Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on January 04, 2016, 09:43:11 AM
-
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 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. ;/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
*
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.
-
At that point the elections would be moot, and there would be an acute shortage of rope.
Fireboard those mother-jammers!
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
◦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).
-
Phew, what a relief! I can take off this bullet-proof vest, now that Obama's made the streets all safe and everything.
-
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
-
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
-
And dammit, I should have bought some S&W and Ruger stock yesterday for a quick profit turnaround.
-
*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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
“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.
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
-
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
-
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. [tinfoil]
-
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. [tinfoil]
That about sums up what I was thinking.
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
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....)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
I used to be one of the kitchen-table FFLs until the Feds jacked up the yearly fees from $ 30 to $ 300 per year. I was buying only for myself.
-
My dad had a FFL up until that point also. He would buy for himself and help out buddies by only charging them a few dollars above his cost.
-
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!
Knowing the Obama administration, they'll be issuing FFLs to Mexican cartels.
-
Knowing the Obama administration, they'll be issuing FFLs to Mexican cartels.
or worse, FFLs for BATFE agents.
-
or worse, FFLs for BATFE agents.
BATFE running a gun store? I hear they tried that.
-
Dad was a dealer too. He was so pissed when he couldn't keep up with it. It was a nice deal, he could get stuff for dealer and make a little extra money when things got tight (or he just wanted a new gun)
He used to let people come out here to pick up their new guns and give them a box of ammo and let them shoot their new gun before taking it home.
-
BATFE running a gun store? I hear they tried that.
It would be laughable if it weren't true.
It would be even more laughable if their fences'gun stores' didn't increase the level of crime in the areas they opened them in.
-
It would be laughable if it weren't true.
It would be even more laughable if their fences'gun stores' didn't increase the level of crime in the areas they opened them in.
And we thought it couldn't get worse than the .gov losing money on a brothel.