President Obama’s Action on New Federal Gun Restrictions To Be Announced Tomorrow…

Pay close attention to the official wording tomorrow from the White House.  Will it be an “Executive Order“, or will it be called an “Executive Action“, there is a profound difference.

♦ “Executive orders” are those dictatorial fiats from the White House that contain an origin, at least as regarded by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), founded in law.

♦ “Executive actions” are the term-two preferences of President Obama and constitute dictatorial fiats that are not constitutionally based, not legal, not supported by the OLC, and will not eventually hold up under legal challenge.  The key word is “eventually”.

Obama and Lynch

If called an executive order, that means the office of legal counsel (OLC) has affirmed to President Obama his intended activity is legally within his authority.  However, if the White House repeatedly calls it an executive action, that means it’s purely a political decision without OLC approval, regarding constitutional authority, and will likely not pass legal challenge.

The details are currently sketchy but here’s a few early reports of what to expect:

Via The Hill […] The president will issue a long-anticipated policy that expands the definition of a licensed gun dealer to those who sell firearms at gun shows and online, the White House announced Monday.

Many sellers in those areas are unlicensed, which gun-control advocates say allows them to skirt federal background check requirements.

The policy does not set a specific number of gun sales that would force a seller to register with the federal government. Instead, the government would consider a number of factors, including whether the seller represents itself as an official dealer and the frequency of sales.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will issue new guidance to sellers on who must register as a licensed dealer, an effort to narrow the so-called “gun show loophole.”

“It’s not where you are doing it, but what you are doing, that determines whether you are in the business of selling firearms,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch told reporters on a conference call. (read more)

Obama with Valerie Jarrett

Via Politico –  […]   According to the White House, the actions include a more detailed definition of which gun sellers must apply for a federal dealers license — and therefore conduct background checks for all sales, in a bid to close the so-called gun show loophole.

The administration is also finalizing a few other rules that were stuck in a bureaucratic backlog, including new requirements for reporting guns lost or stolen in transit, and a measure that would allow more mental health records to be submitted to the federal background check registry by removing patient privacy limits.

The FBI is also adding 230 agents devoted to processing background checks — a 50 percent increase — as it moves toward automating the system.

[…]  While Obama cannot unilaterally required universal background checks, top administration officials predicted the new guidelines would sweep in all but the most casual sellers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will issue new guidelines about what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling guns, rather than merely selling them as a hobby.

It’s part of a bid to step up enforcement of background check rules not only at informal settings like flea markets and gun shows, but also the Internet — including the dark web.

Just because you shop for guns with a mouse and not your feet, doesn’t mean you should be able to avoid background checks,” said White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett on a conference call with reporters Monday evening.

There’s no specific number of annual sales that trigger the need for a license, Jarrett said. Rather, a series of criteria might signal the need to register as a dealer, such as whether the seller creates business cards, sells guns in their original packaging, or re-sells guns shortly after buying them.

An individual, Jarrett said, “can sell as few as two firearms or make only one or two transactions and be ‘engaged in the business.’”  (read more)

valerie-jarrett-obama good boy

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Dept Of Justice, Legislation, media bias, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to President Obama’s Action on New Federal Gun Restrictions To Be Announced Tomorrow…

  1. Martin says:

    The country should ignore him.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. norman “obama” bates and his psychotic “mother” valerie jarrett.

    Liked by 10 people

  3. janc1955 says:

    I despise Loretta Lynch. Disgusting activist hand puppet masquerading as the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. It’s no surprise she’s getting physically uglier with every day she serves the traitor in chief.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. Crassus says:

    Conservatives in Congress and talk radio will express their outrage at Obama’s actions and then do nothing.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. TheLastDemocrat says:

    As far as I have been able to figure out. the guys who intentionally buy and sell guns espressly for the purpose of making money would be required to conduct the ol’ NICS background check when selling a firearm.

    No big deal.

    Like

    • robertnotsowise says:

      been on the books for quite some time, no?

      Like

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        RobttheWise: I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this comment.

        Like

        • robertnotsowise says:

          they already had to.

          Like

          • TheLastDemocrat says:

            No.

            i am not stupid. And don’t play me for stupid.

            I could buy a case of Mosin Nagants from Classic Firearms (I would clear the NICS and I have the money and space in my home for a case of rifles and a relation with a FFL) for the purpose of making money, then rent a table at a gun show near me, head out there with my several M-Ns (“sure, these are genuine sniper rifles! -look at this mark here!), and sell them to whomever believed my M-N’s were genuine sniper M-N’s and would give me cash or Paypal.

            i self-decide I am not a dealer, but a hobbyist or enthusiast, and so I decide I do not need to vet buyers per NICS.

            i pay my table rental fee, and go home with cash in my pocket and brag to my friends.

            In my state, this is legal. Whether that is OK or not with you is a different matter. But this is legal in my state.

            Tell me how I am wrong.

            Like

            • robertnotsowise says:

              Background checks always required at Gun Show sales in AZ. I don’t own a gun and I don’t live in AZ but my friend there sells. He told me this has been on the books for a while.

              I wasn’t trying you for stupid nor was I playing you for stupid, you clearly misinterpreted the tone in my post. It was inquisitive if anything else….

              However, you do have “democrat” in your wordpress name, so….

              Liked by 1 person

              • TheLastDemocrat says:

                I don’t think your friend is accurate.

                In AZ, background checks are required by “dealers” – those on the books as a dealer.

                A “private seller” might sell more firearms per show than your friend, but that seller might simply decide to regard himself or herself as a private seller and never move to get the “dealer” designation.

                That private seller might sell the greatest number of firearms at any given AZ gun show, compared to any other private seller or dealer.

                The “private seller”/”dealer” distinction is very weak, per 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.

                We can discuss whether any law is effective, and or is Constitutional. But whether there is a “gun show loophole” or not is not an issue – there is a “gun show loophole:” it is easy to fly under the radar as I have noted – per 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, the prevailing federal law, which is paralleled in most states.

                Like

                • don welch says:

                  got it. so why do you call yourself the last democrat? sort of a kennedy thing?

                  Like

                • mustang380gal says:

                  And that seller may only be selling guns that he has used in order to buy something else. That is not a business; that is a hobby. He may only go to one or two shows a year as a seller. A true dealer will be there with many rows of guns on a lot of tables at every show possible, and will make the bulk of his money buying and selling.

                  A person who is selling off or selling for a hobby is not in “business” and should not be required to act like one.

                  Whether they sell a lot of guns, or the most guns at a gun show (which I highly doubt), that is not the issue. People intent on gun violence are not going to a show and buying vintage Webleys. They are buying guns on the street or stealing them. None of these laws or “actions” will prevent anything except to inconvenience law-abiding people like me who just wants to buy a cool old rifle.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Have Gun Will Travel says:

                    Well said.

                    Like

                  • TheLastDemocrat says:

                    Good point.
                    I don’t know a clean way to splice this, but I believe there does need to be some check of those who are hauling in a good set of guns, ready to sell to whomever looks acceptable enough and has the cash.

                    A gangster felon could clean himself or herself up, wear long sleeves to cover the prison tats, and show up at the gun show not to buy a Remington 510, out of nostalgia, but an AR15, or an AR pistol – common gun show items, along with the occasional Wembley find. The hobbyist with no NICS check plays a role in this.

                    I don’t know what a solution is – it is not that big a deal to get your FFL, but iti is a hassle.

                    But selling to anyone with the cash for any of many guns you have is different from me posting something on Armslist, setting up a meeting at a local gun shop, and carrying out that idiosyncratic transaction face-to-face. That is so time and labor intensive I have a couple things sitting around right now I am waiting to get sold when I get the time and motivation.

                    A major difference between me and a lot of other commenters at CTH might be that I believe in the background check.

                    With technology, we as a nation could open up the NICS system to any and all, and an individual could note day, time, person, and “approval code;” –the system could be designed so the approval code would be preserved as a defense, while the identity of buyer would be dropped – an external auditing firm could assert the system is validly functioning.

                    Like

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        RG7: I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this comment.

        Is this a personal insult about the romantic life between me and my wife?

        If so, you may be treading the boundaries of the CTH rules.

        Like

    • John VI says:

      You don’t sell anything without the purpose of “making Money”. Otherwise we call it “giving it away”. Thus ALL sales will be determined to be needing federal firearm sales licenses.

      And since the federal government is in charge of deciding who will qualify for said licenses, you can bet that they wont get issued with any regularity or ease.

      A firearms sales license is already incredibly onerous to get and maintain with fees, inspections and reporting requirements that deter all but the most gung ho of businesses. This is designed to prevent people from legal trade and commerce in firearms, not stop criminals, who oddly enough, never seem to pop up on the FBI firearm background checks.

      Any Executive action the president may create out of spun unicorn farts is designed with the sole purpose of controlling and limiting law abiding citizens. It will turn currently legal and aboveboard practices into a criminal exercise for no reason beyond this governments rapacious desire to control and punish all citizens of the United States.

      The second amendment is specifically designed to protect citizens from this type of government, illegal, corrupt, murderous.

      Liked by 5 people

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        John – I sell plenty of stuff. My goal is to make money when I sell stuff. But I am not in the business of selling second-hand kids’ clothing and kitchen knick-knacks – no, I call that a — get ready — a “garage sale.” To be culturally competent, let me throw in the term “yard sale.” Or “boot sale.”

        My washing machine died after five years. Rather than repair it for a couple hundred, I disassembled it and sold the parts off on Ebay. Total sales equaled what I paid for the washing machine originally. Nice.

        Am I a washer parts resale business? No. I bought a washing machine to wash my clothes.

        This experience did give me the idea to hunt for this model of washing machine being sold on craigslist, and to go buy them with the expressed purpose of making money – never to wash a single hand cloth.

        There is a difference.

        An analogy is the matter of used-car buying and selling. At some point, in most states, you need to be licensed to be a car dealer.

        I understand there is a libertarian argument against all of this business registry stuff. That is another topic.

        Some people are used-care dealers, and others are just curb-stoners, and others are just trying to sell off their old car without revealing that it is burning coolant.

        Like

        • Jenny R. says:

          I think that’s where the problem lies: while guns are a totally different thing than a washing machine (let’s be honest, they are) nonetheless, the notion that one has to be licensed to sell (and then maybe buy?) will push a lot of people out of ownership of things.
          Or to put it bluntly: my husband and I sell or scrap our old vehicles and prefer to buy from that private buyer, because we tend to find better deals in the long run for our needs. The whole licensing thing is rather arbitrary and impedes the easy acquisition of goods.
          I could see where guns might be different, and it is correct that licensing has been the case with firearms for a long time — so the arbitrariness of this impending action has me smelling a rat.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Doodahdaze says:

          How did the USA survive without background checks before they began?

          Like

      • smiley says:

        it’s also a set-up for future CONFISCATION of guns..which seem like the ultimate goal with this, imo.
        is he completely illiterate when it comes to the word “INFRINGEMENT” ?

        Liked by 3 people

        • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

          “is he completely illiterate when it comes to the word “INFRINGEMENT””

          No. The Smartest Guy in Room, doesn’t give a Flip about Constitution or Amendments too. Being Democrats continue to back Obama’s violations of Constitution and abuse of powers its clear they don’t either.

          Karma for Democrats would be a Republican President who orders every Congressional Democrats arrested and charged with Sedition under giving Aid & Comfort to Enemy.

          Just Deserts would be telling Democrats who whined about it, they are getting a taste of their own. Choke it down.

          Liked by 3 people

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        Sturm-Ruger will only sell to…

        Like

      • peachteachr says:

        According to a headline on Drudge this morning, if you sell a single gun this new executive law/order, then you must do background checks and will be considered a gun seller. I do confess to not reading the article Drudge headlined.
        I’m a little surprised at the tone these comments are taking. If we, conservatives, are going to argue minutiae rather than our God given, 2nd amendment right to own a firearm, Obama wins, imo.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      As to what I have read about Obama’s proposed unconstitutional E.O.; it would require those they deem to be sellers to get a FFL and do background checks.

      The issue being “they deem”. It can be who they choose, when they choose, and there is no requirement to be consistence or forthcoming. Ripe for Abuse is an understatement.

      Intentionally designed to Harass citizens via trumped up charges, along with breaking them using courts to seize their property without due process would be closer to reality.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. Clc says:

    I hope Trump ends the ATF too.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      If I were Trump, my First set of E.O.s would be to void ever single Obama E.O.
      Second set of E.O.s would void every E.O. that ever crossed line into making Law. I don’t care who signed E.O. or whether E.O. was good for U.S. If it is so great for U.S. Congress can pass a Law to replace it.

      Rest of my time would be spent Dismantling DHS, IRS, BATF, CDC, EPA, FWS, NOAA, NASA. And there would be major shake-ups as DoJ, NSA, CIA, and FBI, as in You’re Fired!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. TheLastDemocrat says:

    Any attention to straw gun buyers = “disparate impact” = “racist.”

    let’s see if this is noted.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Scott Spencer says:

    It will fall flat..

    Like

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      Not by hands of Congress. A congress made up of Spineless Republicans, Backstabbing RiNoCs, and Democrats who put their Party before their Country.

      Look for a lot of Cheap Talk from Republicans, followed by Erased Lines in Sand.
      Watch Democrats squirm to change topic, and Democrats to make excuses.

      There will be a few Democrats who vehemently back their Boy, but they would back Hitler too.

      Like

  9. Meyer says:

    What is an “executive fiat” and how does it differ from an “executive action”???

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Where do you see the term “executive fiat” used? It’s not in this outline.

      Obviously your intention is, as it always has been here, to be arbitrary and capricious just for the sake of being argumentative.

      A “dictatorial fiat” is an arbitrary instruction or direction made at the personal whim of the figurehead.

      Liked by 4 people

  10. seventhndr says:

    This better get thrown out ASAP, but I have little faith in the system any longer. Trump 2016!

    Liked by 4 people

  11. criticalbill says:

    What about background checks for running guns into Mexico? If you lose track of them is it still a sale?

    Liked by 2 people

  12. rondo says:

    Good video on the 2nd amendment

    Liked by 2 people

  13. hocuspocus13 says:

    So let’s see if I have this right…

    Obama wants backround checks on gun sales yet (illegal) immigrants do not need a backround check 😕

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      Obama demands full background checks on every gun transaction, yet doesn’t bother with background checks on his “””Refugees”””. Normally one would say Hypocrite. But in Obama’s case Saboteur is appropriate.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Gary says:

      You live in a country where as a you are not required to produce I.D. to prove citizenship but are required by law as a citizen to produce proof of health insurance, so why should this come as any surprise?

      Like

  14. KBR says:

    Enlarging the first photo there is something strange about Obama’s mouth, teeth lip. What the heck?

    Like

  15. John Galt says:

    “Just because you shop for guns with a mouse and not your feet, doesn’t mean you should be able to avoid background checks,” said White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett on a conference call with reporters Monday evening.”

    Apparently everybody in the WH went to the Kim Kardashian School of Law.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. lilbirdee'12 says:

    Another “in your face” move by Zero who loves to fire up us Patriots. I don’t think this will get him anywhere but despised by those who didn’t think they could hate him more. My concern is with him stacking the S. Court before he leaves so that President Trump will have difficulty.

    TRUMP 2016

    Liked by 1 person

    • peachteachr says:

      That was a major concern of mine in the 2012 election. Ruth Bader Ginsburg looks like a very frail woman to me but she hasn’t stepped down. I believe that she and perhaps Justice Stevens as well do not want Obama to name their replacements. It would also be a much heavier lift for Obama to appoint radical judges at this point in his presidency with the House and Senate controlled by Republicans. I know we are deeply disappointed in them and rightly so, but the 2nd amendments and justices are very serious moves that even these weasels must recognize as a line in the sand.

      Liked by 2 people

      • TrumpFanGirl says:

        I hope she’s left specific instructions to not pull the plug until Feb. 2017.😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • lilbirdee'12 says:

        While I appreciate the encouraging words, peachteachr; sorry to say I can’t agree. Ginsburg and Stevens love him and see him as a gift. They will do whatever he says. And the House and Senate…uhm…they are wasted space in those hallowed halls. “justices are very serious moves”…can’t agree with that either as far as Zero is concerned.

        Like

      • lilbirdee'12 says:

        Oh, and let me mention how VERY SERIOUS it is that all who choose to maintain some semblance of the America we love…better get out there and campaign their tails off to get Donald Trump in office. CHillary has already said she would go even further than the Resident of our White House is. I think we will have a very long, hot summer before us.

        LOVE, LAUGH, PRAY, VOTE TRUMP 2016

        Liked by 1 person

  17. Flynlow says:

    This is all nonsense. If you purchase a firearm online, it has to ship to an FFL (licensed dealer), who then runs the background check before you can take possession. Yes, you can buy it without the BRC but you can’t have it until the BRC is done. Every gun show I’ve been to is the same. There is a booth you have to go to and have the BRC done, take the receipt back to the seller that shows it has cleared, before they let you have the firearm. I don’t know where all this false information comes from about these supposed “loopholes”.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Melania for 1st Lady says:

      Liberals think the gun magically comes through the computer screen into your lap. This is the same sort of logic that declares electric cars “green” because instead of burning that evil gasoline fossil fuel you just plug it in and the energy comes “from the outlet in the wall”.

      Liked by 6 people

    • screwauger says:

      Much of it is coming from the trolls inundating CTH. I have noticed that the collective “we” here at CTH are so unaccustomed to having this type among us, we continually throw crackers and peanuts to them. I suggest we stop, and ignore them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      Flynlow – you may want to compare notes with some of your buddies here at CTH. While you are saying that no one buys a gun at a gun show without a “BRC” which I assume is an NICS check, your fellow CTH members are saying that buying guns from hobbyists at gun shows without any background check should continue.

      Consult with them – it is making it hard for me to carry out civil discourse on the gun show loophole topic.

      Like

  18. Dems B. Dcvrs says:

    “policy does not set a specific number of gun sales that would force a seller to register with the federal government”

    Which is another reason why Obama’s circumvention of Congress is Illegal. It amounts to Post-hoc Entrapment. You can’t follow an unknown Law. You can’t follow a vague Law. You can’t follow a Law that changes after you have been arrested or charged.

    Obama’s planned Unconstitutional action is ripe for abuse, being it is open to whims. Obama’s action would violate Equal Protection, being it applies to some Americans, but not others. Overall Obama’s action is a Thousand Shades of Gray.

    Any Federal LEO that even attempts to enforce Obama’s actions should face Arrest for Misuse of their authority and conspiring to abuse Justice system for political reasons. Governors, State Legislatures, and Sheriffs should start working with We the People to properly handle Citizen Arrest of Federal LEOs, and follow through on their prosecution, and imprisonment of Federal LEOs.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Great point. Even tax law has worked examples.

      Most of the people I encounter doing private sales are just collectors who are funding their next “must haves” by selling their last year’s “must haves” – or their junk. They are, basically, high-volume gun owners. They are no different from high-turnover coin collectors. It would be simplest to stop trying to assert that they are dealers, and set honest numerical limits on hobbyist transfers which are independent of money. This eliminates significant off-paper reverse-fencing operations while giving clear guidance to honest owners and collectors. There could even be latitude if you exceed the number – sales under the number don’t count – you can use NICS above or below the limit to stay legal. Admittedly, this kills a lot of entrapment opportunities, but the TRUMP ATF is going to be so painfully honest, they will be admired by gun owners!😉

      Like

  19. don welch says:

    trump never mentioned oregon.

    Like

  20. Arkindole says:

    JANUARY 4, 2016 AG LORETTA LYNCH CLARIFIES OBAMA GUN RULE. SUMMARY: “I suspect President Obama is hoping for ignorant crap like this from the media to make it look like he’s really doing something.”

    What actually happened: “This has always been the law if you have a Federal Firearms License, and it’s always been illegal to be selling guns for “livelihood or profit” without first obtaining an FFL. The new EOs change nothing in that regard. But we do have some guidance from the Attorney General that indicates the Administration may indeed try to prosecute marginal cases it previously would not have. . . . So this is not to be part of any rule change, but merely a policy decision to prosecute ‘gun dealers, hobbyists and collectors,’ under the ‘new guidance.’ Rather than change the rule, they will use the current vague rule to send ‘hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.’ Though, in this case, it’s not mere harassment, but an intent to imprison. They know if they don’t put the dampers on the growing gun culture, their dream of destroying the Second Amendment will never be realized.”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223114/

    From a commenter there:

    Vague laws (implemented via vague mechanisms) are the stuff of banana republics.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Melania for 1st Lady says:

      So Obama is basically telling veterans (or anyone else) with even mild PTSD or depression that, if they think they might have any interest in exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and owning a gun at some point in their lives, they should NOT seek any kind of treatment or else they’ll be put on the crazy person list and have their rights stripped away. Wow, great job, Barry. And we wonder why vets and others are often hesitant to seek treatment. Guys (and gals) with what would otherwise be mild and temporary problems will end up delaying getting the help they need or foregoing treatment altogether and their problems will get worse and worse.

      Liked by 4 people

      • peachteachr says:

        Yes! Obama definitely wants our former military members defanged, ie not have guns. He’s been pretty open about his feelings about the military whether active or retired.

        Liked by 2 people

    • WeeWeed says:

      Sounds kinda like Hitler having Germans rat out Jews and other Germans back in the day, eh?

      Liked by 1 person

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      HIPAA: maybe. Or, maybe it shores up a method for addressing the real problem – people who are dangerous due to improperly and inadequately treated mental illness who would by this alert, or whatever they call it, maybe end up on the no-buy list.

      Like

  21. Duchess says:

    Do you think this will be a retroactive review of all guns purchases to date? is this why they plan to hire more agents? My suspicion is this will be a planned gun grab based on review of medical records. HIPPA be dammed.

    Like

    • peachteachr says:

      His own team has told him it would take over 100 years to get all of the guns out of the public’s hands. Me? I don’t believe it can be done at all.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. EggsX says:

    Is there any concern that the background check system will become ‘contaminated’ with these psychiatry reports that are ruled later as not legal? Will the background check system be able to ‘remove’ these afterward? These actions will in the end cast doubt on the legality of the background check system.

    Like

  23. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    The NRA, which Obama hates, was founded on the principle that every person including blacks was entitled to protect themselves. The NRA was, in part, formed to give southern blacks the power to own guns to protect themselves from the KKK who were all Democrats, BTW.

    The Second Amendment is very important to all Americans as former slave and great American orator Frederick Douglass said, “A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”

    Liked by 2 people

  24. jvj says:

    One question I have always had about gun control is how come more people don’t try to make the same arguments against gun control that the left makes against voter ID. If the left can argue, and have upheld by courts, that voter ID requirements have a “discriminatory” or “disparate impact” effect on minorities and poor because it makes it harder to vote, then why can’t the same agreement be made against restrictive gun laws, fees and background checks. It’s no harder for a “poor” person to get an ID than it is for that same person to get a permit to purchase a gun. In fact, that same “poor” person will have to provide an ID to get the permit to purchase so how is that not “discriminatory” to the same class of people as voter ID laws? How can background checks for the right to own a gun be any different than a background check on the right to vote?

    Like

  25. moe2004 says:

    Anyone else watching the dear leader going full blown dictator? He scares the hell out of me.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. his speechifying sickens me.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. RoninInCA says:

    I have a strong feeling there is more to this EO/EA than we know.. Putting it mildly.. I have a feeling we are starring at a shinny object.. This can be taking in so many directions and none of them are good for Law Abiding Americans.. Sundance you do a great job.. Thank You

    Liked by 2 people

  28. So, I see some places saying this was an ‘order’ and others saying it is an ‘action.’ Does anyone know which it is? If this is an ‘executive action’ we can ignore it as a suggestion only, right?

    Like

  29. TrumpFanGirl says:

    Either way, if it’s unconstitutional, it is only a suggestion as he cannot pass laws

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Doodahdaze says:

    Change we can believe. Regime change. The Obama/RINO Regime. Out with them all! They will be obliterated. They have no idea. They are in their Beltway/Media Bubble and we will burst it. He is a scumbag POS.

    Like

  31. zephyrbreeze says:

    Wow, you mean criminals will be thwarted by these new actions? The gang members, and drug traffickers will be stymied? The San Bernadino killers, the Sandy Hook shooter would have been incapacitated in their ability to procure firearms had these executive actions been around previously?/sarc

    This is a bully move.

    What do our enemies think to see our president emotionally unhinged over gun control?

    Like

  32. Backspin says:

    Oh the Irony ….. a POTUS whose background has never been fully disclosed , wants the people to Submit to background checks… LOL. …. Administration , prepare to be IGNORED.

    ” Where Rights are secured by the Constitution are involved , there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” ; Miranda Vs. Arizona .

    Like

  33. Murse says:

    Can you believe this pos was crying on tv. He is the biggest embarrassment this country ever elected to the oval office!

    Like

    • TexasRanchQueen says:

      I had the tv on and was listening as I was working on the computer. I could hear Obama babble on about the various shootings and Sandy Hook and then Obama stopped talking and there was a long pause. I thought to myself, he’s forcing out that phony tear again. I looked at the tv and sure enough he was wiping away a tear. Off went the tv.

      Like

    • Doodahdaze says:

      He is evil.

      Liked by 1 person

  34. Have Gun Will Travel says:

    Have not seen the entire EO yet, but appears that there really is no regulation change as it applies to firearm transfers (reporting of mental health data to NICS looks like a different story). Folks selling firearms for a livihood have been required to have an FFL under existing law for some time now.
    It appears however, that it is a type of information warfare being waged upon the American public by our own government. The “executive order” achieves two key information (PSYOPS) objectives, that although primarily smoke and mirrors, will achieve the desired effects that the administration is looking for.
    First, it will be addressed by the media as a courageous action by obama to protect citizens from gun violence. He/they will claim he has effectively closed the “gunshow loophole”, and he will have addressed this key issue for both his “base” and those that actually pull his strings. And it will of course, self-stroke his enormous, although faltering ego.
    Secondly, it is not the change of a regulation on weapons transfers, but the now clearly advertised threat of prosecution by over-reaching, anti-gun zealot US Attorneys (who no doubt have already received “the memo”) for what are clearly legal firearms transfers among private citizens. This EO is a signal that the ATF will seek (stings/entrap) private sellers to arrest, and that the DOJ prosecutors will charge them to the fullest. Only has to happen a couple of well publicized times for many good folks to believe that selling off a few pieces from their collection at a gun show is not worth the risk. I suspect there are some thinking that right now. The case would go to a cherry-picked federal judge, but although it’s likely a jury would find not guilty the damage will already be done – an arrest, perp-walk, confiscation of all other firearms, legal costs, loss of job, etc. The desired effect is to intimidate honest gun owners into halting private transfers – especially at gun shows. It does not matter that it is illegal, that there will be dismissals, and that it will be legally challenged and eventually overturned. The administration and their DOJ lawyers are all fully aware of this – they know it is legal over-reach as congress has repeatedly, and willfully, ensured private transfers were legal, not to mention protected under the second amendment. It is the psychological dampening effect over the next year that they are after.
    As an additional bonus, this may offer candidate clinton future cover during the general election campaigning this year. As closing the “gun-show” loophole will be a done deal, she will not have to campaign for it and risk losing many gun-owning democrats come November. She’ll be all for it during primaries, but may go mum when she faces the general voters.
    The EO will eventually be deemed illegal – but that will take into 2017.
    We can not let this stand.

    Like

    • Doodahdaze says:

      BS this is a gun grab.

      Like

      • Have Gun Will Travel says:

        It is necessary to understand what the administration and its supporters are doing in order to effectively counter it.
        They know that grabbing guns would be an over each that was too far even for them at this time – this order does not grab guns – it stops/slows private transfers. Neither are good – but suppressing private transfers is one of the specific aims of the EO.

        They will attempt the gun grabbing later when they feel they can pull it off (like if clinton is elected).

        Liked by 1 person

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      HGWT: “Folks selling firearms for a livihood have been required to have an FFL under existing law for some time now.”

      No – you have to check with your fellow conservatives here. In other places, people are arguing that a hobbyist can rent a table and set up for sale a bunch of guns, and this should continue to be OK – since it is a hobby not business. And, there has been no definition of “hobbyist,” so no one can tell what portion of someone’s income stream the gun show income might be.

      Y’all need to get your stories straight.

      Like

  35. Doodahdaze says:

    To: A..hole Communist SOB Obamulan Totalitarin Bitches
    From Doo Dah
    Subject: Guns

    You can have them when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

    Like

  36. Doodahdaze says:

    Order also brings back plan to keep certain Social Security recipients from buying guns
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/

    Liked by 1 person

  37. WeeWeed says:

    And how does this work for us mere peasants who are not FFL holders? Say, for imaginary example, my late DH was a mighty hunter with an assorted collection of rifles. How do I, as the impoverished and grief-stricken widow, unload this collection? I am not licensed to do so – do I go through an FFL (which I’d have to do now, anyway) or are they confiscated with no recompense? (Plus I probably get fined and/or visit the slammer and NO guns for ME in my future.)
    Not a lot SOUNDS different, but something FEELS off in this….

    Liked by 1 person

    • Have Gun Will Travel says:

      It will force citizens in the circumstances you described to either only sell to another private citizen whom they know and trust (and reside in same state) and keep the transfer private, or sell it to an FFL holder.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Exactly. That’s my read, too. It makes sales to people who are not friends, relatives, or FFLs sketchy.

        The people who are most affected are the FFL dealers who also sell privately from their non-commercial collections, those who abuse that differentiation, non-FFL pure collectors who use gun shows as a convenient place to buy/sell/trade (often from a booth), and those who abuse that situation.

        I get why Lynch says it could be just one gun – that is basically the definition of a straw purchase for profit. The existing law is that you can’t buy a gun from a dealer and hand it over to somebody else, although there is some kind of gift exception to a non-prohibited person, I believe.

        The whole thing is a continuum, and sadly, it’s rife for abuse by both citizens AND government. Bad laws. Trump and Congress need to fix our gun laws, including strengthening due process.

        I read the Obama HIPAA/NICS document (link below). It does not overtly add to federally prohibited classes, but it doubles down on VA gun grabbing. Trump needs to fix that while he’s overhauling the VA. Also, I don’t trust the wording. There are no overt red flags, but (1) it opens bad barn doors, and (2) the tone is deceptive, political, and “Josh Earnest” in places. Not comforting, long-term.

        Read here:

        https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-33181.pdf

        Like

  38. Have Gun Will Travel says:

    I think you are right that the EO does not sound different – it feels different because of the now open threat from the administration to come after us if we privately transfer a firearm (which is completely legal) and pursue a frivolous prosecution against us.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. srr says:

    The real evil will be seen after parents, children, spouses, other family, friends and work mates are ‘encouraged’, manipulated, bribed, bullied and threatened, (as with the Hammonds young relative), to report ‘concerns’ about the ‘criminality’ and ‘mental health’ of gun owners known to them.

    Houses will be divided, first by those believing they’re ‘doing the right thing’ by their ‘troubled’ loved ones, then by the damage those Stasi-esque betrayals do.

    Yet it won’t be the Muslim houses (that somehow never notice the terrorist activities going on in them), but the good Western Americans who have a long standing culture of trusting ‘medical professionals’ and other, long ago white anted, institutions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Have Gun Will Travel says:

      I think you are unfortunately right. The threat to prosecute private firearm sales is not the only aspect of the EO. The linkage to mental health reporting may have an equally, or even greater, effect. Too easy for an anti-gun, progressive doctor, therapist, case worker, or staffer to deem someone “at risk” and report them into the system – some rationalizing they are doing it for their patients “own good” (others will do it for the cause). All done right now without any due process to rebutt or remove their name.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I urge you to read the document at the link above. The writers take pains to say that the only people who can report are those with the power to institutionalize or commit, and are already the origin of the NICS info, but I felt that the wording might be deceptive on that, because it might actually include insurance companies, since they have the final say on commitment. Maybe some of our local treatment experts can comment.

        I do want to reassure that they are NOT expanding to voluntarily sought mental health treatment, due to doctor protest (see comments). However, I think they’re leaving the barn door open for Hillary. We need Trump to shut it with a due process padlock. The rule gives a minor acknowledgement of due process, but I can feel the disdain between the lines.

        Like

      • kathyca says:

        I listened to as much of the speech as I could stomach and the Obamacare link absolutely is the key to what’s going on here, imo. Relaxing HIPAA wrt the “bitter clingers,” and $500 million in related support to Obamacare that he snidely dared the Republicans to biotch about — since they’ve blamed mental health, rather than guns, for mass shootings.

        Like

  40. Rollerball says:

    US State Department Publication 7277 – General and COMPLETE civilian disarmament plan.
    Dovetails nicely with United Nations Arms Trade Treaty .

    Like

  41. srr says:

    Also, in Australia (the country Obama keeps holding up as a good example of gun laws), there are very many people disarmed by those they are most in danger from, simply by those women scorned etc. trotting off to the police and making a false report of having being threatened. Even if not already a gun owner, lodging successful AVO’s (way too easy to do against completely innocent people), can end your right to ever become a gun owner.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Jill says:

    Whitehouse>FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Alyer Babtu says:

    Making a medical approval of mental health a condition for exercise of this or any liberty opens a door to grave abuse. In essence, an opinion replaces the due process of law. The medical authority can be pressured to provide an opinion supporting the government’s preference. This was done in the Soviet Union (anyone opposing communism must require psychiatric treatment). G. K. Chesterton gave warning in the very early 1900’s of the same thing.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s