President Barack Obama's advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.
White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review "in short order." She says the recommendations will include measures to expand background checks.
It will be interesting to see how he attempts to accomplish this. I've always talked about the right way to expand background check (which correctly uses the word "expansion"). He probably could do that via executive order. It will be funny to see all the gun control advocates jump up in opposition. However, if he's talking about doing it the wrong way (the way advocated by gun control fanatics), then clearly it falls outside the bounds of the executive branch. The president does not get to write criminal code.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you really think presidents should be allowed to write criminal code, then think about Donald Trump having that power. Yeah, that's what I thought.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've been hearing is that the plan to increase background checks is to pick an arbitrary number of sales per year that would be the threashold to require private sellers to get an FFL, which would require them to run NICS background checks.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the first question that comes to mind is how exactly they are going to count them. Say for instance, the President sets the threshold of sales at 25 per year.
how exactly does the ATF know when the private seller sells number 26?
Another thing that sort of baffles me is that the ATF and members of the gun control lobby have been trying to reduce the number of FFLs. They even refer to them as "kitchen table" gun dealers. The VPC asserts that they are a major source of crime guns by using bad math. They claim that nearly half of the total FFLs are these low volume dealers, and account for 23% of crime guns. To me that sounds like the FFLs the VPC don't hate as badly account for the majority of crime guns.
So now using his Presidential powers, the number of FFLs will increase.
I'm really cool with that part since the last firearm I bought was through an online gun store and delivered to one of these evil kitchen table dealers. In fact, that is exactly where we sat while we did the paperwork for the sale.
I'm just wondering if anyone has mentioned that various members of the gun control lobby also complain that the ATF doesn't have the manpower to do routine inspections more often than every three or four years or so. If I recall, Dog Gone likes to complain about this.
So this will result in the inspections becoming even more rare.
I see this as the beginning of the slippery slope. Requiring private sales to use an FFL background check would naturally require licensing and registration for it to work properly. Go for it, says I.
DeleteGood luck with that. So far, he's been pretty unsuccessful pushing gun owners down that slope.
DeleteAnother thing that sort of baffles me is that the ATF and members of the gun control lobby have been trying to reduce the number of FFLs.
DeleteBeat me to it, SSG. One FFL holder who did a gun transfer for me (something he just did on the side) told me that the BATFE consistently told him he needed to sustain a higher rate of sales, or they would revoke his license. How "gun control" is served by pressuring licensed dealers to sell more guns was never explained.
I, though, believe that the anti-gun fanatics in the Obama regime (basically the whole lot, in other words) consider the seeming conflict between the two efforts as a feature, rather than a bug. I think they want both to force more people to obtain FFLs in order to continue to sell guns occasionally, and to make FFLs more difficult to obtain, thus squeezing gun commerce from both ends.
Requiring private sales to use an FFL background check would naturally require licensing and registration for it to work properly.
Leave it alone, and celebrate the fact that it doesn't "work properly," says I.
Licensing and registration--worth killing by the millions to stop, if that's the only way.
This is what happens when the majority want something their elected representatives won't vote for.
ReplyDeleteSorry Anon, it isn't. If the people want it that badly, their elected representatives will vote for it.
DeleteIf the voters actually talk to their elected officials, and by that, I don't mean forwarding a form letter or a tweet. I mean either sitting down and putting independent thought into words, or going to their office or a local meeting and looking them in the eye and telling them how you want them to vote.
I do that not only whenever my elected officials hold local town hall meetings, but also whenever specific legislation has been introduced.
Followers of the gun control lobby don't seem to want to go to the trouble. That's called laziness. Even Mikes friend Southern Beale has noticed it,
"Democrats don’t vote in off-years. They just don’t. There may be a lot of good reasons for it — voter suppression, working three crap jobs, etc. etc. but the bottom line is, rank and file Democrats don’t think it’s important to vote in non-presidential elections. They’re not going the extra mile to overcome the obstacles like they do in presidential elections. They just don’t see it as a priority. The volunteers aren’t there, the motivation isn’t there, the energy isn’t there."
https://southernbeale.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/vote-dammit/
I personally don't buy the voter suppression thing. I'm more inclined to go with just pure laziness. Its not rocket scientist since an old broken down infantryman like me can do it.
All it takes is a little determination.
SSG - I commented that it was hard to expect all the dead people to get up and vote more than once every four years for the Democrats... I think that may have a lot to do with it :p.
Delete"Sorry Anon, it isn't. If the people want it that badly, their elected representatives will vote for it."
DeleteThe evidence shows that's simply not true, but leave it to you to lie about it. Thanks for proving what va liar you are, again.
Oh lord. Here we go with the proving again.
DeleteHey MikeB. When I read the title, I thought doggone got pissed at his pizza driver!
Hey MikeB. When I read the title, I thought doggone got pissed at his pizza driver!
DeleteI don't care who you are--that is funny.
Sorry to be a killjoy, but I really don't get it.
Delete