Obama to tighten gun laws by E.O. on Monday!

[JohnnyB 4,325]

This Congress voted down these changes, the President will act unilaterally to make new rules next week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/01/obama-to-impose-new-gun-control-curbs-next-week/  

Obama said he was "moving unilaterally because Congress had failed to address the growing problem of gun violence."

This is just great. The House and Senate won't change the law so the President can now just make up new laws on his own.

This is wrong on many levels and he must be stopped!

[PK90 3,570]

AFAIK, He will want those who sell firearms on a regular basis to get an FFL. Sort of a Catch22.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

 

[HBecwithFn7 296]

AFAIK, He will want those who sell firearms on a regular basis to get an FFL. Sort of a Catch22. Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

 

One wonders what the "magic threshold" will be... 

[JohnnyB 4,325]

AFAIK, He will want those who sell firearms on a regular basis to get an FFL. Sort of a Catch22. Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

It sounds like the end of all F2F sales to me.

 

The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

[chris327 30]

I saw an article about it the other day. Said if you sell brand new guns, buy and sell within a certain time frame, sell more than 20 per yr and I think 1 other thing I forgot. Not sure if it's true or now just some article on yahoo I read. Also mentioned selling guns to earn a living.

[T Bill 649]

Whatever it is, look for them to be over reaching and make the NRA sue in Federal Court.  No matter whether right or wrong, just making the NRA look bad going into 2016 elections.  This is more politics than anything else.  Just trying to be king, again. If he ends up Secretary General at the UN, I hope Donald pulls us out of the UN and kicks their butts out of NY.  

[voyager9 3,434]

The EO will define "occasional" to one per decade.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PK90 3,570]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/01/obama-to-use-executive-action-to-tighten-gun-laws-focus-on-small-scale-sellers.html?intcmp=hpbt1

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

 

 

[JohnnyB 4,325]

I saw an article about it the other day. Said if you sell brand new guns, buy and sell within a certain time frame, sell more than 20 per yr and I think 1 other thing I forgot. Not sure if it's true or now just some article on yahoo I read. Also mentioned selling guns to earn a living.

 "or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms"

This implies USED to me. If I sell a gun in my personal collection, it is used.

[voyager9 3,434]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/01/obama-to-use-executive-action-to-tighten-gun-laws-focus-on-small-scale-sellers.html?intcmp=hpbt1

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

This is imbecilic.

Everytown, the pro-gun control group led by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has reportedly recommended adding to the definition the selling guns in their original packaging and reselling a gun shortly after acquiring it.

So now NIB can't mean the real box. for the children!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mipafox 438]

One wonders what the "magic threshold" will be...

Lower than what the ATF will consider substantial enough to actually allow you to be licensed.

[chris327 30]

"or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms"

This implies USED to me. If I sell a gun in my personal collection, it is used.

Sorry should have specified better. Selling new was 1 reason.

[voyager9 3,434]

I heard he's considering national CCW as part of it.

 

 

Then again, I need to stop getting my news from The Onion

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Lower than what the ATF will consider substantial enough to actually allow you to be licensed.

Even if the ATF did allow an FFL for the occasional seller, PRNJ requires a State of NJ dealer license as well to use your FFL here. Good luck trying to get that one.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

so how does this eo get its authority?

[mipafox 438]

Authority of Obama.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

so how does this eo get its authority?

EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition.

 

Congress can override the EO with a 2/3 vote.

[maintenanceguy 510]

EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition.

 

Congress can override the EO with a 2/3 vote.

 or just pass legislation with a majority vote that contradicts the EO.  EO's are to be used to direct agencies and others how to follow the constitution and legislation or to fill in gaps where neither of those apply.  EO's are not more powerful than legislation.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

 or just pass legislation with a majority vote that contradicts the EO.  EO's are to be used to direct agencies and others how to follow the constitution and legislation or to fill in gaps where neither of those apply.  EO's are not more powerful than legislation.

Agreed, but the President can veto that legislation. Which in this case, is certain. Congress then needs a 2/3 vote to override the veto.

Obama's lawyers have been working on this for a while to make sure whatever he does will survive any challenges.

Unfortunately, whatever be serves up next week, we may just end up having to eat...Good thing is he can't do anything really drastic without failing a challenge.

[leahcim 680]

I think it can be challenged in the court also, as Obummer's immigration EO has been effectively stopped by injunction and will be decided by SCOTUS this summer.

If the existing federal statute is pretty clear on what a dealer is (or even if it is vague), then I would think this could be stopped pretty quickly if it is challenged before the court by an affected group.

 

From the WSJ:

“I don’t think the president has the authority to redefine what a dealer is because that is defined in existing federal statute,” said Dave Workman, senior editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s The Gun Mag. “He can’t snap his fingers and suddenly say to someone who sells a gun at a gun show is now a dealer. That would take congressional action.”

[Zeke 5,504]

It's the same thing we want Christie to do with justifiable need.

Keep that in mind

[1LtCAP 4,263]

EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition.

 

Congress can override the EO with a 2/3 vote.

i know where it comes from. i meant where does he get the authority? constitution certainly doesn't give it to him

[mipafox 438]

or just pass legislation with a majority vote that contradicts the EO.

That legislation has already been passed. Obama ignores it. New legislation won't change anything.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/81997633-president-obama-announces-new-gun-control-executive-order-full-video

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[raz-0 1,259]

i know where it comes from. i meant where does he get the authority? constitution certainly doesn't give it to him

Yes it does. He's the head of the executive branch. He gets to order about all the executive branch agencies. He would be ordering the atf to alter their definition of a dealer. That's a legit process. The problem is if he orders them to alter it to something that over reaches regarding statute or constitutionality. Atf regulates under the guise of interstate commerce. Saying that gives them the right to regulate person to person sales where everyone involved buys in state and keeps it there is a bit of a stretch.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Enough! The emperor has spoken.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sota 1,191]

No, I haven't... yet.

[djg0770 481]

It's the same thing we want Christie to do with justifiable need.

Keep that in mind

No it's not. Justifiable need is not defined within the law as it currently stands. The law currently says "good cause". The judges have deciphered that with the help of the AG to mean no one.

[W2MC 1,699]

Whatever it is, look for them to be over reaching and make the NRA sue in Federal Court.  No matter whether right or wrong, just making the NRA look bad going into 2016 elections.  This is more politics than anything else.  Just trying to be king, again. If he ends up Secretary General at the UN, I hope Donald pulls us out of the UN and kicks their butts out of NY.  

 

This  ^^^^^^^

[JohnnyB 4,325]

No it's not. Justifiable need is not defined within the law as it currently stands. The law currently says "good cause". The judges have deciphered that with the help of the AG to mean no one.

Interesting yet biased read about "good cause".  http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/good-cause-requirements-for-carrying-guns-in-public/

 

This guy is obviously an anti that states the arguments for both sides of the "good cause" issue in the Harvard Law Review.

 

None of this means that good cause requirements are always constitutional, only that challenges to them should focus on the details of their implementation.

"If a public-carry licensing regime operates like a ban, it should be evaluated as such.  For the most part, though, the matter is one for legislatures to decide.  These days, most of them seem to be moving in the direction of loosened restrictions."

 

Even this anti states "If a public-carry licensing regime operates like a ban, it should be evaluated as such". This to me means that since NJ's CCW permit system effectively works

as a ban that it is in fact unconstitutional and should be evaluated as such! We all know this! This is from an anti, Harvard Professor, libtard! Even he can't deny the truth! WTF is up with this stupid state we live in?

How can they continue to get away with this and not be challenged? Pray a Republican wins the election this year. It's our only hope!