jackandjill 683 Posted January 3, 2016 You evidently can read by you do not comprehend.......what you read..... ......... BUT they buy to sell and flip for profit............ How is that fair to dealers that adhere to the various commercial laws? ........ However, if all that happens is that a private sale needs a back round check at POS as would a commercial transaction, personally I might sleep a bit better when I make the private FTF sale. Person of your believes should know that People (as in individual citizens) have (or should have) more rights and privileges than anyone else. Your right to do FFL business comes from GCA/Interstate commerce laws. Without that, you don't have business. Before GCA, your business didn't exist. As a business, you have certain obligations, protections and privileges. You can't to compare yourself to private sales, regardless of type of transaction. BTW, as FFL business, you can call up ATF anytime, on anyone suspected of engaging in firearm sales for profit without license. No additional EO required. You and ATF already has tools necessary. You seem to be under misguided impression that EO or more laws will prevent people from selling for profit, just like anti-2A believe that more "reasonable laws" prevent Chicago thugs from killing each other. Its a shame I have to disagree with you on these points. From that last statement, it appears your 2A believes are clouded by business interest and other issues. You made it pretty clear of your take on this, so not sure if its issue with my comprehension. You know what else will make you sleep better at night ? Knowing various lists are integrated into NICS so all background checks (including private ones as you suggested) are REALLY background checks. Enough said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartyZ 691 Posted January 4, 2016 Obama himself is good for business. As the stock market plumetted today S&W stock went up. Obama's big mouth is single handedly fueling the gun industry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 4, 2016 One guy who was on the fence now wants to apply for FPID before "they ban them all" :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted January 4, 2016 Rumor has it the biggest change coming is if you sell at gun shows. your a dealer, get a FFL. If this proves true, it does nothing as we suspected, but sounds and looks good. "Obama closes gun show loophole". Time will tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leahcim 673 Posted January 4, 2016 I somehow missed his address and release of his crowning achievement. I will have to hit the web and figure out what he did. One good thing is, more people are buying guns now than ever before. Just makes it that much more difficult to take them away later--as the gun lobby builds a broader base constituency a larger percentage of the population will either own guns, or know people who own. Passing anti gun legislation just becomes more difficult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leahcim 673 Posted January 4, 2016 One guy who was on the fence now wants to apply for FPID before "they ban them all" :-) So how many people do you think have now been pushed off the fence, or even climbed over from the anti side? I would bet it is a significant number. I am sure the FPID/P2P wait times are going back up over the next few months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leahcim 673 Posted January 4, 2016 “The good news is that these are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch, but they’re also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in,” Mr. Obama said. Seriously??? Is that like the good news that if you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor? How he can keep a straight face when he says this stuff? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 4, 2016 “The good news is that these are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch, but they’re also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in,” Mr. Obama said. Seriously??? Is that like the good news that if you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor? How he can keep a straight face when he says this stuff? Glance through this thread and you will see people who support some of the upcoming stuff in the interest of safety and fairness. So Mr. Obama is correct if he is referring to gun owners from brain washed states like NJ. People quickly forget that private sales (even so called gun show) are not loopholes. It's the licensing scheme that's a loophole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,569 Posted January 5, 2016 HERE IT IS > https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands and http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2016/01/04/details-of-obama-executive-actions-on-guns/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted January 5, 2016 Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals. I can hear the ACLU footsteps already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted January 5, 2016 Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals. I can hear the ACLU footsteps already. Maybe... Maybe not. The ACLU is rabidly anti-gun. They like to avoid any action that could be seen as being "pro-gun" (which fighting this might be). In this case, the anti-gun part of it outweighs the privacy part. We'll see... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted January 5, 2016 Seems 41p is fully implemented Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malsua 1,422 Posted January 5, 2016 HERE IT IS > https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands and http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2016/01/04/details-of-obama-executive-actions-on-guns/ From the second link. 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. In other words, Galactic background checks for everyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old School 611 Posted January 5, 2016 A few things... As unfair as taxes are...No one should be conducting business for profit without paying taxes. The moral obligation to ONLY transfer a firearm to an eligible person does exist. (In free states many private sellers require a CWP from the purchaser, even for long guns) We should be able to own any class of weapon and the BATF should be abolished. The POTUS is a Constitutional Criminal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted January 5, 2016 A few things... As unfair as taxes are...No one should be conducting business for profit without paying taxes. The moral obligation to ONLY transfer a firearm to an eligible person does exist. (In free states many private sellers require a CWP from the purchaser, even for long guns) We should be able to own any class of weapon and the BATF should be abolished. The POTUS is a Constitutional Criminal. Just out of curiosity and to play "Devil's Advocate," would you want "We the people" to be allowed to own things like "Nukes?" "SMAWs?" Stingers? Cruise Missiles? What could one do with them in a civilian "RKBA" context, other than "mass destruction" of both people and property? Seriously, I do support full ownership of all "firearms" including all NFA classified items. There are a few I'd like to buy, someday. I just can't see myself buying a Tomahawk Cruise Missile any time soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted January 5, 2016 Maybe... Maybe not. The ACLU is rabidly anti-gun. They like to avoid any action that could be seen as being "pro-gun" (which fighting this might be). In this case, the anti-gun part of it outweighs the privacy part. We'll see... South Dakota ACLU Sues To Broaden Right-To-Carry Law http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6111 ACLU Sues to Get RI Man His Guns http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/daniel-zimmerman/aclu-sues-to-get-ri-man-his-guns/ ACLU Files On Behalf Of Gun Owner Abusively Arrested http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/17/aclu-files-on-behalf-of-gun-owner-abusively-arrested-by-philadelphia-police/ ACLU Sues to Expand Immigrant's Gun Rights in South Dakota http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/ etc. etc. They are anti-gun but they do take gun cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old School 611 Posted January 5, 2016 Just out of curiosity and to play "Devil's Advocate," would you want "We the people" to be allowed to own things like "Nukes?" "SMAWs?" Stingers? Cruise Missiles? What could one do with them in a civilian "RKBA" context, other than "mass destruction" of both people and property? Seriously, I do support full ownership of all "firearms" including all NFA classified items. There are a few I'd like to buy, someday. I just can't see myself buying a Tomahawk Cruise Missile any time soon. I'll answer your question with a question. Do you realize the artillery our Founding Fathers used in the Revolutionary War was borrowed from private citizens? Get the picture of what their intention of the Second Amendment was? And if you can afford a General Dynamics Cruise Missile you are on the wrong forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted January 5, 2016 South Dakota ACLU Sues To Broaden Right-To-Carry Law http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6111 They are anti-gun but they do take gun cases. Like I said, "Maybe.... Maybe not." BTW, the above link didn't work for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 5, 2016 Just out of curiosity and to play "Devil's Advocate," would you want "We the people" to be allowed to own things like "Nukes?" "SMAWs?" Stingers? Cruise Missiles? What could one do with them in a civilian "RKBA" context, other than "mass destruction" of both people and property? .... YES. Person is either free or not (ward of the State), unless we want a "class" system where some are more free than others. And class system is what we got with all these stupid laws. Every free person should have more rights than any other entity. What do Govts like Syria do with Nukes, SMAWs, Stingers, Cruise Missiles, other than "mass destruction" of both people and property ? :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted January 5, 2016 I'll answer your question with a question. Do you realize the artillery our Founding Fathers used in the Revolutionary War was borrowed from private citizens? Get the picture of what their intention of the Second Amendment was? And if you can afford a General Dynamics Cruise Missile you are on the wrong forum. I do realize that, but I doubt that any private citizen of that time would have any nukes the "Minutemen" could borrow.... Muskets? Of course. Stingers? not so much. Had they been available at that time, I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have been so "approving." Today, the govt. doesn't need to borrow weapons or munitions from "the people." They can buy their own. I get what you're saying...The RKBA must be absolute and unrestricted. Like I said, I fully support the RKBA based on the Founding Father's original intent. And I support it for all classes of conventional firearms, including NFA, full auto, etc. But I just can't fathom private citizens owning Nukes, missiles, and the like. I'd be very nervous if I saw my neighbors digging a silo in their back yard. Not only out of fear that they might not be properly trained to handle said nuke, but also, they just made themselves a 1st strike target. And I'm next door to it... If that makes me a "nuclear Fudd," then that's the price I have to pay for my beliefs. Thankfully, as you say, neither myself, nor any of my neighbors could ever afford one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 5, 2016 HB - I know you fully support RKBA. But your concerns are relative. Regular Joe who is not familiar (or anti for other reasons) sees the 'black assault rifles' in that same light as you may see "stingers and missiles". So imagine their fears when they come to know their neighbor (you, the 2A guy) walking around with "the thing that goes up on the shoulder" :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 5, 2016 On a good note Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old School 611 Posted January 5, 2016 I do realize that, but I doubt that any private citizen of that time would have any nukes the "Minutemen" could borrow.... Muskets? Of course. Stingers? not so much. Had they been available at that time, I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have been so "approving." Today, the govt. doesn't need to borrow weapons or munitions from "the people." They can buy their own. I get what you're saying...The RKBA must be absolute and unrestricted. Like I said, I fully support the RKBA based on the Founding Father's original intent. And I support it for all classes of conventional firearms, including NFA, full auto, etc. But I just can't fathom private citizens owning Nukes, missiles, and the like. I'd be very nervous if I saw my neighbors digging a silo in their back yard. Not only out of fear that they might not be properly trained to handle said nuke, but also, they just made themselves a 1st strike target. And I'm next door to it... If that makes me a "nuclear Fudd," then that's the price I have to pay for my beliefs. Thankfully, as you say, neither myself, nor any of my neighbors could ever afford one. Cost, Cost, Cost !!!! Nobody can afford that stuff... But major corporations could and the Koch brothers could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted January 5, 2016 HB - I know you fully support RKBA. But your concerns are relative. Regular Joe who is not familiar (or anti for other reasons) sees the 'black assault rifles' in that same light as you may see "stingers and missiles". So imagine their fears when they come to know their neighbor (you, the 2A guy) walking around with "the thing that goes up on the shoulder" :-) Agreed, and understood. I guess I have to hope that no private citizen would ever be able to afford a Tomahawk. Modern Technology, huh? We have a similar problem with "surveillance technology" and the Govt./LEO use of it invading the privacy of citizens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 5, 2016 I wouldn't personally be worried about any technology being available to "We The People" as long as they are treated at the same level as Govt, if not better. People should be judged by their actions, not by what they own, what they "could do, might do" etc. Always remember, in the scheme of things, its not average joe thats a threat to freedom of mankind, its the "consolidated power" that gets out of hand sooner or later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted January 5, 2016 So does yesterday's executive order mean that the antis should now STFU about "The Gun Show Loophole"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,848 Posted January 5, 2016 I have the audio muted, but it does look like Obama is crying while making his announcements. He's also wagging his finger at me a lot. The text ribbons have all had 'common sense', 'children', 'sense of urgency' scrolling across. And all the networks have interrupted their programming to cover it. Looks like 'petulant child' was pretty close. Update: yes he was crying, and he spoke for 40 minutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 5, 2016 He blood danced, make pointless announcements, blames republicans and the NRA and left Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 5, 2016 Funny thing is if you changed "weapon" to "Syrian refugee" in his speech it would make me ore sense Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
67gtonut 847 Posted January 5, 2016 Discuss like adults..... Do NOT make me move this thread..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites