Author Topic: The Obama EO('s) So, are we all felons yet? (Read 13173 times)

Ben · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2016, 10:19:11 AM »

Quote from: RevDisk on January 05, 2016, 08:13:13 AM

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

Actions by Feds

- No clarification on how many guns can be sold before hitting dealer status

Communities Safer from Gun Violence

I guess it's BOTH ATF and FBI new hires.

Regarding the above quote, I read the ATF documentation (linked below) and it is pretty vague on what constitutes a dealer, also stating there are no specific sell or buy numbers. Something I don't like, because like the nebulous "arms cache" it puts the govt in charge of deciding if they want to call a five gun a year guy a dealer or not, and prosecute for whatever or not.

Regarding "communities safe from gun violence" I wonder if this is a way for the gov to support gun control NGOs and if Everytown is going to be the new Planned Parenthood regarding taxpayer funding? Don't know if that would fall under EOs or not, or if Congress could swiftly swat it down. Of course PP is still being funded, despite the "over my dead body" talk in Congress.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2016, 10:48:22 AM »

I thought the "in the business of buying and selling weapons", meaning a dedicated for-profit enterprise, had been court tested. Or am I mis-remembering?

Brad

Ben · « **Reply #27 on:** January 05, 2016, 11:09:17 AM »

And dammit, I should have bought some S&W and Ruger stock yesterday for a quick profit turnaround.

erictank · « **Reply #28 on:** January 05, 2016, 11:51:34 AM »

Quote from: RevDisk on January 04, 2016, 03:59:44 PM

*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.

Oh, I would SO love to see that.

Assuming we didn't hit ACW 2.0 before then.

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #29 on:** January 05, 2016, 01:29:09 PM »

So, I still don't see what he actually did.

He's asking states for stuff, but he can't force the states, right?

and most of the rest of that stuff needs funding, which goes through congress, right?

lupinus · « **Reply #30 on:** January 05, 2016, 01:36:16 PM »

Quote from: bluestarlizzard on January 05, 2016, 01:29:09 PM

So, I still don't see what he actually did.

He's asking states for stuff, but he can't force the states, right?

and most of the rest of that stuff needs funding, which goes through congress, right?

It's the feelgoodiest of feel goods

Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #31 on:** January 05, 2016, 01:42:20 PM »

Quote from: lupinus on January 05, 2016, 01:36:16 PM

It's the feelgoodiest of feel goods

Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

So basically just another chance to be an egomaniac who likes to blabber on and on and interrupt the regularly scheduled programming?

I'm starting to question why anyone would even look sideways when he starts talking about "common sense gun control", yet every time, everyone gets in a fussy.

freakazoid · « **Reply #32 on:** January 05, 2016, 01:49:12 PM »

Don't forget the tears he shed for all the 1st graders killed.

So how are trusts affected? Do they not count at all now?

Ben · « **Reply #33 on:** January 05, 2016, 02:05:06 PM »

I didn't watch the news conference. I started to listen to it on my phone, but couldn't get past the first two minutes. It sounded like the audience was 100% partisan. Apparently he started crying and that's hitting most all the MSM outlets right now. I wonder how many tears he shed for Benghazi victims?

Also in that first two minutes, he specifically mentioned incidents that included Santa Barbara, where the majority of victims were knifed to death or run over.

Kingcreek · « **Reply #34 on:** January 05, 2016, 02:24:46 PM »

I think he had something on his finger when he first touched his eye that caused the tears. I think he probably practiced crying for days.

brimic · « **Reply #35 on:** January 05, 2016, 02:51:56 PM »

Quote from: freakazoid on January 05, 2016, 01:49:12 PM

Don't forget the tears he shed for all the 1st graders killed.
So how are trusts affected? Do they not count at all now?

I got this explanation from a friend this morning:

Quote

1) Creates new definition that has no basis in law – “responsible person” for trusts, LLC, etc., etc.
2) Makes them send in fingerprint cards and photos for background check when applying for tax-paid transfer under NFA
3) Makes them send notification to CLEO (this could be a lot of people, not just Police Chief or Sherriff) no sign off required, though
4) Makes them do this for every transfer, unless they’ve been approved in the past two years under this system, in which case they must only certify no changes made to “responsible persons” under trust.

IOW, you have to submit fingerprints and photo once, and so long as you buy another NFA item every 2 years, you don't need to resubmit fingerprints/photo. At least that's my understanding of it. Should make Obama the biggest NFA salesman ever, not just gun and ammo salesman.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 05, 2016, 02:52:54 PM »

These two links were on Drudge. Not sure if these have anything actually new.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/obamas-gun-control-plan-includes-gun-ban-social-security-beneficiaries/
Prohibit gun possession by certain SS beneficiaries who can't control their own finances. You know, because we have all these old people going around on shooting sprees.
Is the law prohibiting possession by the mentally incompetent so wide open that they can redefine it any way they want?

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/
This one is saying they could call you a dealer if you sell as few as one or two guns.

Quote

“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

The original packaging? I still have the original boxes for guns I bought years ago.

Quote

Jarret then said that selling as few as “two firearms” could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further. “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun,” Lynch said.

They just don't want to set a number so they can keep it a fuzzy grey area.

brimic · « **Reply #37 on:** January 05, 2016, 03:25:17 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on January 05, 2016, 02:52:54 PM

These two links were on Drudge. Not sure if these have anything actually new.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/obamas-gun-control-plan-includes-gun-ban-social-security-beneficiaries/
Prohibit gun possession by certain SS beneficiaries who can't control their own finances. You know, because we have all these old people going around on shooting sprees.
Is the law prohibiting possession by the mentally incompetent so wide open that they can redefine it any way they want?

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/
This one is saying they could call you a dealer if you sell as few as one or two guns.
The original packaging? I still have the original boxes for guns I bought years ago. They just don't want to set a number so they can keep it a fuzzy grey area.

Laws with no defined boundaries with the possibility of arbitrary heavy handed prosecution sounds pretty tyranical to me.

Reading between the lines- is this merely a first step? Is this just to set us up for the next EO gun ban or TOTUS speech that kicks off another round of panic buying/selling? EX: EO comes out next month banning 'assault weapons' and you have an extra 1/2 dozen carbines in your safe that you could sell for a huge profit, but risk going to federal prison in doing so.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #38 on:** January 05, 2016, 04:19:36 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on January 05, 2016, 10:01:54 AM

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.

My SOT buddy and criminal defense/firearms/gun-trust lawyer both advised me a while back, before this was even an inkling to DO NOT HAVE YOUR TRUSTEES TRY THAT.

And that while new rules may clarify it, a living or revocable trust has never gotten anyone around a Form 5, unless your parting gift is to make your heirs and successors in the trust a federal test case for it.

MillCreek · « **Reply #39 on:** January 05, 2016, 04:33:15 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/05/obama-administrations-gun-control-rule-lets-doctors-report-patients-background-check-system/

Now the healthcare system can report to NICS without violating HIPAA. Here is the summary list of what healthcare issues can be reported:

Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor established under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and implementing regulations issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.

Here is the actual statutory language: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-33181.pdf

AJ Dual · « **Reply #40 on:** January 05, 2016, 04:46:53 PM »

Quote from: MillCreek on January 05, 2016, 04:33:15 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/05/obama-administrations-gun-control-rule-lets-doctors-report-patients-background-check-system/

Now the healthcare system can report to NICS without violating HIPAA. Here is the summary list of what healthcare issues can be reported:

Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor established under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and implementing regulations issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.

Here is the actual statutory language: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-33181.pdf

What it SOUNDS like, at least on plain reading, is that a medical facility can NICS report someone who's had a due process ajudicated involuntary mental health comittment, and somehow the state records never got fed into NICS, if the health provider has said court docs, they can report too.

I DO NOT like the "camel's nose in the tent" approach here with creating a new class of private medical "reporters" for NICS, right now it seems to be only for people with due process court-ordered commitments. Not thrilled, but at least so far, nothing creates a new class of "prohibited person" that already didn't exist under GCA '68.

My gut feeling is that they're hoping medical groups will have computerized records of involuntary court ordered commitments that the states don't, and are still sitting on paper or microfiche, and as such never got into NICS, or they can cross-check for anybody the states missed when they hooked into NICS.

My further gut feeling is that the records from the medical side will add a tiny number of people who aren't already dead, already in NICS because of other convictions or prison terms, or subsequent court ordered involuntary commitment in the era everything on the .gov side was computerized too.

My tinfoil gut feeling is that they're slowly probing for a way to set up the system... or infrastructure that any shrink or M.D. can report or nominate someone to be a prohibited person under NICS, once they figure out a legal framework to do so.

brimic · « **Reply #41 on:** January 05, 2016, 04:51:57 PM »

Quote from: AJ Dual on January 05, 2016, 04:46:53 PM

I DO NOT like the "camel's nose in the tent" approach here .

My tinfoil gut feeling is that they're slowly probing for a way to set up the system... or infrastructure that any shrink or M.D. can report or nominate someone to be a prohibited person under NICS, once they figure out a legal framework to do so.

That about sums up what I was thinking.

Quote

My gut feeling is that they're hoping medical groups will have computerized records of involuntary court ordered commitments that the states don't, and are still sitting on paper or microfiche, and as such never got into NICS, or they can cross-check for anybody the states missed when they hooked into NICS.

G.E. Health Systems will get us there. G.E. as a corporation was a HUGE supporter of obamacare.

brimic · « **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2016, 04:56:37 PM »

On a related topic... this one was snuck in quietly a few weeks ago.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

Why related?
It would be a hipaa violation to use medical records to determine if a blood donor has been exposed to HIV/HEP yet we can violate hipaa for gun sales- all in the name of political correctness on both ends.

freakazoid · « **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2016, 04:59:01 PM »

Quote from: AJ Dual on January 05, 2016, 04:19:36 PM

My SOT buddy and criminal defense/firearms/gun-trust lawyer both advised me a while back, before this was even an inkling to DO NOT HAVE YOUR TRUSTEES TRY THAT.

And that while new rules may clarify it, a living or revocable trust has never gotten anyone around a Form 5, unless your parting gift is to make your heirs and successors in the trust a federal test case for it.

Try what?
Biggest thing for me is that currently a Trust would make it easy for me to get an NFA toy and keep with the other person, since I'm in the military and currently in California and about to go to Japan getting something like that is currently impossible. But if I set up a Trust with another family member they would be able to get it and keep it at their place.

dogmush · « **Reply #44 on:** January 05, 2016, 05:17:37 PM »

Quote from: freakazoid on January 05, 2016, 04:59:01 PM

Try what?
Biggest thing for me is that currently a Trust would make it easy for me to get an NFA toy and keep with the other person, since I'm in the military and currently in California and about to go to Japan getting something like that is currently impossible. But if I set up a Trust with another family member they would be able to get it and keep it at their place.

That's why I use a trust for my NFA goodies. IfWhen I deploy I don't have to lock my wife out of the safe or anything. Or if she wants to shoot, that's OK. Of course, if both of us were to go, they would have to be transferred out of the trust to someone but that, obviously, wouldn't be my problem. (No heirs. Closest next of kin when my wife and I leave is probably my [annoying liberal] SIL. And might go out of my way to set her up on an NFA violation....)

MechAg94 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 05, 2016, 05:21:05 PM »

My Dad asked me that over the holidays. If he, myself, and my brothers were all in the trust, then the supressor (for example) could be possessed by either of us as long as we each could store it securely. That was my understanding, but I haven't gone down NFA rabbit hole yet.

Scout26 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 05, 2016, 05:56:29 PM »

Quote from: dogmush on January 05, 2016, 05:17:37 PM

That's why I use a trust for my NFA goodies. IfWhen I deploy I don't have to lock my wife out of the safe or anything. Or if she wants to shoot, that's OK. Of course, if both of us were to go, they would have to be transferred out of the trust to someone but that, obviously, wouldn't be my problem. (No heirs. Closest next of kin when my wife and I leave is probably my [annoying liberal] SIL. And might go out of my way to set her up on an NFA violation....)

Mush ! My Brother from a another mother !!!! Sorry to hear that you and wife are deploying. I'll hang on to the those NFA goodies for you while your gone.

Ben · « **Reply #47 on:** January 06, 2016, 11:00:19 PM »

So here's something I completely forgot about until I read this story. Back in the day, Clinton wanted to reduce FFL licensees because he didn't want guys buying or selling a gun or two having FFLs. Also no "tabletop FFLs" buying guns wholesale to sell to buddies or whoever with a small profit margin - that was "putting guns on the street" according to him. Obama is now wanting just about the opposite to "keep guns off the street".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/06/obama-gun-action-reverses-course-on-clinton-admin-policy.html?intcmp=hplnws

charby · « **Reply #48 on:** January 06, 2016, 11:05:36 PM »

Quote from: Ben on January 06, 2016, 11:00:19 PM

So here's something I completely forgot about until I read this story. Back in the day, Clinton wanted to reduce FFL licensees because he didn't want guys buying or selling a gun or two having FFLs. Also no "tabletop FFLs" buying guns wholesale to sell to buddies or whoever with a small profit margin - that was "putting guns on the street" according to him. Obama is now wanting just about the opposite to "keep guns off the street".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/06/obama-gun-action-reverses-course-on-clinton-admin-policy.html?intcmp=hplnws

The town I live in for 2 more weeks has outlawed home based firearm businesses. This was a result of a neighbors on neighbors spat, happened 3 blocks from my house.

http://amestrib.com/sections/news/ames-and-story-county/council-votes-ban-gun-sales-homes.html

erictank · « **Reply #49 on:** January 07, 2016, 07:56:39 AM »

Quote from: Ben on January 06, 2016, 11:00:19 PM

So here's something I completely forgot about until I read this story. Back in the day, Clinton wanted to reduce FFL licensees because he didn't want guys buying or selling a gun or two having FFLs. Also no "tabletop FFLs" buying guns wholesale to sell to buddies or whoever with a small profit margin - that was "putting guns on the street" according to him. Obama is now wanting just about the opposite to "keep guns off the street".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/06/obama-gun-action-reverses-course-on-clinton-admin-policy.html?intcmp=hplnws

Just because they'll go after people who sell one firearm without an FFL doesn't mean that they'll issue FFLs to so-called "kitchen-table dealers"!

That's just CRAZY TALK!

News:

Author Topic: The Obama EO('s) So, are we all felons yet? (Read 13173 times)