then I don't have a problem with these proposals.

If you are in combat and your weapon is damaged beyond use, you must be able to pick up one not being used by the injured or dead. Particularly crew served weapons, as the operators of those systems are among the most targeted on the battlefield. Those weapons must be able to be used by anyone.

Beyond that, not too bad overall. Although I cannot see how one person who sells two weapons can be classified as a dealer.

1) ON EDIT - 41P removes CLEO sign off. My first point was incorrect.

2) We will see what the ATF opinion or advisory is about private sales as referenced within this fact sheet. The full working details of what makes someone a "dealer" aren't defined in this fact sheet. The fact sheet states that there will not be a set number of sales but it could be as little as two if other criteria are met. The fact sheet doesn't explain what the other criteria are but I assume the yet to be released ATF opinion will. It's possible ATF won't provide anymore clarification than what's in this fact sheet. If so, this is nothing more than an attempt to make existing law more ambiguous than it already is to scare people out of conducting private sales.

All in all, it could have been a lot worse. I was expecting more import related tomfoolery akin to George H.W. Bush's 922r.

What do you think about this executive action?

I only own 2 shotguns and 4 pistols. Not a collector.

I 100% believe in CC and all states should have it. But I would like a lot more training and proof of some type of basic skills. Also, the information about when to shoot, not to shoot, etc is helpful. Open carry is stupid IMO.

I have no issues with registering my guns as the government knowing about my guns does not worry me. No way they collect them and no reason they would.

I think all sales, even private and gifts should require a background check.

And no law beyond banning guns will stop a lone nut from killing a few people.

So any order that does more background checks is OK with me.

But stolen guns more than cover the murders by guns every year. So not much will change.

I don't agree with registration, and not because I'm worried about the govt. coming and taking my firearms, I just don't think the govt has any business knowing what firearms I own, but other that that, we are in complete agreement.

and provide information about crimes, theft, etc. But the paranoid ones (not you) are freaked out about it.

And we 100% disagree about the NRA. One year of a free subscription and reading their magazines showed me they are fucking insane and lie and support people like Nugent with $50,000 speaking fees.

No need to discuss because it will change nothing.

I don't believe they're a racist org., but they do have racists as members.

A lot of people are concerned that once there is an inventory for each person that the government may start seeking to enter homes to either inspect storage or to prove you still have the guns in your possession. This is vastly different than when I invite the town code inspector in to inspect my new power outlets. In the latter case, the inspector is just confirming that I used the correct breaker and wiring size, installed the fire stops wherever wiring goes through a wall level, and that everything is wired correctly. He is not there to potentially build a criminal case and he isn't conducting a "search" per the 4th Amendment.

The other reasonable concern is a registry may be used to delay emergency services until an officer arrives because someone saw gun ownership as a threat and coded it into the emergency computer system. If I'm having a medical emergency and call 911, I want the help to get right inside without delay.


The previous example actually erupted a few years ago when a Republican Selectmen proposed going into people's homes to inspect gun storage. This is of course a clear violation of the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
http://patch.com/massachusetts/swampscott/selectman-wants-gun-safety-enforced

The people who want gun control won't stop with a few measures. They Will demand more and more as has been their wont and record. The most powerful lobbies, and frankly most people, realize this and will likely oppose most any finite measure. The immediate problem for controllers is how to break away from the banners and to propose limited actions which will not be tainted by the old-line extremists. This is critical for their own future viability.

More long-range is the need to fundamentally question the need for some outlook which focuses on instrumentality (guns) as a means to "solve" some sloppily-defined problem(s). This whole controversy really outlines how weak are the prospects of progressive liberal politics and policies, that the lion's share of discussion boils down to gun laws. This would be ludicrous on its face.

Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I quick read this. But I thought it said if you are in the business of selling firearms.

Like the guy who sets up two tables at the gun show with a mix of tactical gear and weapons from his private collection. But doesn't do background checks.

https://www.atf.gov/file/55456/download

Have a booth selling weapons. Wouldn't that be a gun dealer?

And maybe that's the target.

IIRC, Texas defines a car dealer as one who sells more than five (5) vehicles/yr. Yet there are those who sell cars out of their apartments, squirreling "inventory" in the far reaches of the parking lot, or on an adjacent street along with the boat & trailer with flat tires. You have to have some finite criteria, or have this challenged on a vagueness as vast as a fog over the Corkscrew Swamp.

You and I are much closer in our views than you are with gun control advocates.

Weird to focus on trusts and NFA firearms. There cant be that many crimes with people using $20,000 thompson machine guns

The rest seem pretty toothless. The ATF already goes after people selling for profit who dont have licenses. I like that they are adding NICS personnel so background checks will be faster. Then a bunch of 2017 budget requests

Why focus on trusts? Because its a nuanced issue that very few people even understand and thus it doesn't have much political impact either way.

It sounds good because you get to invoke scary machine guns and shadowy organizations. Most non-gun people had no idea what he was talking about, but it sounded important.

i liked the parts about mental health and substance abuse.