Executive Orders on Gun Control

ShaunHorton · Jan 8, 2016

So, President Obama came out and emotionally declared several new Executive Orders on Gun Control. Responses have pretty much all been as expected. Democrats applauded, Republicans condemned.

The conversation continued after Obama's address with a Town Hall meeting to discuss the orders with his critics. One which, unsurprisingly, the NRA refused to take part in.

Already, some states are declaring that they will refuse to abide by federal gun regulations. Idaho passed a law which actually fines its LEO's if they enforce or assist with any federal gun regulation activity.

Of course, some of the more unscrupulous have attacked the speech not because of what was said and done on Gun Control, but on how emotional Obama looked during it. One pundit even suggested there was an onion on the podium when Obama appeared to wipe away a tear. To which, I think The Daily Show has the best response.

Don · Jan 8, 2016

Best I can figure, the executive orders really don't do anything. Anyone in "the business of selling guns" is already required to be an FFL dealer, and perform background checks, wherever the guns are sold. Has the definition of being in "the business of selling guns" been expanded to include individuals selling from their private collections? Not that I can find.

According to the White House, "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear 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."

Oh, "making it clear." That's already clear. OTOH, giving tons more money to the FBI and ATF has no impact on the gun laws either.

I'm not sure what he accomplished here, as far as gun laws are concerned.

rugcat · Jan 8, 2016

Don said:
Best I can figure, the executive orders really don't do anything. Anyone in "the business of selling guns" is already required to be an FFL dealer, and perform background checks, wherever the guns are sold. Has the definition of being in "the business of selling guns" been expanded to include individuals selling from their private collections? Not that I can find.

Vendors who sell guns at gun shows do not have to be licensed. That's the whole point of the gun show loophole – you can buy guns at a gun show with no background check. Not true of every seller; some are licensed gun dealers and they do perform background checks. But those wishing to avoid them just go to the next table instead.

As far as more money for the ATF goes, that's an absolute necessity. The people who insist that we need no new laws and that we simply need to enforce those that are already on the books are the same ones who have hamstrung the ATF and made sure that they cannot perform their jobs properly, both by restricting their ability to investigate and by making sure they don't have enough money or agents.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra

Obama executive orders are a small, minor step that will help – not a whole lot but at least a little. The pushback he's getting on these eminently sensible orders is indicative of how difficult it is to buck the gun lobby and the congresspeople who are scared shitless by them.

On a personal, apocryphal note, I have met many FBI agents and have been underwhelmed with them. I've met a few ATF agents and been thoroughly impressed in every way.

Don · Jan 8, 2016

rugcat said:
Vendors who sell guns at gun shows do not have to be licensed. That's the whole point of the gun show loophole – you can buy guns at a gun show with no background check. Not true of every seller; some are licensed gun dealers and they do perform background checks. But those wishing to avoid them just go to the next table instead.

But not every vendor at a gun show is in "the business of selling guns." Some are simply private individuals, otherwise employed, who sell from their private collections at gun shows. I've seen nothing that indicates that every vendor at a gun show will now be considered to be in "the business of selling guns." Nothing indicates that private collectors otherwise employed will no longer be able to sell their guns at gun shows. You don't have to have a FFL to get a booth at a gun show, any more than you do at a flea market. I don't think this has closed the "gun show loophole" at all.

rugcat · Jan 8, 2016

Don said:
But not every vendor at a gun show is in "the business of selling guns." Some are simply private individuals, otherwise employed, who sell from their private collections at gun shows. I've seen nothing that indicates that every vendor at a gun show will now be considered to be in "the business of selling guns."

People who sell guns at these shows are in the business of selling guns. By selling a gun, that's the very definition – you're providing a gun and taking money for it. It would take some real semantic wriggling to claim otherwise – "Sure, I come here every week and sell guns, but it's not a business, it's just a hobby. "

cmhbob · Jan 8, 2016

18 USC already defines being "engaged in the business" thusly:

(21) The term “engaged in the business” means—
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
(D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

So I'm not sure what the point of the EO was, since an EO can't rewrite law. At least it's not supposed to be able to. Nothing semantic about "occasional."

And when the feds start actually punishing the people they catch breaking federal gun laws, then we can say they're doing something. But letting an admitted straw purchaser walk with 6 months home confinement and 40 hours community service when the gun was used in a murder is not going to do a damn bit of good.

The anti-gun people like to brag about so many millions of sales blocked by background checks, but you never hear about the arrests that are supposed to go along with those. That's a slam-dunk case, right? You've a prohibited person who gives you their name and address, and they've attempted to buy a gun, and in the process, they've handled the gun, so they've possessed it, so why aren't all of those millions of buyers locked up?

Don · Jan 9, 2016

rugcat said:
People who sell guns at these shows are in the business of selling guns. By selling a gun, that's the very definition – you're providing a gun and taking money for it. It would take some real semantic wriggling to claim otherwise – "Sure, I come here every week and sell guns, but it's not a business, it's just a hobby. "

Um, no. See Bob's post #6. That's not semantic wriggling. That's the law.

Don · Jan 9, 2016

rugcat said:
As far as more money for the ATF goes, that's an absolute necessity. The people who insist that we need no new laws and that we simply need to enforce those that are already on the books are the same ones who have hamstrung the ATF and made sure that they cannot perform their jobs properly, both by restricting their ability to investigate and by making sure they don't have enough money or agents.
...
On a personal, apocryphal note, I have met many FBI agents and have been underwhelmed with them. I've met a few ATF agents and been thoroughly impressed in every way.

I'm not in the least surprised.

How the ATF Manufactures Crime

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is probably best known these days for the failure of its disastrous Fast and Furious scheme — a botched initiative that aimed to give American guns to Mexican cartels first and to ask questions later. Under pressure, the administration was quick to imply that the mistake was an aberration. But a watchdog report, published last week by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, suggests that the caprice, carelessness, and downright incompetence that marked the disaster was no accident. In fact, that it is endemic in the ATF.
...
Among the tactics they discovered ATF agents employing were using mentally disabled Americans to help run unnecessary sting operations; establishing agency-run “fronts” in “safe zones” such as schools and churches; providing alcohol, drugs, and sexual invitations to minors; destroying property and then expecting the owners to pick up the tab; and hiring felons to sell guns to legal purchasers. Worse, perhaps, in a wide range of cases, undercover agents specifically instructed individuals to behave in a certain manner — and then arrested and imprisoned them for doing so. This is government at its worst. And it appears to be standard operating procedure.

Gee, they just sound like a bunch of regular good ol' boys; just the kind we need protecting Amuricans from godless ~~drug~~ gun dealers, smokers, moonshiners, and bombers.

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should be the name of a convenience store, not a Federal Agency.

shadowwalker · Jan 9, 2016

Gotta agree with the "business of selling guns" thing - if I have a yard sale I'm not in the business of selling used clothes. Even with car buying/selling and real estate, you have to do X transactions in a year before you're considered to "be in the business of".

As to the EO - frankly, I think Obama is a little too fond of them for the "Big Ticket Items". (And yeah, I voted for the guy.) As to the funding and how it's used - I haven't met a government bureaucracy at any level that uses its funding efficiently or effectively. They just aren't built to, I guess.

Don · Jan 9, 2016

shadowwalker said:
As to the funding and how it's used - I haven't met a government bureaucracy at any level that uses its funding efficiently or effectively. They just aren't built to, I guess.

Yep, it's the nature of the beast, or endemic to their structure, depending on how high-falutin' you want to sound. Explained in excruciating detail in 1944 in a book called, interestingly enough, Bureaucracy. A real eye-opener for those who recognize the problem but can't quite figure out why it happens. (Free PDF at the link; highly recommended)

Mises explains that the core choice we face is between rational economic organization by market prices or the arbitrary dictates of government bureaucrats. There is no third way. And here he explains how it is that bureaucracies can't manage anything well or with an eye for economics at all. It is a devastating and fundamental criticism he makes, an extension of his critique of socialism. It has never been answered.

Written long before Public Choice economists began to take up the subject, Mises describes bureaucracies as both self-interested and economically irrational (thereby improving on the modern Public Choice critique). There is no reinventing government: if we are to have government do things for us, bureaucracies, which cannot behave efficiently, will have to do the work. This small book has grown in stature as Western economies have become more and more bureaucratized.

raburrell · Jan 9, 2016

If someone is trying to make a profit by selling a gun, I fail to see how that's not being in the business of selling guns, personally. But legally speaking, it's mostly a question of volume, and that's where the loophole over private sales comes in. The problem is that whether it's at a gun show or over the internet, some dealers try to skirt by. Obama's EA tightened up who qualifies a bit and included a warning that they intend to go after unlicensed dealers who pose as hobbyists or one-time sellers.

The private sale loophole (which is a better name than gun show loophole) would take an act of Congress to actually close. Since that ain't happening, I'll take a bit of narrowing aimed at people who are already abusing the rules, yeah.

shadowwalker · Jan 9, 2016

raburrell said:
If someone is trying to make a profit by selling a gun, I fail to see how that's not being in the business of selling guns, personally.

I had an antique book I received as a legacy. Didn't cost me a thing, so when I sold it, I made a nice profit. Doesn't mean I'm in the business of selling antique books. I fail to see why the not-in-business concept is so difficult to understand.

blacbird · Jan 9, 2016

Don said:
But not every vendor at a gun show is in "the business of selling guns." Some are simply private individuals, otherwise employed, who sell from their private collections at gun shows.

Whew. I was so worried. This makes me feel soooooo much safer.

caw

ShaunHorton · Jan 9, 2016

As I understand it, the problem is people that go to gun show after gun show to sell guns either from their own collections or that they picked up on the cheap in between. Because they're not selling on any real regular basis, like from a store or even on a weekly basis, they get past the restrictions, but they're still selling guns for profit beyond a hobby or cleaning out a collection.

raburrell · Jan 9, 2016

shadowwalker said:
I had an antique book I received as a legacy. Didn't cost me a thing, so when I sold it, I made a nice profit. Doesn't mean I'm in the business of selling antique books. I fail to see why the not-in-business concept is so difficult to understand.

You were at that moment...

Depending on the amount of profit, it may have counted as hobby income, and you might have been obligated to report it to the IRS. Do most people do that? No.

The problem where guns instead of books are concerned is that there are plenty of people who pretend it's only a hobby for the purpose of being able to offer a purchase which skirts background checks. In the President's view (and mine), that's unacceptable. Is it an annoyance for those who might just want to get rid of one of grandpa's old guns? Sure. But that's the fault of the bad actors within the trade, not those who think expanded background checks are a good idea.

Don · Jan 9, 2016

ShaunHorton said:
As I understand it, the problem is people that go to gun show after gun show to sell guns either from their own collections or that they picked up on the cheap in between. Because they're not selling on any real regular basis, like from a store or even on a weekly basis, they get past the restrictions, but they're still selling guns for profit beyond a hobby or cleaning out a collection.

Correct. But nothing in the executive order changes that. It may be unacceptable, but it's still legal according to statute. Thus my statement that the EO really didn't change anything. See post #6.

raburrell · Jan 9, 2016

It's not accurate to say that it doesn't change anything - the EA put those who are skirting the loophole on notice. It announces an intention to more aggressively make determinations of who's doing so according to 'relevant indicators' and prosecute accordingly. (This is part of why additional resources are being devoted) FactCheck went through what some of that means and what it's likely to involve.

Manchin-Toomey would've been a much more complete solution, but... congress.

That’s why, in an op-ed published by the New York Times on Jan. 8, Obama said the gun control steps he announced earlier in the week “include making sure that anybody engaged in the business of selling firearms conducts background checks.”
The key phrase in that statement is “making sure.”
Although Obama did not set a threshold number of sales to define who should be a licensed dealer, the White House noted that the “quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators.” The administration noted 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.” An Associated Press story said those other factors include business indicators such as “selling weapons in their original packaging and for a profit.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/sorting-out-obamas-gun-proposal/

cmhbob · Jan 9, 2016

raburrell said:
It's not accurate to say that it doesn't change anything - the EA put those who are skirting the loophole on notice.

Ah, so they're taking a page from the Maniac section of the San Angeles Police Department manual and saying "Or else!" It'll be just as effective.

raburrell · Jan 9, 2016

The second sentence you didn't quote indications the concrete actions that will be taken.

So, take a hypothetical shirk-dealer who hangs out at a gun show. He sells a couple of brand-new, still in the package, pieces every weekend (at a profit). He's the guy who people point you to if you show up at said gun show and say you're interested in buying something, but you're not sure you can pass the background check. Now that guy knows there's a chance of a newly-authorized ATF guy or two walking around looking for people like him, whose sales fit a pattern. Maybe he gets away with it, maybe he doesn't. But again, it's not doing nothing.

On a tangential note, one comment that's often made is that we should enforce existing laws before we go creating new ones - that's exactly what this is.

eta: This report, commissioned by the NYC police in 2009, gives a picture of how unethical both licensed and private gun dealers tend to be. (The quick version: 63% would sell to a person who directly said they couldn't pass a background check, and 94% of licensed dealers were willing to sell to an apparent straw purchaser) There's a lot we could be doing within the framework of existing law.

cmhbob · Jan 9, 2016

That was not an NYPD operation. Bloomberg used private investigators, who each committed felonies when they purchased the guns illegally. They had no police authority to support them. They should all be in jail. But just like David Gregory who waved an illegal magazine around on the air without prior permission from the Metro Police Department in DC, they got off, because they're connected to the Only Ones.

raburrell · Jan 9, 2016

Yes, Bloomberg commissioned the report. Doesn't change their findings.

Given that all the dealers who committed felonies also got off, it doesn't appear that who one is or isn't connected to has jack to do with it.

shadowwalker · Jan 10, 2016

raburrell said:
You were at that moment...

There are billions of "momentary business people" in the world then. I mean, this is just pushing things to absurdity. If we weren't talking about guns the "at the moment" thing wouldn't even be a consideration.

raburrell · Jan 10, 2016

At a risk of stating the obvious, we are talking about guns.

Don · Jan 10, 2016

shadowwalker said:
There are billions of "momentary business people" in the world then. I mean, this is just pushing things to absurdity. If we weren't talking about guns the "at the moment" thing wouldn't even be a consideration.

raburrell said:
At a risk of stating the obvious, we are talking about guns.

IOW, 2+2 <> 4 because "guns."

Lillith1991 · Jan 10, 2016

shadowwalker said:
There are billions of "momentary business people" in the world then. I mean, this is just pushing things to absurdity. If we weren't talking about guns the "at the moment" thing wouldn't even be a consideration.

Here's the thing, there's no concrete line between hobby and small business at the moment for gun sellers. Other so called hobbies that involve selling are considered businesses over a certain limit, and guns should be no different. It wouldn't stop illegal purchases, but does anyone actually think regulation of the gun industry stops those purchases either?

The idea is to limit George down the street being able to sell a gun to Charlie from a couple streets over and being stunned when Charlie commits murder with the gun. Maybe George is one of those hobbiests that sells at gun shows a couple times a year. Maybe he knew Charlie and thought selling him a gun would be safer than his normal, if rare, gunshow sells. Requiring him to run a backround check on Charlie may have prevented his gun being the one used. Now, maybe it wouldn't, but we can't know that and I don't think George should have to feel guilty because Decent Charlie had a violent history that George didn't know about.

Executive Orders on Gun Control

AW's resident Velociraptor

All Living is Local

Lost in the Fog

All Living is Local

Lost in the Fog

Did...did I do that?

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

empty-nester!

All Living is Local

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

empty-nester!

AW's resident Velociraptor

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

All Living is Local

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Did...did I do that?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Did...did I do that?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

empty-nester!

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

All Living is Local

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid