Obama to address nation on CNN Thursday Night about Guns - 5pm

[Pops1911]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States.
Good evening. blah blah blah commonsense gun controls blah blah blah blah guns kill more people every year than knives, baseball bats and automobiles blah blah blah we must do this for the safety of the children blah blah blah I am calling upon Congress to do the right thing blah blah blah work with me or I will again do it all by myself blah blah blah stop small time gun sellers and register ammunition blah blah blah As it is spoken so shall it be done blah blah blah Goodnight America blah blah blah Sleep well and know that I know best blah blah blah.
[secretly obtained outline of the prez's speech for Thursday] You are all welcome. Now you may miss the speech without guilt having read it here first on NWFA.

 

[Kid@Heart]

If you don't want to kiss Hillary, how about Nancy Pelosi? Obama is real hot for her:

View attachment 271405

It must be waaay past 2 AM...

 

[freestoneangler]

President Obama will hold a national town hall meeting this coming Thursday, at 5pm Pacific Time on CNN. In it, he will explain his new gun control regulations, and also why he feels that the Congress must also pass new gun control legislation.

He will attempt to convince the American people of the need for tighter controls on guns.

Here is a link to the announcement:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/politics/barack-obama-guns-town-hall/index.html

Sorry, my mind is made up on this issue.

 

[bolus]

No one is sure at this point how far Obama is going to try to stretch the law. I've heard speculation that he might require that anyone selling at a gun show have a FFL. Another is that he will require that anyone selling 25 or more guns a year anywhere get a FFL.

But that fact is that only Obama and his buddies know what is coming at tomorrow's White House announcement. The "Obama Surprise" is less than a day away at this point.


View attachment 271567

looks like the details are up
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

"
Clarify that it doesn't matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you're in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:

• A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
• Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is "engaged in the business." 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.
• There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

 

[U8395279]

looks like the details are up
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

"
Clarify that it doesn't matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you're in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:

• A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
• Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is "engaged in the business." 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.
• There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

OMG, they are also bringing back the idiotic "Smart Gun" Technology con. And how on earth can it be possible to justify the Dept of Defense and the Dept of Homeland Security spending money to research and develop new "smart gun" technology?

That is most ominous indeed, to say that Homeland Security and the Defense Dept have a mission to development technology to be used for gun control. Are America's gun owners now seen as being the new enemy of the state???

.

 

[freestoneangler]

Are America's gun owners now seen as being the new enemy of the state???

Well, when you have no intention to address the true enemy (and may very well be part of them for all we know), hold a hatred for the nations founding principles (constitutional rights), and falsely believe that further firearm restrictions against law abiding citizens will keep those intent on using them for evil from doing so... in a word, yes.

 

[etrain16]

OMG, they are also bringing back the idiotic "Smart Gun" Technology con. And how on earth can it be possible to justify the Dept of Defense and the Dept of Homeland Security spending money to research and develop new "smart gun" technology?

That is most ominous indeed, to say that Homeland Security and the Defense Dept have a mission to development technology to be used for gun control. Are America's gun owners now seen as being the new enemy of the state???

.

Yeah, let's put smart gun technology development in the hands of the people who may, at some time, find themselves facing off against the citizens. Hmmm, I wonder what they could include in the design? Maybe a 'kill switch' that disables all guns so the military can easily disarm everyone that owns one of their new 'safe' 'smart' guns???

Thanks, but I'll stick with wood, steel, aluminum and plastic. The only electronics will be in the optics or the light.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Oh it might get even BETTER!

How about having BATFE require BG checks on all members of a gun trust?
A common sense safety measure, for the children.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Remember only Congress can make laws... The Kings attempt at gun control will be just as effective as always, in increasing firearms sales!!!!

That's accurate as far as new laws goes. However, written into existing laws are provisions that the various agencies have the ability to define what certain things are, such as the "danger level" of drugs. If DEA decided to reschedule cocaine as a schedule V drug, you might be able to go buy some over the counter, like cough medicine. Congress wouldn't have to lift a finger for this to happen.

Similarly BATFE can (be directed to) issue a letter defining sales, locations and requirements for transfers to be just about anything they choose, as described under current laws.

For example, "any individual selling any firearm to another individual, no matter the quantity per year, or profit, or lack thereof, is considered to be "in the business of gun sales" and must have an FFL. Furthermore, any application for purchase under a gun trust must be accompanied by fingerprints and a clear BG check for every member of the trust, this documentation to be included with the original transfer application."

Current laws already provide for these internal agency "administrative adjustments" so no new laws are even needed.

 

[nammac]

That's accurate as far as new laws goes. However, written into existing laws are provisions that the various agencies have the ability to define what certain things are, such as the "danger level" of drugs. If DEA decided to reschedule cocaine as a schedule V drug, you might be able to go buy some over the counter, like cough medicine. Congress wouldn't have to lift a finger for this to happen.

Similarly BATFE can (be directed to) issue a letter defining sales, locations and requirements for transfers to be just about anything they choose, as described under current laws.

For example, "any individual selling any firearm to another individual, no matter the quantity per year, or profit, or lack thereof, is considered to be "in the business of gun sales" and must have an FFL. Furthermore, any application for purchase under a gun trust must be accompanied by fingerprints and a clear BG check for every member of the trust, this documentation to be included with the original transfer application."

Current laws already provide for these internal agency "administrative adjustments" so no new laws are even needed.

I understand the definition, however it's been many years since the ATF has issued FFL's for those who were private owners... Under the current practices, you need to be a viable dealer... Not John Q. Public who wants to buy and sell of his own personal collection...

 

[U201491]

NRA-ILA Release 1-5-2016

Fairfax, Va. –The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday regarding President Barack Obama's Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation's pressing problems.Today's event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.But the fact is that President Obama's proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of seriousness.

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment. The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama's failed policies.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

and under title 18, too, but that definition of 'private collection' and 'profit' might have some wiggle room to leverage an attempt at requiring an FFL. Not that I agree that any of this is a good idea.

At the bottom of it all, we have to ask, if all these changes were in place 5 years ago, what difference would it have made in any of these massacres conducted by the unconvicted, un-diagnosed firearm thieves who went out and performed these already illegal acts?

 

[U8395279]

and under title 18, too, but that definition of 'private collection' and 'profit' might have some wiggle room to leverage an attempt at requiring an FFL. Not that I agree that any of this is a good idea.

At the bottom of it all, we have to ask, if all these changes were in place 5 years ago, what difference would it have made in any of these massacres conducted by the unconvicted, un-diagnosed firearm thieves who went out and performed these already illegal acts?

Good point. In all three of the recent Oregon shooting cases that got people so upset: the Clackamas Town Center Shooting, the Reynolds High School Shooting in Troutdale, and the Umpqua Community High School Shooting, the shooters used guns that belonged to others.

The AR-15 used at Clackamas was stolen in burglary. The AR-15 used at Reynolds was stolen from an older brother. And some of the guns used at Umpqua belonged to the shooter's mother, and were taken without her permission.

And while the Umpqua shooter also had guns that he purchased, he got those legally, buying them at a gun store.

.

 

[U201491]

The attack on Guns is only part of his diversion to destroy the country. He has no power to do any of it other than what those on the Congress and Senate allow him to have and they need to be culled as well.