mil who have to get fired/given desk jobs...)

- A bunch of "proposals" that SOUND to the lefty/liberal base like they're part of "executive orders" but are just "proposals". Proposals that he'll blame Congress for not acting on later, if anyone in the MSM even bothers to ask him.

- Perhaps a final push on 41p/NFA trusts and CLEO sign-off, but I doubt it, they've dragged their feet on it so long, it's already been earmarked for quiet death/running out the clock on Obama's last year in office...

- Imports, what little he can do. Because I think he'd have done that ALREADY if he can. I think that many/some/all of the guns & ammo we still get imported are actually covered under WTO, G8, NAFTA type agreements. And he actually can't ban them without violating the treaties/trade agreements. After 8 years of Obama, I think he'd have banned/blocked all imports they could already.

Obama could surprise us, but overall, I expect a dog-n-pony show of more windowdressing and weak nibbling around the edges of gun control that we've seen since Sandy Hook. (granted, it's not "weak" if you're some poor vet, or SSI recipient who's now on the naughty list with NICS) The big difference this time will be added pomp and circumstance to try and up political pressure and "shift the debate". The problem he has is that any EO's that overreach actually run the risk of creating ever more pro-RKBA case law, because unlike other vague regulatory realms, the gun issue is much more technical and is more cut and dried, allowing lawyers to sink their teeth into it, and Federal judges that can be forced into a corner with plain readings of laws.

Case in point: This link... http://blog.cms.gov/2016/01/04/obama-administration-modifies-hipaa-to-strengthen-the-firearm-background-check-system/

Which has since been erased... but here is the text.

Obama administration modifies HIPAA to strengthen the firearm background check system

January 4

By: Jocelyn Samuels, Director of the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Today the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) moved forward on commitments made by President Obama to curb gun violence across the nation. Specifically, we have modified the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to expressly permit certain covered entities to disclose to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of those individuals who, for mental health reasons, already are prohibited by Federal law from having a firearm.

Due to a history of under-reporting, the NICS has lacked complete information about all individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm. The modification announced today better enables the reporting of the identities of prohibited individuals to the background check system and is an important step toward improving the public’s safety while continuing to strongly protect individuals’ privacy interests.

Specifically, this final rule gives States improved flexibility to ensure accurate but limited information is reported to the NICS. The rulemaking makes clear that, under the Privacy Rule, certain covered entities are permitted to disclose limited information to the NICS. The information that can be disclosed is the minimum necessary identifying information about individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or otherwise have been determined by a lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.

The new modification is carefully and narrowly tailored to preserve the patient-provider relationship and ensure that individuals are not discouraged from seeking voluntary treatment. This rule applies only to a small subset of HIPAA covered entities that either make the mental health determinations that disqualify individuals from having a firearm or are designated by their States to report this information to NICS – and it allows such entities to report only limited identifying, non-clinical information to the NICS.

The rule does not apply to most treating providers and does not allow reporting of diagnostic, clinical, or other mental health treatment information.

It is important to note that the vast majority of Americans with mental health conditions are not violent and that those with mental illness are in fact more likely to be victims than perpetrators. An individual who seeks help for mental health problems or receives mental health treatment is not automatically legally prohibited from having a firearm; nothing in this final rule changes that. HHS continues to support efforts by the Administration to dispel negative attitudes and misconceptions relating to mental illness and to encourage individuals to seek voluntary mental health treatment. Learn more about mental health resources and recovery at http://www.mentalhealth.gov.

The Final Rule is available for review at: http://www.federalregister.gov.

Want to comment on this Blog? Visit our Twitter page @HHSOCR to share your thoughts and start a conversation.

[roo_ster]

Secret government lists involving somewhere between allegedly tens of thousands to allegedly million Americans are kinda contrary to the point of our way of life.

Bears repeating. 

Scrap the no-fly list and maybe (hint-hint) allocate a couple of 1st class seats near the cockpit as "beefy seats" for big guys with former LEO or military experience(1) who are willing to do some thumping in case some passenger gets frisky, terror-wise. 




(1) The fact that I am a prior service Galoot-American is beside the point.

[Perd Hapley]

Bears repeating. 

Scrap the no-fly list and maybe (hint-hint) allocate a couple of 1st class seats near the cockpit as "beefy seats" for big guys with former LEO or military experience(1) who are willing to do some thumping in case some passenger gets frisky, terror-wise. 

Prepared for terries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiWIOKKuyGE

[tokugawa]

*


Suppose for a moment however that automagically it was found legal. And now 120 plus million Americans were not legally allowed in an aircraft. Including a large percent of the military. That'd be flat out awesome. The following election would be hysterical.

 At that point the elections would be moot, and there would be an acute shortage of rope.

[zxcvbob]

At that point the elections would be moot, and there would be an acute shortage of rope.

Fireboard those mother-jammers!

[T.O.M.]

Just reported on NBC news:

Close the gunshow loophole
Require more people to get background checks
More FBI employees to work on checks
More ATF agents (requires Congressional budget approval)
Money for mental health (same budget issue)
Meet with Congressional leaders about gun control legislation

Sounds like what we predicted on the EOs, but a full court press on more gun control...

[French G.]

I know it is all media pandering crap, but chilling effect accomplished. I am a pretty knowledgeable seller and am planning on renting a table at a show soon. I have sold in person, in person at gun shows, and non-firearms on Gunbroker. But now I do not know exactly what I need to do and will be more wary making sales to new friends. Oh, and good luck ever re-stocking the .22 ammo apparently.

[Ben]

Here's one of the orders:

President Obama’s series of executive actions on guns will require background checks for those purchased from dealers even if they're bought online or at gun shows, the White House announced late Monday.

So basically, no change from what's already required by law. Of course hoplophobes can't get that through their thick skull, so Obama gets props from them for doing something. Oh, and he's hiring 230 more ATF agents specifically to oversee dealers and background checks (the linked story says FBI agents, but another story I read said ATF, which would make more sense).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/04/obama-executive-action-on-guns-to-require-background-checks-for-more-sales.html

[charby]

NICS should be open to anyone to call and check. I should have that option if I want to sell a firearm in a private sale.

[RevDisk]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

1. Background checks
-No change in FFL.
-No change in trusts, but it's being finalized.
-Asking States to pony up more info.
-Overhauling NICS, 230 more FBI personnel

2. Safer from gun violence
-Calling on US attorneys and prosecutors to focus on gun laws
-200 new ATF agents
-ATF looking into online gun sales
-Making FFLs responsible for notifying ATF of guns lost/stolen in transit
-Money for ballistics DB
-Encouraging domestic violence outreach

3. Mental illness
-Money for mental health care
-SSA to give mental illness info to NICS
-HHS to mod HIPAA to allow states to give info to NICS

4. Smart guns
-DOD, DHS, DOJ have to spend money on smart gun research




Actions by Feds

- No clarification on how many guns can be sold before hitting dealer status
- Restates current law that location doesn't change need for FFL if dealing
- So, no change on dealer status

- Trust ruling is 'being finalized'.
- Badgering states for more prohibited person data
- More money for NICS
- More money for NICS govt contractor



Communities Safer from Gun Violence

Going to enforce existing law
- Again, more ATF agents, money for ballistics DB, money for online darknet investigation
- Again, FFL must notify of lost/stolen
- Again, domestic violence outreach


Mental Health
- More money for mental health
- SSA to money up data for NICS

Smart Guns
- DOD, DHS, DOJ must look into smart guns.

[Jocassee]

Supposedly an actual speech is coming around 11:40 this morning or whenever His Worship can be bothered to get up and wander out to the podium.

[BryanP]

Huh. Looks like they're doing away with the CLEO requirement for NFA. Isn't that the main reason I've heard cited as a reason to do the trust in the first place? It allows you to bypass the CLEO signature requirement?

https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

[RevDisk]

Short version: Trusts have to notify CLEOs, but not get signoffs. Do need to do fingerprints. But the sop thrown out is that executors don't count as a transfer during probate.

So...  Eh, net loss but fairly minor.

[MechAg94]

◦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.

From the link Revdisk posted.  I am not quite sure what they are suggesting.  Anyone know what the "other factors" were in past cases?  Was it circumstantial evidence that actually hundreds of guns were bought and sold?  I would suggest it might be planning to truck them down to Mexico to drug cartels, but that is legal (at least for federal agents).

[Perd Hapley]

Phew, what a relief! I can take off this bullet-proof vest, now that Obama's made the streets all safe and everything.