Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on March 14, 2023, 09:29:47 AM
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64939930
https://apnews.com/article/biden-guns-mass-shooting-monterey-park-uvalde-489c236fd6ed12ab5d74a67ce5ecd501
Well, I wonder what this is going to look like.
-
I saw that this morning. From the article:
The plan will call on Attorney General Merrick Garland to shore up the rules for federally licensed gun dealers so they know they are required to do background checks as part of the license.
Are there a lot of FFLs that don't know that they have to do background checks? ;/
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64939930
https://apnews.com/article/biden-guns-mass-shooting-monterey-park-uvalde-489c236fd6ed12ab5d74a67ce5ecd501
Well, I wonder what this is going to look like.
You know the joke about the sex toy shop with the punchline "That's a fire extinguisher, mam"? That's what's coming.
-
I believe that FFLs can skip background checks if they sell guns from their personal collection.
Possibly this is what Biden is trying to attack. Just a guess.
It has to be a relatively trivial number of guns though.
-
I saw that earlier but I'm taking a wait and see on just what is actually in there and not just media spin.
-
It'll get immediately injuncted and run up the SCOTUS flagpole where it (hopefully) gets slapped down just as hard as his asinine COVID restrictions.
Brad
-
I don't see how he can possible expand background checks federally without legislation. The Brady Bill is pretty clear. I don't think he can even get it to apply to C&R licenses the way the law is written.
I guess we'll have to see what it actually says.
-
I think this is going be another one of his EOs to channel more money into certain groups to look into it then go home doing a victory dance
-
Regardless of what anyone may think about President Trump, I am always reminded of reasons why I am grateful he was President and appointed a whole bunch of federal judges and three SC Justices. If they had been Hilary appointees, stuff like this would be more invasive and just get rubber stamped in the courts. IMO, we would be living in a different country today (thinking about crazy COVID restrictions).
-
If this is word for word correct it just calls for the enforcement of already existing requirements for background checks. In other words it's mostly just a PR stunt.
Increase the number of background checks by ensuring that all background checks required by law are conducted before firearm purchases, moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.
The rest is mostly funneling money
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/biden-to-announce-backdoor-universal-background-check-executive-order-today/
-
#5 makes no sense to me, even after reading the explanation at WLJ's link.
(https://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/biden-gun-executive-order.jpg)
-
#6 - If you know they are violating the law why are they still in business?
#8 - Why? So that you can let them out again?
-
#7. Because I shoot ice bullets in my completely plastic gun. I am still working on the primer though to get there.
bob
-
#7. Because I shoot ice bullets in my completely plastic gun. I am still working on the primer though to get there.
bob
Just buy a Glock 7
-
Just buy a Glock 7
I tried. It costs more than I make in a month.
-
I think I'm actually most worried about "increases awareness of red flag laws". That plus "safer communities" sounds like they want to really elevate the snitching on neighbors, friends, and relatives, and add more stuff as valid reasons to remove guns. Like calling a groomer a groomer on social media, or not using someone's pronouns, as that's "violent speech".
-
#5 makes no sense to me, even after reading the explanation at WLJ's link.
(https://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/biden-gun-executive-order.jpg)
I may be wrong, but I think a State maybe CA once tried to tell a manufacturer to stop “civilian” sales if they wanted to sell to LEO organizations. Or possibly it was just a suggestion and wasn’t actually tried. I could see Biden trying to say to SIG if they want to keep making the new Military rifle and M11, or is it FN that makes the current M4 then they need to stop selling all or some guns to civilians. I expect contracts wouldn’t allow this and it wouldn’t work anyway. This is what came to mind when I read that one though.
-
I may be wrong, but I think a State maybe CA once tried to tell a manufacturer to stop “civilian” sales if they wanted to sell to LEO organizations. Or possibly it was just a suggestion and wasn’t actually tried. I could see Biden trying to say to SIG if they want to keep making the new Military rifle and M11, or is it FN that makes the current M4 then they need to stop selling all or some guns to civilians. I expect contracts wouldn’t allow this and it wouldn’t work anyway. This is what came to mind when I read that one though.
CA banned Barrett’s from civilian ownership iirc, and Barrett told CA to eat a bag of male genitalia. Won’t even service their guns let alone sell them more.
-
CA banned Barrett’s from civilian ownership iirc, and Barrett told CA to eat a bag of male genitalia. Won’t even service their guns let alone sell them more.
Is that still the case now that Barrett sold out to an Australian company?
As far as EOs go, there's a limit to how much damage any POTUS can do domestically - his biggest opportunity to cause harm lies in the area of imports.
-
Is that still the case now that Barrett sold out to an Australian company?
Yeah I was going to bring that up. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Barret's new owners put a stop to "civilian" sales
-
I forget which channel, but I was watching a youtubz yesterday with some good points on #9. While it supposedly focuses on FFLs, you don't need the gov to do much of anything there except give some "winks $$$ winks" to UPS and FEDEX, and the next thing you know, no more home delivery of stuff like ammo and uppers as "company policy".
There were also some good points on this not being as much of a problem if guns and ammo weren't labeled on the outside with labels that every freakin' thief recognizes, often being tipped off by a low level employee at the carrier.
-
Dan Bongino was talking this morning about the .gov re-defining FFL to include anyone that sells a firearm for profit.
-
Dan Bongino was talking this morning about the .gov re-defining FFL to include anyone that sells a firearm for profit.
I'm pretty sure that would take legislation, or at the minimum open them to court precedents they don't want to set . (Of course, the 80% rule opened themselves to court precedents they didn't want and they went full send on that thing)
-
. . . There were also some good points on this not being as much of a problem if guns and ammo weren't labeled on the outside with labels that every freakin' thief recognizes, often being tipped off by a low level employee at the carrier.
Decades ago, FFLs would ship guns through USPS and were required to label the parcels as FIREARMS in red letters at least 1 inch high. An awful lot never made it through the main post office in Chicago.
I heard some FFLs had a profitable side business of sending scrap iron to one another with that label and then filing insurance claims when the packages disappeared. >:D
-
I heard some FFLs had a profitable side business of sending scrap iron to one another with that label and then filing insurance claims when the packages disappeared. >:D
[sniff] That’s beautiful!