... and it's the opposite of the proposed Assault Weapons Ban - it's almost all really reasonable stuff, I think. We touched on this very briefly in a locked thread but now there is some tantalizing meat on them bones.
The article is fairly long and wanders a bit into background so I'm only posting the salient first half; obviously you can read the link.
Obama takes executive action on gun restrictions By David Nakamura and Juliet Eilperin January 4 at 6:31 PM
The Obama administration on Monday unveiled a series of new executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence and making some political headway on one of the most frustrating policy areas of President Obama’s tenure.
The package, which Obama plans to announce Tuesday, includes 10 separate provisions, White House officials said. One key provision would require more gun sellers — especially those who do business on the Internet and at gun shows — to be licensed and would force them to conduct background checks on potential buyers. Obama would devote more federal funds to treating mental illness — a move that could require congressional approval — and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and seller be reported to federal authorities.
Under the president’s proposal, the FBI will hire more than 230 examiners and other personnel to help process new background checks, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new investigation center to keep track of illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
Even before its official unveiling Tuesday morning, Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail have blasted the idea, and some advocates have threatened to challenge it in court. While it is modest compared to any legislation that Congress could adopt, it will still affect everything from how the federal government might leverage its purchasing power to advance “safe gun” technology to what information federal and local law enforcement will share on individuals who are illegally trying to purchase weapons.
The president, who went over the initiatives in the Oval Office on Monday with administration officials such as Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and FBI Director James B. Comey, said inaction by Congress in the wake of several high-profile mass shootings and other gun-related violence justified his decision.
“It is my strong belief that for us to get our complete arms around the problem, Congress must act,” Obama said in brief remarks to reporters after the meeting. In lieu of that, he added, the actions he will announce “are well within my legal authority in the executive branch but also are ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.”
One of the main provisions is new federal guidance requiring some occasional gun sellers to get licenses from the ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Rather than set a single threshold for what triggers this licensing requirement, it will be based on a mix of business activities such as whether the seller processes credit cards, rents tables at gun shows and has formal business cards.
Other aspects of the president’s plan aim to bolster the FBI’s background checks system, including a push by the U.S. Digital Service to modernize its processing operations and a proposal to add 200 new ATF agents and investigators to bolster enforcement.
Obama will instruct federal agencies, which collectively represent the nation’s largest firearms purchaser to “explore potential ways” to promote technology that would prevent the accidental discharge or unauthorized use of a gun, according to White House officials.
Another measure will require federally licensed gun dealers to report any lost and stolen guns to the National Crime Information Center. Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
“This is a broad set of actions that tackles a variety of the issues related to gun violence,” said Arkadi Gerney, a senior fellow at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, “and in combination it represents a comprehensive effort to strengthen the laws we already have on the books.”
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), by contrast, issued a statement Monday saying that even without knowing the plan’s details, “the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. . . . This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it.”...
I'll have to see the actual proposal which comes out tomorrow but I'm cautiously optimistic. This all seems fairly reasonable.
Lets try and have a useful discussion, if possible without name-calling, or rehashing the exact same arguments over and over again - I feel like at least some of you will see some good stuff in here, like mental health assistance, and better (faster) background checks, and manufacturers being required to report firearms that got lost in shipping, which holy gak, they apparently weren't required to already for some reason, and so on.
Relapse wrote: I will say it's a reasonable expectation for anyone to report lost weapons.
I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Honestly my mind is sort of blown that it isn't, especially when it's a manufacturer to seller!
It is a little surprising from a business standpoint. Guns aren't inexpensive items, so any loss to theft has to be pretty substantial. So you think businesses would be reporting it just for their bottom line.
I can't imagine insurance paying out when no police report is filed... but I'm speculating on that. I don't know the mechanics. Perhaps the thrust is that it now has to be reported at the federal level.
The package, which Obama plans to announce Tuesday, includes 10 separate provisions, White House officials said. One key provision would require more gun sellers — especially those who do business on the Internet and at gun shows — to be licensed and would force them to conduct background checks on potential buyers.
It's comforting to know that our President is sufficiently familiar with the law to recognize that this provision is already on the books.
As for a provision for reporting stolen guns, we will have to see how it looks when it's complete. I wouldn't put it past this administration to sneak a legal version of "blame the victim" in there (i.e., charging victims of theft with improperly securing a firearm or something like that).
Ouze wrote: I can't imagine insurance paying out when no police report is filed... but I'm speculating on that. I don't know the mechanics. Perhaps the thrust is that it now has to be reported at the federal level.
If you think about, say Joe Blow is out shooting somewhere in the back countryand loses his pistol, as happened to someone I know who slid down a hill and lost his pistol in the snow. I would think that should be reported, also.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime..
I would guess that it's intended more to discourage licensed dealers from sidestepping background checks by selling under the table and then later claiming that the gun was stolen if the weapon turns up somewhere it shouldn't be.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Guns with that technology exist, but I know nothing about the reliability or cost of the tech. One obvious application would be for police forces as it would prevent their weapons being used against themselves in a struggle.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Guns with that technology exist, but I know nothing about the reliability or cost of the tech. One obvious application would be for police forces as it would prevent their weapons being used against themselves in a struggle.
All we need is Salvester Stallone to join the police forceand we can start up a real life Judge Dredd. Thanks Obama!
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Dread comes to mind, heh.
As for 'accidental discharge' I still can't get behind that as a reason for the government to get involved - anyone who's been trained in the use of a weapon doesn't have 'accidental discharges'.
Edit: Read also, 'People who pay attention when involving themselves in the operation and maintenance thereof.'.
Additionally, what constitutes an 'unauthorized use' of a firearm?
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
I think the basics of biometrics are there, they just need to get better.
Touching my thumb to the home button on my phone unlocks it now, and it wouldn't exactly be futuristic to imagine similar technology on a weapon. Now, I sometimes have to lift my finger a couple times to get it to register fight, which obviously wouldn't be acceptable on a firearm IMO, so it still needs some work.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Guns with that technology exist, but I know nothing about the reliability or cost of the tech. One obvious application would be for police forces as it would prevent their weapons being used against themselves in a struggle.
IIRC, they tend to be on the expensive side for "add-on" mods, and generally, the only firearms that I saw that came with some form of DNA/Fingerprint thing on it, wasn't one I'd be interested in in the first place.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Let LEO test the technology first before it's forced on everyone else. After all, they're the ones constantly shooting themselves / each other / innocent people negligently.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Guns with that technology exist, but I know nothing about the reliability or cost of the tech. One obvious application would be for police forces as it would prevent their weapons being used against themselves in a struggle.
IIRC, they tend to be on the expensive side for "add-on" mods, and generally, the only firearms that I saw that came with some form of DNA/Fingerprint thing on it, wasn't one I'd be interested in in the first place.
I wonder if you could have some sort of grip that could sense when a small hand of a toddler or child is holding it.
Frankenberry wrote: As for 'accidental discharge' I still can't get behind that as a reason for the government to get involved - anyone who's been trained in the use of a weapon doesn't have 'accidental discharges'.
Sure they do. Most modern militaries spend a lot of time and resources ensuring that "ammunition incidents" * are minimized, but they still occur.
(* we have to call them ammunition incidents now as "accidental discharge" implies that nobody is at fault whilst "negligent discharge" assumes somebody is at fault)
Frankenberry wrote: As for 'accidental discharge' I still can't get behind that as a reason for the government to get involved - anyone who's been trained in the use of a weapon doesn't have 'accidental discharges'.
Sure they do. Most modern militaries spend a lot of time and resources ensuring that "ammunition incidents" * are minimized, but they still occur.
(* we have to call them ammunition incidents now as "accidental discharge" implies that nobody is at fault whilst "negligent discharge" assumes somebody is at fault)
So it's a mind set of blaming the system and not the person. It's actually a good concept that I've seen work extremely well in manufacturing.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Frankenberry wrote: My point isn't that accidents don't happen, it's that people who know how to respect and use firearms don't let this kind of stuff happen..
So... your point isn't that accidents don't happen, it's that accidents don't happen...?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. .
Frankenberry wrote: My point isn't that accidents don't happen, it's that people who know how to respect and use firearms don't let this kind of stuff happen..
So... your point isn't that accidents don't happen, it's that accidents don't happen...?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. .
Which makes it a big number.
It doesn't make a number of firearms that plays anywhere near a factor significant to require new Federal laws or that will have a dramatic effect on reducing gun crimes and deaths.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, 1333 guns is a lot of guns, even if it is a vacuum number. In the hands of any trained group of people, say ISIS, that number of unaccounted guns is huge, especially since they weren't reported.
Obama would devote more federal funds to treating mental illness — a move that could require congressional approval
Something that I have long advocated for as suicides make up the majority of deaths involving firearms.
and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and seller be reported to federal authorities.
No objection here provided that there are not onerous time frames for the reporting
Under the president’s proposal, the FBI will hire more than 230 examiners and other personnel to help process new background checks, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new investigation center to keep track of illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
I would like to hear more information on this, especially the conviction rates using this system as it sounds very much like Maryland's gun database experiment that was wrapped up after 15 years of failure and millions of dollars wasted, yet never solved a single case
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html
One of the main provisions is new federal guidance requiring some occasional gun sellers to get licenses from the ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Rather than set a single threshold for what triggers this licensing requirement, it will be based on a mix of business activities such as whether the seller processes credit cards, rents tables at gun shows and has formal business cards.
I'm waiting more details on this, sounds like rather than set a threshold of X number of guns sold it is clarifying the existing criteria
Other aspects of the president’s plan aim to bolster the FBI’s background checks system, including a push by the U.S. Digital Service to modernize its processing operations and a proposal to add 200 new ATF agents and investigators to bolster enforcement.
Any chance of them adding more agents to approving Form 4s?
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent.
Other associated problems are the battery life, integrating the electronic components in the firearm, and ensuring that they are robust enough to withstand the force generated when the firearm is used.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, 1333 guns is a lot of guns, even if it is a vacuum number. In the hands of any trained group of people, say ISIS, that number of unaccounted guns is huge, especially since they weren't reported.
There are tens of millions of gun owners in the US and we collectively own hundreds of millions of guns. There are literally hundreds of guns present every time my club hosts a 3Gun competition. The 1330 is insignificant.
Prestor Jon wrote: Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons (and that's only the ones that were recovered).
The figure you should be comparing it to is not the number of total guns sold, but the number of criminal investigations involving firearms. That would give you a more realistic view of whether it is a big number or not.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".
Not in a country of 300 million people. And it only does good if those guns would have been found before the crime occurred if only they had been reported stolen.
In order for this to make a different, there has to be a substantial number of guns which are 1) Stolen from a gun manufacturer. 2) Not reported as having been stolen. 3) Had their serial number run and nothing suspicious found. then 4) be used in a crime. All in that order.
Making the manufacturer report stolen guns does nothing if the order is 1) gun is stolen. 2) gun is reported. 3) gun is used in a crime.
Just because a gun is reported stolen doesn't mean much. It only does any good if the gun's serial number gets run by the police, which tends to only happen if the gun was used in a crime or is suspected of being used in a crime.
I doubt the number of unreported stolen guns which happen to get their clean numbers run by the police is at all significant.
So while there isn't necessarily anything wrong with requiring this to be done, it really won't do much in the grand scheme of things.
Grey Templar wrote: I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.
Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".
out of ~300 million+ in circulation and a population of nearly equal magnitude? Over five years?
I mean, I don't find the reporting requirement to be all that onerous in theory, but the number of weapons we're talking here is also statistically negligible.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
I think the basics of biometrics are there, they just need to get better.
Touching my thumb to the home button on my phone unlocks it now, and it wouldn't exactly be futuristic to imagine similar technology on a weapon. Now, I sometimes have to lift my finger a couple times to get it to register fight, which obviously wouldn't be acceptable on a firearm IMO, so it still needs some work.
The more fundamental issue I think is that we're talking about an electronic blocking mechanism to an otherwise mechanical device that could function without such. As such, there will always be a method of bypassing or removing it, simply by its inherent nature. A smart phone is an electronic device by which electronic means can be used to secure it, and so that works. But if you're relying on an electronic device to secure a mechanical device, the mechanical device can be made to function otherwise.
For the easiest example, one can look at paintball guns. I've got a lovely ~2004/2005 era Autococker with an electronic Raceframe grip on it, with programmable fire modes and operations, operating through an electronic solenoid. The marker will not function or fire if I do not turn the grip on and set it to a fire mode. However, if I simply swap out the grip (or replace the internals with a mechanical sear & trigger) and swap the electronic solenoid out for a mechanic 3-way valve, the gun will work perfectly fine (albeit without the nifty features of the mechanical grip) and that takes all of 10 minutes to do if I have the mechanical parts.
I mean, I guess it might stop a situation where someone takes a gun from you and turns it on you...as long as they aren't in your face within range of the RFID receiver or whatnot, but aside from that they seem like they've got a lot of misplaced trust put in them.
With respect to accidental discharges, if someone's pulling the trigger, either way, I'm not sure what a smartgun is supposed to do that good sense or a mechanical safety will not.
Prestor Jon wrote: Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons.
Considering how many crimes happen perday IT is no wonder that some crimes do not go reported,
Or remain unsolved or are even investigated.
That number would be extremely different if we had all the numbers but we don't. I think because it is so low and how few are actually found are they actually found.
Each year they have 1,333 guns
So lets do some simple multiplication.......
Lets start with 10 years, over the last 10 years an average of 1,333 guns have been found in criminal cases.
So:
10 x 1,333 = 13,330
Yep that doesn't seem like much until realize it says EACH YEAR.
1,333 guns for one year doesn't seem bad till you start adding everything together. Hundreds of millions of guns? I am pretty sure there is a lot fewer guns owned by people in the united states. Probably millions not hundreds of millions owned by citizens.
But I do think it is interesting he has kept this till the end of his political career. Great Idea to do it now, so that the next president cannot stop it and would of to repeal the entire bill.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?
Grey Templar wrote: Not in a country of 300 million people. And it only does good if those guns would have been found before the crime occurred if only they had been reported stolen.
This assumes all the guns were stolen and weren't "missing" because the gun dealers were selling the guns to people they shouldn't have been. By tightening up reporting of missing weapons you put the onus on the gun dealer to be able to account for where all their guns have gone, limiting underhanded dealings.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?
Could also stop people from murdering their family members.
Prestor Jon wrote: Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons.
Virtually every gun is unrecorded. There is no federal registry of privately owned firearms and there are no comprehensive state registries either. There are a handful of states that require a limited form of registration such as registering the pistol you carry via your Concealed Carry permit or things like Connecticut's voluntary "assault weapon" registry. Other than filling out form 4473b at the time of sale their is no record kept and FFLs are only required to keep copies for a limited time. I highly doubt that the store where I bought my first gun years ago still has a copy of my 4473b.
The whole gun sales issue is pointless political pandering and fear mongering. The government doesn't know if I own guns let alone which type they are and their serial#s. There is no way for them to police how I sell them or who I choose to sell them to if I ever decide to sell them or if I've already sold them. Same thing with straw purchases. Once the purchaser leaves the store with a gun nobody tracks that gun. It disappears from any official record unless it turns up at a crime scene. Nobody knows if it gets resold or given away or how many times it changes hands if it ever does. That's why there are so few prosecutions of straw buyers unless somebody does something extremely stupid like buy dozens or hundreds of guns at once or tells the salesperson at the counter that the gun is being purchased on behalf of someone else (and that's not necessarily illegal since you're allowed to gift a gun to someone legally) there's no tip off that a straw purchase is occurring so there is I evidence to support a prosecution.
Prestor Jon wrote: Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.
Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons.
Considering how many crimes happen perday IT is no wonder that some crimes do not go reported,
Or remain unsolved or are even investigated.
That number would be extremely different if we had all the numbers but we don't. I think because it is so low and how few are actually found are they actually found.
Each year they have 1,333 guns
So lets do some simple multiplication.......
Lets start with 10 years, over the last 10 years an average of 1,333 guns have been found in criminal cases.
So:
10 x 1,333 = 13,330
Yep that doesn't seem like much until realize it says EACH YEAR.
1,333 guns for one year doesn't seem bad till you start adding everything together. Hundreds of millions of guns? I am pretty sure there is a lot fewer guns owned by people in the united states. Probably millions not hundreds of millions owned by citizens.
But I do think it is interesting he has kept this till the end of his political career. Great Idea to do it now, so that the next president cannot stop it and would of to repeal the entire bill.
My point isn't that accidents don't happen, it's that people who know how to respect and use firearms don't let this kind of stuff happen..
Except, as in the bit I quoted from you earlier, you made the claim that people who are trained in the use of firearms dont have those sorts of incidents.... One video was all it took to disprove that. Military and US Cops are, by pretty much any definition of the word, trained in the use of firearms. And as others have pointed out, even in the military they STILL happen.
Hell, I was on gate guard in Iraq one day when at the other gate to my base, a patrol was coming in, and a female soldier almost blew the head off of a SFC.
Grey Templar wrote: Not in a country of 300 million people. And it only does good if those guns would have been found before the crime occurred if only they had been reported stolen.
This assumes all the guns were stolen and weren't "missing" because the gun dealers were selling the guns to people they shouldn't have been. By tightening up reporting of missing weapons you put the onus on the gun dealer to be able to account for where all their guns have gone, limiting underhanded dealings.
Its rather bold to claim that there is a large trend of dealers illegally selling guns, which is what you are doing here. It defies common sense and good business to do that. The risks of getting caught are immense, and there is plenty of legal demand, and the amount of guns we are talking about is pathetically small. There is no incentive for companies to do this.
I find it hard to believe that very many gun dealers would jump through all the hoops and go through all the trouble it takes to get an FFL, and then sell guns illegally, especially when the legal demand for guns has been going through the roof. And considering if you were going to sell guns illegally anyway, you don't need an FFL to do so.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I could be wrong. But I'm skeptical.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?
This is something I found in a cursery search. Consider the source, though.
Because if the biometric feature of their firearm delays them momentarily when they have the element of surprise and little time pressure they will completely abandon their murderous plans or not use another implement...
Lets start with 10 years, over the last 10 years an average of 1,333 guns have been found in criminal cases.
So:
10 x 1,333 = 13,330
Yep that doesn't seem like much until realize it says EACH YEAR.
1,333 guns for one year doesn't seem bad till you start adding everything together. Hundreds of millions of guns? I am pretty sure there is a lot fewer guns owned by people in the united states. Probably millions not hundreds of millions owned by citizens.
But I do think it is interesting he has kept this till the end of his political career. Great Idea to do it now, so that the next president cannot stop it and would of to repeal the entire bill.
First of all, why 10 years? What lead you to select that number?
As you like math; in 2009 there were 310,000,000 guns in private ownership in the US. That number has grown significantly since then but for these purposes we'll use that number. So out of 310,000,000 firearms legally held by private citizens 1,333 are diverted to the black market. That is 0.00043% of all firearms. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say that firearm ownership remains constant for 10 years, as does the number of firearms making their way to the black market from this source. Well, over ten years 13,330 out of 310,000,000 is 0.0043%.
The number is so statistically insignificant that you may easily round it down to 0
Because if the biometric feature of their firearm delays them momentarily when they have the element of surprise and little time pressure they will completely abandon their murderous plans or not use another implement...
Hey it will mean that if they tried to use their gun, they can't shoot up all their family members and could actually stop the person from shooting. Or mass shootings.
It would stop alot of things. I knew someone would bring that up. Yeah but its alot harder to kill someone without a gun. The ease of use would be harder. People will find a way to kill someone, but preventing someone from using a gun in a mass shooting is a win win.
what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?
Round it down to zero but as I said before, comparing that number with the number of guns in circulation is meaningless. It only has meaning compared with the number of total guns involved with criminal investigations. Then you'd be able to tell if it was a significant number or not (I have no idea or inkling either way).
As for whether anybody is illegally selling guns I also have no idea. My response was an attempt to show that the original wording of "missing" could have multiple causes, whereas Grey Templar had surreptitiously changed the wording from "missing" to "stolen".
Because if the biometric feature of their firearm delays them momentarily when they have the element of surprise and little time pressure they will completely abandon their murderous plans or not use another implement...
Hey it will mean that if they tried to use their gun, they can't shoot up all their family members and could actually stop the person from shooting. Or mass shootings.
It would stop alot of things. I knew someone would bring that up. Yeah but its alot harder to kill someone without a gun. The ease of use would be harder. People will find a way to kill someone, but preventing someone from using a gun in a mass shooting is a win win.
How does a biometric prevent someone from using their own gun?
Vaktathi wrote: what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?
I don't think it would do much for those kind of things. I think the main area where it would help is with someone accidentally picking up the gun and shooting it at home, not being able to fire when kids play with it, not functioning if someone disarms you and tries to use it against you, those kind of things. The technology isn't quite there yet, but I can see it being helpful in those areas.
How do those smart guns work? Is it a solenoid that inhibits the firing mechanism or something like that? And what do you want the default de-energised state to be, live or safe? If the battery runs out on a weapon that de-energises to safe then that's going to be bad news for the first cop that has to deal with that situation. If it de-energises to live then that doesn't help prevent little Timmy from blowing his sisters head off. Different de-energised states for different uses I'd guess.
Vaktathi wrote: what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?
I don't think it would do much for those kind of things. I think the main area where it would help is with someone accidentally picking up the gun and shooting it at home, not being able to fire when kids play with it, not functioning if someone disarms you and tries to use it against you, those kind of things. The technology isn't quite there yet, but I can see it being helpful in those areas.
If kids are playing with your guns that is evidence of a host of other problems that can't be fixed by a biometric lock. Technology shouldn't be used to circumvent knowledge of and adherence to the 4 Rules and proper storage and handling or to enable lazy incompetent parenting. There is no substitute for personal responsibility.
Vaktathi wrote: what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?
I don't think it would do much for those kind of things. I think the main area where it would help is with someone accidentally picking up the gun and shooting it at home, not being able to fire when kids play with it, not functioning if someone disarms you and tries to use it against you, those kind of things. The technology isn't quite there yet, but I can see it being helpful in those areas.
If kids are playing with your guns that is evidence of a host of other problems that can't be fixed by a biometric lock. Technology shouldn't be used to circumvent knowledge of and adherence to the 4 Rules and proper storage and handling or to enable lazy incompetent parenting. There is no substitute for personal responsibility.
To play the devil's advocate, though, you might possibly eliminate a lot of variables in the way gun owners care for and secure their weapons. I would say a bit of study on cost and other factors be done before going all out on it, though. It might not yet be practical for the reasons already given by others in this thread.
Asherian Command wrote: Hey it will mean that if they tried to use their gun, they can't shoot up all their family members and could actually stop the person from shooting. Or mass shootings.
So in your family killing scenario the shooter won't have programmed their own gun to accept their biometric data?
Asherian Command wrote: It would stop alot of things. I knew someone would bring that up. Yeah but its alot harder to kill someone without a gun. The ease of use would be harder. People will find a way to kill someone, but preventing someone from using a gun in a mass shooting is a win win.
Except for the fact that most people who commit mass murder use a gun they own, or that a close family member owns - which means that their data is likely entered as another authorized user. So you have prevented nothing
There are a few cases where biometrics might have prevented a shooting. However, the expense associated with adding this feature to guns, plus all the existing guns that wouldn't have this, plus all the crimes that would be committed by someone using a gun that they are authorized to use, with all combine to make it ineffective.
The cost would also be an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Adding hundreds of dollars onto the cost of each gun would effectively mean only rich people could exercise their 2nd amendment rights, same reason why mandating gun safes would also be a problem.
Under the president’s proposal, the FBI will hire more than 230 examiners and other personnel to help process new background checks, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new investigation center to keep track of illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
May need Congress to do this as there is money involved and possibly oversight issues.
One of the main provisions is new federal guidance requiring some occasional gun sellers to get licenses from the ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Rather than set a single threshold for what triggers this licensing requirement, it will be based on a mix of business activities such as whether the seller processes credit cards, rents tables at gun shows and has formal business cards.
This is iffy. From what I've been reading on the interwebs there is no set definition or "numbers" which trigger the licensing requirement. I don't see this surviving court challenges without better triggering requirements.
Other aspects of the president’s plan aim to bolster the FBI’s background checks system, including a push by the U.S. Digital Service to modernize its processing operations and a proposal to add 200 new ATF agents and investigators to bolster enforcement.
Really nothing noteworthy in this. Money for these 200 new agents/investigators may need Congress.
Obama will instruct federal agencies, which collectively represent the nation’s largest firearms purchaser to “explore potential ways” to promote technology that would prevent the accidental discharge or unauthorized use of a gun, according to White House officials.
This is little more than lip service to his base.
Another measure will require federally licensed gun dealers to report any lost and stolen guns to the National Crime Information Center. Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.
Doesn't sound onerous on the surface. Would need to see if there is a devil hiding in the details. Also, how would this work with the licensing trigger? Could this be used "after the fact" to entrap a non-FFL sale?
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), by contrast, issued a statement Monday saying that even without knowing the plan’s details, “the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. . . . This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it.”...
Trouser snake measuring contest begins in 3... 2... 1...
Grey Templar wrote: The cost would also be an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Adding hundreds of dollars onto the cost of each gun would effectively mean only rich people could exercise their 2nd amendment rights, same reason why mandating gun safes would also be a problem.
I don't see how that's an issue, unless the government is going to legislate how much such things should cost.
It's not an infringement of your rights if a company chooses to charge more for something that you can afford. That's just capitalism at work.
If the government(key word here) makes it a substantial burden to exercise a right they are infringing upon it. By mandating an expensive additional feature, they are infringing on your right to bear arms.
No different than if, in order to exercise any other right, they mandated you purchase an expensive something or other. What if, in order to exercise your right to free speech, you were required to purchase a megaphone and only things you spoke into that megaphone were protected by this right?
Wasn't this the argument against mandating voter ID? That it was too much of a financial burden to require them, and thus unfair to all the poor black people.
Grey Templar wrote: The cost would also be an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Adding hundreds of dollars onto the cost of each gun would effectively mean only rich people could exercise their 2nd amendment rights, same reason why mandating gun safes would also be a problem.
I don't see how that's an issue, unless the government is going to legislate how much such things should cost.
It's not an infringement of your rights if a company chooses to charge more for something that you can afford. That's just capitalism at work.
If they are forced to by government decree, however, it is.
My point isn't that accidents don't happen, it's that people who know how to respect and use firearms don't let this kind of stuff happen..
Except, as in the bit I quoted from you earlier, you made the claim that people who are trained in the use of firearms dont have those sorts of incidents.... One video was all it took to disprove that. Military and US Cops are, by pretty much any definition of the word, trained in the use of firearms. And as others have pointed out, even in the military they STILL happen.
Hell, I was on gate guard in Iraq one day when at the other gate to my base, a patrol was coming in, and a female soldier almost blew the head off of a SFC.
I personally don't use the term "accidental" unless there is a mechanical malfunction with either the firearm or the ammunition. The term negligent discharge I feel is more appropriate, because unless there was a mechanical failure, someone was at fault. Safety checking (visually and physically multiple times), mag is empty, safe direction, and if loaded finger away from the trigger at all times until ready to fire etc. etc. Pretty basic practices.
Maybe thats what he meant by the accident comment.
Grey Templar wrote: If the government(key word here) makes it a substantial burden to exercise a right they are infringing upon it. By mandating an expensive additional feature, they are infringing on your right to bear arms.
They're not mandating an expensive feature. They're mandating a feature.
Again, unless the government is regulating the price of that feature, it's entirely up to the companies selling that feature as to whether or not it's expensive.
Grey Templar wrote: If the government(key word here) makes it a substantial burden to exercise a right they are infringing upon it. By mandating an expensive additional feature, they are infringing on your right to bear arms.
They're not mandating an expensive feature. They're mandating a feature.
Again, unless the government is regulating the price of that feature, it's entirely up to the companies selling that feature as to whether or not it's expensive.
It depends on how much it costs the company to research and develop it.
Grey Templar wrote: If the government(key word here) makes it a substantial burden to exercise a right they are infringing upon it. By mandating an expensive additional feature, they are infringing on your right to bear arms.
They're not mandating an expensive feature. They're mandating a feature.
Again, unless the government is regulating the price of that feature, it's entirely up to the companies selling that feature as to whether or not it's expensive.
I assure you any biometric scanner is going to make the cost of a gun equipped with it astronomically high. Its not something you could just install in any gun either, each gun would need its own unique device to work with it as all the internals would be different from gun to gun. Even two copies of the same firearm might not be able to take the same reader because of modifications or who built it.
So everyone would have to buy a biometric scanner built for their particular firearm, multiplied by every firearm they own.
It depends on how much it costs the company to research and develop it.
What does that have to do wih the government?
You also can't mandate a product which doesn't exist.
In order to exercise your right to free speech, you must purchase a Molerath 9000. Too bad nobody makes a Molerath 9000, but you still have the right to speak freely if you can acquire one.
Grey Templar wrote: The cost would also be an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Adding hundreds of dollars onto the cost of each gun would effectively mean only rich people could exercise their 2nd amendment rights, same reason why mandating gun safes would also be a problem.
I don't see how that's an issue, unless the government is going to legislate how much such things should cost.
It's not an infringement of your rights if a company chooses to charge more for something that you can afford. That's just capitalism at work.
If they are forced to by government decree, however, it is.
Except that the commerce clause has allowed the Government to implement mileage requirements to cars without concern of existing technology or price. They could use that to force "smart" technology be developed and implemented on all new firearm manufactures. President Obama cannot mandate it via executive order and there would have to be a geo-political "earthquake" before Congress would pass such a bill.
I wish Obama would drop the guns issue. The research isn't there yet to back one side or the other as a cohesive body, and even when it does get there it will still be a huge political battle.
As a country we have decided to allow firearm ownership a certain way, meaning we also accept the mass shootings and deadliness of crime that comes with that. Because while the jury is still out on whether broad gun ownership reduces, increases, or has no effect on crime, it remains impossible to perform a drive-by stabbing. Maybe there is a reduction in overall crime to compensate that, maybe there isn't.
Personally I think guns do increase crime, because when you have a hammer, soon enough everything starts to look like a nail. But I won't claim that as anything more than personal opinion. That said, if guns increase safety then why do we go through so much effort to keep them out of airports, schools, and important events? Going by that line of logic, more guns should mean more safety, so we should be encouraging more guns being brought in if that is the case. Perhaps the political figures who support relaxing gun control should allow and encourage personal firearms at events they attend - after all they would only be owning up to their own opinion.
I do however, somewhat agree with you that each side's "studies" will always back up their preconceived ideals. BUT, I think that when you look at places like Chicago, DC and NYC, the evidence that having stricter gun control isn't a good thing. But then again, if you look at a place like Houston, it may show that having loose gun laws may not be a good thing.
One thing that I think always gets overlooked in these debates, especially from the "If you removed the highest violent crime areas from the stats in the US, the country would be on par with most other European nations" line, is the number of non-gun related factors that, IMHO should be looked at when dealing with the WHY there's violent crime. Things like economic despair and disparity, economic mobility, food security, education levels, education quality, etc. all point to there being a host of problems that some believe that if you fix those problems, you'll "fix" the perceived gun problem.
I assure you any biometric scanner is going to make the cost of a gun equipped with it astronomically high..
And given the size of the firearm industry in the US, I can assure you that if the government instituted legislation requiring them on every weapon, there would be affordable versions on the market within weeks, at most.
For most electronics, it's only the development that's expensive... Once you've successfully designed the product, actual production costs next to nothing. New technology is expensive because companies need to recoup that development cost without knowing how many units they're actually going to be able to sell. Put in place legislation that guarantees a massive market for the product, and that is suddenly not an issue and you can drop the price significantly.
smartphones don't have to resist the shock of recoil potentially tens of thousands of times. That's been one of the biggest kickers for such technology, having it reliably operate over repeated firings over long periods of time and with calibers more substantial than smaller handgun rounds has proven to be somewhat illusive, even though they've been working on such technology since the 90's.
Likewise, with how the gun industry has been so politicized, it's just as likely they'd cease production in protest.
The law in NJ that would have mandated all guns in NJ be smart guns basically killed the market for them, ensuring that nobody would be willing to sell one to trigger the law.
d-usa wrote: Unrelated to biometrics, but did micro stamping ever become a thing?
No. The proponents of it discovered that microstamping the firing pin was an incredibly asinine idea once they were informed what a firing pin actually does and how trivial it is to change.
So now they're on to microstamping ammunition. I imagine there will be some tears to come when they actually start learning about those as well.
Ultimately, these executive orders seem like a great way to spend a lot of money without doing much. Internet sales are already subject to NICS checks, as are sales at gun shows by anybody in the business of selling guns. Smart guns are a pipe dream that nobody's going to buy into. Etc.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forgive my ignorance, being a non-gun owning Brit and all that, but I'm pretty sure that guns have a safety feature on them already.
Doesn't that prevent accidental discharge?
Yes.
In the same way that having brakes on cars prevents car accidents.
Trigger guard and safety catch, of course. I was thinking the same.
The problem is that any loaded gun is inherently a dangerous item that can be set off by mistake. Even trained users sometimes make mistakes, as in any other human activity. I don't see what else could be added to a gun to make it even safer once it's actually been taken out and loaded. However I am not an engineer. Add more safety catches? How would they be retro-fitted to the millions of weapons already in circulation. Some guns already have two.
As for the biometric or other ID feature, I'm not sure what problem it is intended to solve. There really can't be very many occassions when someone grabs the gun off someone else and uses it to shoot the owner. Besides, what about situations where a gun is shared between several people, for instance a pistol for home defence. Will the user have to log into their correct account on the gun?
A national register sounds a sensible idea and certainly could be implemented at some cost. It would help to quantify the number of weapons and their distribution, and could be useful in crime investigation.
Laws to require proper safety training and a storage facility keeping gun and ammo locked and separated would be helpful in reducing accidents and suicides, but all these things are opposed by the NRA because they are afraid of government interference in having weapons.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Guns with that technology exist, but I know nothing about the reliability or cost of the tech. One obvious application would be for police forces as it would prevent their weapons being used against themselves in a struggle.
All we need is Salvester Stallone to join the police forceand we can start up a real life Judge Dredd. Thanks Obama!
I AM THE LAW!
The real constitutional issue is: he's redefining who's a "seller," and potentially mandating (depending on the article you hear) that all sellers must now have FFLs. That could potentially mean anyone who sells a firearm. An FFL is pretty onerous and can mandate inspection etc. That won't fly if that portion is true.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forgive my ignorance, being a non-gun owning Brit and all that, but I'm pretty sure that guns have a safety feature on them already.
Doesn't that prevent accidental discharge?
Not at all. There are many factors that can lead to an AI. Poorly manufactured equipment, damaged equipment and wear and tear. Human factors such as tiredness, overconfidence, complacency and bad atmospherics. Poor training and inadequate training. Then there's those weapons that straight up have design flaws. That's why all ammo incidents are investigated properly and the weapon systems isolated for inspection before apportioning blame.
Coincidentally I was in a chat with some armourer colleagues recently where they said one weapon they maintain is so bad that it's even written in the manual that upon cocking the weapon it may accidentally discharge. (They might have been talking about a US forces weapon, the details didn't seem important at the time)
Though nothing can compensate for fethknuckles who aspire to go full Blackhawk Down:
One example of an added safety feature is the gun I've currently got. The holster has a double press mechanism in order to draw it. It minimises the chance that someone else could take it off me.
For what little it's worth, when I used an M16 I remember thinking at the time it would have been significantly easier to ND with that than my normal L85.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?
Let LEO test the technology first before it's forced on everyone else. After all, they're the ones constantly shooting themselves / each other / innocent people negligently.
This is extremely true. NDAs happen to them quite a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Is there any actual good argument against requiring gun manufacturers to report weapons that are lost in transit?
None. However, absent transport robberies (something the mob does) thats not a major issue. However I am fine with that as a reasonable item.
Same to same for retailers and owners. They should report any theft or loss of firearms to the relevant local PoPo. If, while transporting all my firearms across Lake Travis, that the boat should tip and the bag fall in, well I should have to report that to the PoPo. It would be ashame if that happened.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?
How?
I har a noise. I grab my gun. The sensor on the gun says 'yep, that is my owner'. I pull the trigger.
This 'solution' does not solve that problem at all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forgive my ignorance, being a non-gun owning Brit and all that, but I'm pretty sure that guns have a safety feature on them already.
Doesn't that prevent accidental discharge?
No. Every gun is a little different as far as how the safety works. One of the more common pistols, the 1911 and it's clones, has a safety that locks the sear into place; but if you cock it and then put the safety on, if the hammer falls it will still strike the firing pin and the gun will still discharge. It shouldn't happen and it's very, very rare, but it's not impossible. There are some later changes to the 1911 that try to make it more safe, but this isn't universal even on this one firearm - my 1911 doesn't have the series 70 parts.
Two of the more common safeties: a grip safety, which is a latch in the grip of the gun which does not allow the trigger to be pulled unless the gun is being firmly gripped, and a trigger safety, which is a little curved piece in the trigger itself that is depressed as part of the trigger pull.
One of the safer designs is an internal block, which is a wall between the firing pin and primer. As part of the gun design, this block is lowered during the trigger pull process which allows the pin to actually strike the primer. If it's dropped, the pin will just hit the wall which has not been lowered because it wasn't simultaneously dropped and trigger depressed, presumably. However, this design adds some complexity (and hence less reliability) to the design.
An external manual safety is atop all of that.
None of these things are mandated by law and they all vary wildly by firearm. Some have all of them, some have some of them, I'm not aware of any guns that have none of them, but it's possible.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?
Depending on the FBI stat you use, 1mm to 2.5mm a year. Most of those stops involve mere brandishing of a firearm to deter muggers, potential rapists while not at home.
Henry wrote: One example of an added safety feature is the gun I've currently got. The holster has a double press mechanism in order to draw it. It minimises the chance that someone else could take it off me.
Not to be that pedantic guy, but that's a safety feature of your holster, not your gun And yes, those are great features - I know the NYPD has strict requirements for holsters to make it nearly impossible for someone else to pull it off a cop's hip, despite how apparently available it is. IIRC You need to pull it in, back, and up to release which is very difficult to do from the other direction.
Henry wrote: One example of an added safety feature is the gun I've currently got. The holster has a double press mechanism in order to draw it. It minimises the chance that someone else could take it off me.
Not to be that pedantic guy, but that's a safety feature of your holster, not your gun
To be completely pedantic, it's a safety feature of the weapon system.
I think he is trying to score the political point that a lot of people want something done about gun violence and Congress doesn't want to do anything. Apart from the normal antipathy towards any form of gun control, the Republican majority has a tendency to oppose anything that Obama suggests.
I think he wants to try and open up a public debate that might put some pressure on Congress.
So essentially, guns are like anything else in life - impossible to make 100% safe, which Obama probably knows.
So knowing that, he's not proposing these measure to score political points, is he?
The biometric thing is meant to limit ownership. Once the tech is 'proven' the gun control folks will try to mandate all new guns include the feature. That will shut down several manufacturers, and delay production in others. And it will raise the cost of ownership which means less new buyers (and frankly that hurts the poor more so is a really gakky thing to do). The next step would be attempting to pass laws to mandate retrofitting guns with biometric devices, which has the effect of turning millions of currently law abiding gun owners into outlaws.
Gun 'safety' and crime prevention do not figure into the equation at all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: So essentially, guns are like anything else in life - impossible to make 100% safe, which Obama probably knows.
So knowing that, he's not proposing these measure to score political points, is he?
It is true that you can't make most things absolutely safe, but that doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to minimise the risk. It will be interesting to see how he proposes to invest money to improve safety features, both in manufacture and training. It's possible that he's doing this solely for political points scoring, but given the statements he's made after many of the mass murder events I consider it more likely that he actually believes in what he's proposing (the efficacy of what he's proposing is a different question).
So essentially, guns are like anything else in life - impossible to make 100% safe, which Obama probably knows.
So knowing that, he's not proposing these measure to score political points, is he?
The biometric thing is meant to limit ownership. Once the tech is 'proven' the gun control folks will try to mandate all new guns include the feature. That will shut down several manufacturers, and delay production in others. And it will raise the cost of ownership which means less new buyers (and frankly that hurts the poor more so is a really gakky thing to do). The next step would be attempting to pass laws to mandate retrofitting guns with biometric devices, which has the effect of turning millions of currently law abiding gun owners into outlaws.
Gun 'safety' and crime prevention do not figure into the equation at all.
We've had our disagreements in recent days, but in the past, I have expressed astonishment about discovering that most American gun laws were for the purpose of preventing African-Americans from getting guns...
So, yeah, I'm inclined to agree with your point - safety is the last thing they're concerned about.
I've owned or used several dozen different weapons in my life, and not one has fired without a finger pulling the trigger. I've seen arms rooms with a few hundred firearms, and not one ever fired without someone pulling the trigger.
A gun as an object is as safe as a chainsaw as an object. Actually safer. I once burnt the crap out of my leg while walking with my not even running Stihl when the engine hit my leg. Never had that happen with a gun.
If a manufacturer wants to make Super Safe Biometric Gun and attempt to get folks to buy them, I will applaud their efforts. The Federal gov't has NO business mandating it.
Ouze wrote: Well, good news, they're not doing that!
Read my previous post.
Senator Markey has proposed legislation to do it. Some states have looked at it. New Jersey has laws for it. Now with POTUS pushing biometrics and similar tech to think he is doing so without thinking of the scenario in my previous point seems naive.
Government had no problem issuing technical mandates for technologies that don't exist. Its a good way to eliminate industries you don't like.
Green house gas standards, CAFE standards, coal pollution standards and mandated scrubber technology. Its all about regulating something right out of existence via bureaucracy.
The founding fathers could never have envisioned weapons capable of only firing when deactivated via biometric safety devices, therefore they should not be available to the public. Only LEO and military should have access to such advanced weaponry, let the general populace make do with old-fashioned tech like firing pin blocks or thumb safeties.
Sarcasm aside, the proposals aren't as harsh as I expected. I don't like them, but they aren't as extensive as I anticipated.
Grey Templar wrote: If the government(key word here) makes it a substantial burden to exercise a right they are infringing upon it. By mandating an expensive additional feature, they are infringing on your right to bear arms.
They're not mandating an expensive feature. They're mandating a feature.
Again, unless the government is regulating the price of that feature, it's entirely up to the companies selling that feature as to whether or not it's expensive.
Obama is asking the federal government to push for more biometric safeties on guns the government buys not guns sold to civilians. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce not the President. Invoking the Commerce Clause to require all gun manufacturers to install biometric safeties would require an Act of Congress it couldn't be done via executive order. The executive order is for the DoD, Joint Chiefs etc the people who set the requirements for new firearms for the military and government agencies to push for biometric safeties which could push the technology because the government is the largest purchaser of firearms. However procurement is federal spending which requires an Act of Congress and I'm not sure that any open contracts put Putin Obamas lame duck year would have any real impact on the industry.
Biometric safeties really don't make sense for military use anyway. You don't want to lose access to weapons in a firefight because the one soldier who can use it gets wounded that would be counter productive. Most military weapons can't be sold to civilians either so having biometric safeties on them isn't going to reduce crime or prevent mass shootings.
Alex C wrote: The founding fathers could never have envisioned weapons capable of only firing when deactivated via biometric safety devices, therefore they should not be available to the public. Only LEO and military should have access to such advanced weaponry, let the general populace make do with old-fashioned tech like firing pin blocks or thumb safeties.
Sarcasm aside, the proposals aren't as harsh as I expected. I don't like them, but they aren't as extensive as I anticipated.
The founding fathers were wrong on a lot of things.
James Madison believed in the militias until the British army marched through the Maryland militia and burnt down his house in 1814
They also believed that Congress, and not the executive, would be the driving force in American politics, and it was for a while...
So yeah, they were only human.
But back to the topic on hand. I believe this could be a big issue in the forth coming presidential campaign, something that could polarise the nation.
Grey Templar wrote: The cost would also be an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Adding hundreds of dollars onto the cost of each gun would effectively mean only rich people could exercise their 2nd amendment rights, same reason why mandating gun safes would also be a problem.
I don't see how that's an issue, unless the government is going to legislate how much such things should cost.
It's not an infringement of your rights if a company chooses to charge more for something that you can afford. That's just capitalism at work.
The infringement is requiring someone to purchase an item at market price in order to exercise a Constitutional right. It would be no different than requiring everyone to show up to their voting location in a hand-tailored suit.
Biometric safeties really don't make sense for military use anyway. You don't want to lose access to weapons in a firefight because the one soldier who can use it gets wounded that would be counter productive. Most military weapons can't be sold to civilians either so having biometric safeties on them isn't going to reduce crime or prevent mass shootings.
Or the biometric safety gaks the bed at the worst possible moment.
Alex C wrote: The founding fathers could never have envisioned weapons capable of only firing when deactivated via biometric safety devices, therefore they should not be available to the public. Only LEO and military should have access to such advanced weaponry, let the general populace make do with old-fashioned tech like firing pin blocks or thumb safeties.
Sarcasm aside, the proposals aren't as harsh as I expected. I don't like them, but they aren't as extensive as I anticipated.
The founding fathers were wrong on a lot of things.
James Madison believed in the militias until the British army marched through the Maryland militia and burnt down his house in 1814
They also believed that Congress, and not the executive, would be the driving force in American politics, and it was for a while...
So yeah, they were only human.
But back to the topic on hand. I believe this could be a big issue in the forth coming presidential campaign, something that could polarise the nation.
Every election issue polarizes the nation that's why they're election issues.
In regards to guns playing a major role in this year's election it would require a lot of media driven hype and extra attention because guns are a very low priority for most people. The most recent Gallup poll on important issues facing the US had only 2% of respondents being concerned with guns.
Grey Templar wrote: The cost would also be an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Adding hundreds of dollars onto the cost of each gun would effectively mean only rich people could exercise their 2nd amendment rights, same reason why mandating gun safes would also be a problem.
I don't see how that's an issue, unless the government is going to legislate how much such things should cost.
It's not an infringement of your rights if a company chooses to charge more for something that you can afford. That's just capitalism at work.
The infringement is requiring someone to purchase an item at market price in order to exercise a Constitutional right. It would be no different than requiring everyone to show up to their voting location in a hand-tailored suit.
It's a "cheaper" law, but still seems a bit relevant to the discussion:
Unless I'm mixing stuff up, there are some areas that require that all guns sold have a gun lock. Manufacturers are just throwing a lock in each box now to cover that, but that's a legislation that makes guns more expensive and it's been upheld I think. Now I know that there is just a bit of a price difference between a cheap cable lock and biometric security devices, but the effect of "raise prices" is the same.
The lock is not an integral part of the gun, and in fact in my case for example, never gets taken out of the bag it came in. I don't need that lock for the gun to function.
That is a difference that would be noticed by the courts.
CptJake wrote: I don't think it polarizes the nation, that is already the case. What it does is allows politicians to take advantage of the polarization.
Side 1: Those violent ignorant folks refuse to accept common sense gun control measures that will save countless children!
Side 2: Those evil gun grabbers want to disarm law abiding citizens, haven't you read Give a Mouse a Cookie!
It's a shame, because whilst everybody is distracted by the 2nd amendment, nobody seems to notice that the 4th has more or less disappeared.
d-usa wrote: Smartphones somehow managed to avoid sky high prices despite the addition of biometric scanners.
Smartphones being an electronic device that already has a screen for where the finger may be placed to read, a battery, hardware, etc. all ready to go and it just needs the software? In other words radically different to how a firearm operates, especially when you then factor in the effects of recoil on an electronic system.
Then we have the problems of amalgamating the electronic components with the mechanical device
Given that there is little superfluous space in pistols where do you place the biometric device?
CptJake wrote: This 'solution' does not solve that problem at all.
Rather it is a solution in search of a problem. Sometimes more complex technology is not always the answer
So essentially, guns are like anything else in life - impossible to make 100% safe, which Obama probably knows.
So knowing that, he's not proposing these measure to score political points, is he?
Perish the thought....
Alex C wrote: The founding fathers could never have envisioned weapons capable of only firing when deactivated via biometric safety devices, therefore they should not be available to the public. Only LEO and military should have access to such advanced weaponry, let the general populace make do with old-fashioned tech like firing pin blocks or thumb safeties.
Sarcasm aside, the proposals aren't as harsh as I expected. I don't like them, but they aren't as extensive as I anticipated.
CptJake wrote: I don't think it polarizes the nation, that is already the case. What it does is allows politicians to take advantage of the polarization.
Side 1: Those violent ignorant folks refuse to accept common sense gun control measures that will save countless children!
Side 2: Those evil gun grabbers want to disarm law abiding citizens, haven't you read Give a Mouse a Cookie!
It's a shame, because whilst everybody is distracted by the 2nd amendment, nobody seems to notice that the 4th has more or less disappeared.
I'm a big fan of protecting the 4th. You can find topics on Dakka where I was against things like drug testing welfare/aid recipients because I think it violates the 4th amendment. Warrantless searches and data retention piss me off as well. There is a lot of lazy police work being enabled by folks being willing to give up 4th amendment rights.
CptJake wrote: The lock is not an integral part of the gun, and in fact in my case for example, never gets taken out of the bag it came in. I don't need that lock for the gun to function.
That is a difference that would be noticed by the courts.
But it HAS to be included with the purchase of the gun and affects the price of it, which would be noticed by the courts as well. If you cannot purchase a gun without X, then it likely does not matter if it is attached to the gun itself or not.
Do we know today what the actual text says? I know we knew the "spirit" of the proposed order, but not the meat of it.
Kilkrazy wrote: As for the biometric or other ID feature, I'm not sure what problem it is intended to solve.
In theory it would have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings, since the kid who did the shooting stole the guns from his mother (who he also killed).
I say theory because I don't see a feasable, working biometric system up and running yet.
They have also shot together at the range in the past, so he would have likely been programmed as an acceptable fingerprint into whatever hypothetical system might have existed. I doubt his mom would have activated and deactivated his fingerprint every time they went to the range.
Kilkrazy wrote: As for the biometric or other ID feature, I'm not sure what problem it is intended to solve.
In theory it would have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings, since the kid who did the shooting stole the guns from his mother (who he also killed).
I say theory because I don't see a feasable, working biometric system up and running yet.
They have also shot together at the range in the past, so he would have likely been programmed as an acceptable fingerprint into whatever hypothetical system might have existed. I doubt his mom would have activated and deactivated his fingerprint every time they went to the range.
Given his mental issues and the fact that she knew about them, she may very well have. We'll never know.
You can't just buy a gun on the internet with no background check
Can gun control supporters not just take the short amount of time required to actually learn how the process currently works?
Can we stop pretending that Craigslist, forums, and other means of communication on the internet don't exist and that people aren't using them?
So yes, you can just buy a gun on the Internet without a background check.
Now, will any rules stop people from just selling privately via those means and have any means of enforcement? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend that it isn't happening.
Oh, now if we don't agree with him we don't love children or our country.
He talks about the importance of getting out to vote while ignoring the voting process on this BS executive order. He claims the majority of Americans want this while ignoring Congress, which the majority of Americans voted into power to speak for them in Washington.
Alex C wrote: Oh, now if we don't agree with him we don't love children or our country.
He talks about the importance of getting out to vote while ignoring the voting process on this BS executive order. He claims the majority of Americans want this while ignoring Congress, which the majority of Americans voted into power to speak for them in Washington.
Unbelievable.
Implying that the congressmen/women actually vote for what their constituents want
The good news is that it sounds like there isn't actually a requirement for biometric safety mechanisms, just funding and programs for developing them. I imagine that "slippery slope" arguments will take care of that though.
d-usa wrote: The good news is that it sounds like there isn't actually a requirement for biometric safety mechanisms, just funding and programs for developing them. I imagine that "slippery slope" arguments will take care of that though.
And rightfully so. The Federal gov't has no business wasting tax payer money on the research or the required bureaucracy, and you can bet if they do so, it is not just to further the technology but because they intend for it to be used, or at lest use the existence of it as basis for further regulations. Obama does not do stuff without a reason, and I think his reasoning on this is deplorable.
d-usa wrote: The good news is that it sounds like there isn't actually a requirement for biometric safety mechanisms, just funding and programs for developing them. I imagine that "slippery slope" arguments will take care of that though.
And rightfully so. The Federal gov't has no business wasting tax payer money on the research or the required bureaucracy, and you can bet if they do so, it is not just to further the technology but because they intend for it to be used, or at lest use the existence of it as basis for further regulations. Obama does not do stuff without a reason, and I think his reasoning on this is deplorable.
I don't mind the idea of R&D into biometrics but we're a long way from reliable, working models. If a biometric isn't 100% reliable then you can be certain it will be rejected by the consumer. It isn't just about keeping non-authorized people from using your firearm, it's about you being able to use your firearm in an emergency without having the biometric blocking you.
You can't just buy a gun on the internet with no background check
Can gun control supporters not just take the short amount of time required to actually learn how the process currently works?
When the Director of the FBI didn't know that background checks are performed on internet gun sales when FFLs are involved.
d-usa wrote: Can we stop pretending that Craigslist, forums, and other means of communication on the internet don't exist and that people aren't using them?
So yes, you can just buy a gun on the Internet without a background check.
Now, will any rules stop people from just selling privately via those means and have any means of enforcement? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend that it isn't happening.
So just like every other private sale between two parties not in the business of selling firearms. What makes arranging to meet online to sell a gun in person different to other private sales?
In your opinion when the POTUS talks at length about people buying guns off the internet without background checks is he exclusively talking about private sellers not engaged in the business of selling firearms who are already exempted from performing background checks?
Breotan wrote: Violent criminals hid behind trusts and corporations? Seriously?
I assume he's referring to NFA trusts.
Isn't there already a background check necessary to be added to an NFA Trust?
d-usa wrote: The good news is that it sounds like there isn't actually a requirement for biometric safety mechanisms, just funding and programs for developing them. I imagine that "slippery slope" arguments will take care of that though.
I'm sure it will be as successful as the programs we gave money for to research solar power
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
So the police can now start to shout "I AM THE LAW" with their biometric pistols?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Implying that the congressmen/women actually vote for what their constituents want
So if you do not believe that "congressmen/women actually vote for what their constituents want" then what is the solution? Do you feel that Executive Orders are "what their constituents want"?
And in other news the ATF just made it easier to obtain NFA items by removing the requirement that a CLEO sign off on it, and now NFA items may be inherited without the change in ownership being considered a transfer under the NFA laws
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
d-usa wrote: The good news is that it sounds like there isn't actually a requirement for biometric safety mechanisms, just funding and programs for developing them. I imagine that "slippery slope" arguments will take care of that though.
I'm sure it will be as successful as the programs we gave money for to research solar power
Apparently we can also expect to see guns featuring GPS locators and childproof triggers.
Meh, this will stand until the first time it is challenged in court by someone penalized by it, no one can do anything about it until then. But time wise that will most likely be after Obama leaves office and the new Prez either ends it or keeps ii. Definitely made Hillary's campaign that much harder, not that most gun owners/buyers were going to vote her way anyway so I guess that's a benefit. Did you love the alligator tears.
wut? (warning, biased source/writer of couse, but... dang!!)
Yay! Obama’s Executive Orders Make It Easier To Get Machine Guns Unable to ram his attacks on the Second Amendment through Congress, a bitter Barack Obama has been reduced to pushing his Executive Branch powers to the the breaking point with a series of “executive orders” that the White House finally outlined last night.
They range from open lies, to empty threats, to harassment, to a few things that might actually be very beneficial to some gun owners, to a Orwellian scheme that could get many law enforcement officers and military servicemen killed.
Let’s jump right into what these executive orders outline, and separate Obama’s bluster from reality by dissecting his so-called “fact sheet.”
Everybody’s a gun dealer… or you know, not
The President began his series of executive orders with what I’m interpreting as little more than “just words.”
Today, the Administration is announcing the following executive actions to ensure that all gun dealers are licensed and run background checks, and to strengthen the background check system itself:
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.
The law defining “engaged in the business” is very, very clear (PDF).
…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. A dealer can be “engaged in the business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does 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
Neither Obama nor his petty Attorney General can merely set aside the law on a whim, as much as it pains their totalitarian little hearts. Loretta Lynch’s assertion that she can charge someone for merely selling one or two firearms is a bald-faced lie.
Let’s talk about those machine guns!
When is a “loophole” not a loophole? When it’s just more cheap Obama theatrics.
Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
Obama wants to make everyone in so-called NFA trusts under-go finger-printing and background checks. This is an intentional annoyance to inconvenience law-abiding citizens who are already required to be law-abiding citizens in these trusts. This spiteful act has nothing whatsoever to do with stopping crimes committed with NFA firearms, as NFA weapons are simply not used in crimes. There have been precisely two instances of NFA registered firearms being used in criminal homicides in the past 82 years. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning while riding a unicycle and juggling cats than being killed with a legal machine gun.
But here’s what just happened that Obama won’t brag about to the media; the ATF just eliminated chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign off from the NFA process, making it easier to acquire silencers, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and items classified as “any other weapon.” CLEO sign-off has been a major impediment in many states where owning NFA weapons is perfectly legal, but anti-gun sheriffs and police chiefs have been able to block their citizens from obtaining NFA items by simply refusing to sign-off on their acquiring items that they were otherwise qualified to own.
This arbitrary roadblock has now been eliminated. [whembly: !!! wut? WTF?! o.O]
While there is still much to be figured out in the days to come, it appears that Obama has eliminated most of the need for NFA trusts for most people, and it should actually be easier to acquire machine guns and silencers for more people across the country.
Thanks, Barack. you screwed up and did something right.
We’re going to have a talk, or something
Obama’s entire administration has been one of “just words.” His point about providing better information to the NICS background check is more of the same.
Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting. Congress has prohibited specific categories of people from buying guns—from convicted felons to users of illegal drugs to individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress also created incentives for States to make as many relevant records as possible accessible to NICS. Over the past three years, States have increased the number of records they make accessible by nearly 70 percent. To further encourage this reporting, the Attorney General has written a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified for mental health reasons, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence. The Administration will begin a new dialogue with States to ensure the background check system is as robust as possible, which is a public safety imperative.
Letters are nice, but funding is the problem. If Obama was serious about getting more information into NICS databases he would find a way to increase funding to the states so they can hire more people to upload the data.
Here’s an idea: maybe he could find the funding if he stopped importing and supporting thousands of unvetted foreign refugees containing dozens of hidden ISIS terrorists, or providing billions of dollars in aid to nations that hate us.
Crazy, right?
Holy crap! I’m the best gun salesman EVER
Barack Obama’s most stunning accomplishment as President is the number of guns he’s sold. At least one-third of all guns in the United States today were sold during the first seven years of the Obama Administration, and he’s not done yet.
To support the massive increase in gun sales and demand on the NICS background check database, he’s going to have to hire hundreds of more people to do background checks and keep the system running smoothly.
Make the background check system more efficient and effective. In 2015, NICS received more than 22.2 million background check requests, an average of more than 63,000 per day. By law, a gun dealer can complete a sale to a customer if the background check comes back clean or has taken more than three days to complete. But features of the current system, which was built in the 1990s, are outdated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will take the following steps to ensure NICS operates more efficiently and effectively to keep guns out of the wrong hands:
FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks. This new hiring will begin immediately and increase the existing workforce by 50 percent. This will reduce the strain on the NICS system and improve its ability to identify dangerous people who are prohibited from buying a gun before the transfer of a firearm is completed.
FBI has partnered with the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) to modernize NICS. Although NICS has been routinely upgraded since its launch in 1998, the FBI is committed to making the system more efficient and effective, so that as many background checks as possible are fully processed within the three-day period before a dealer can legally sell a gun even if a background check is not complete. The improvements envisioned by FBI and USDS include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.
This was another clear win for gun owners. Twice he’s done something right… but don’t expect it to last.
Now’s when I, Barack Obama, lie again. Big time.
The saddest part of Obama’s legacy is his penchant for security theater. He has no intention of making the United States safer, as that would reduce the need for more government, and more government is clearly his dream.
Here’s were he throws shade, asserting that he’s going to do something about gun crime, but what he’s actually doing is focusing on harassing law-abiding citizens.
Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws. In a call earlier today, the Attorney General discussed the importance of today’s announcements and directed the Nation’s 93 U.S. Attorneys across the country to continue to focus their resources—as they have for the past several years under the Department’s Smart on Crime initiative—on the most impactful cases, including those targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms traffickers, and dangerous individuals who bypass the background check system to acquire weapons illegally. During the call, the Attorney General also emphasized ongoing initiatives to assist communities in combating violent crime, including ATF’s efforts to target the “worst of the worst” gun crimes. These efforts will also complement the following actions announced today:
The President’s budget for FY2017 will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators who can help enforce our gun laws, including the measures announced today. Strategic and impactful enforcement will help take violent criminals off the street, deter other unlawful activity, and prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands
ATF is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). The NIBIN database includes ballistic evidence that can be used by analysts and investigators to link violent crimes across jurisdictions and to track down shooters who prey on our communities. In February 2016, ATF is standing up the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally. These enhancements will support ATF’s crime gun intelligence and enforcement efforts, particularly in communities most affected by violent crime.
ATF has established an Internet Investigations Center (IIC) staffed with federal agents, legal counsel, and investigators to track illegal online firearms trafficking and to provide actionable intelligence to agents in the field. The IIC has already identified a number of significant traffickers operating over the Internet. This work has led to prosecutions against individuals or groups using the “dark net” to traffic guns to criminals or attempting to buy firearms illegally online.
These additional ATF investigators will be used to harass gun dealers, nitpicking at their record keeping. They will do little or nothing when it comes to going after criminals, unless setting up the mentally-challenged for criminal convictions is your idea of “law enforcement.”
If Obama was intent on putting bad guys in jail, would have instead directed monies towards prosecution in the Department of Justice. Instead, prosecutions have dropped substantially in Obama’s DOJ.
Barack Obama doesn’t want to stop real gun crime. He’s instead allowing violent criminals to go un-prosecuted, or get away with minimal sentences instead of putting them away.
The part where he’ll harass crime victims
Gun theft from dealers and distributors is a horrible thing, but it happens. Typically, it occurs when a criminal in a shipping company decides that he’s going to pick off an gun or two and see if anyone notices. As shipping companies typically have very good tracking systems, these guys are typically picked up pretty quickly… though getting the DOJ to actually prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law is another story entirely, as noted above.
Instead of going after the criminals, Obama’s going to do more to harass the victims.
Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns. Under current law, federal firearms dealers and other licensees must report when a gun from their inventory has been lost or stolen. The regulations are ambiguous, however, about who has this responsibility when a gun is lost or stolen in transit. Many lost and stolen guns end up being used in crimes. Over the past five years, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a licensee that claimed it never received the gun even though it was never reported lost or stolen either. Today, ATF issued a final rule clarifying that the licensee shipping a gun is responsible for notifying law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.
Hey, her skirt was too short. She was asking for it. He didn’t tell us he was a victim fast enough, so let’s go after him instead of the gun thief.
Right?
The part where he feigns interest in protecting women
Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts. In the event of an emergency, victims of domestic violence should call 911 or otherwise contact state or local law enforcement officials, who have a broader range of options for responding to these crimes. To provide an additional resource for state, local, and tribal law enforcement and community groups focused on domestic violence, the Attorney General is issuing a memo directing U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to engage in renewed efforts to coordinate with these groups to help combat domestic violence and to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.
You know what consistently stops domestic abuse? A dense metal projectile moving through the cardiovascular or central nervous systems of the offender. As men are on average 15% heavier and stronger than women, a firearm is the best option they have in defending themselves, and many women have done just that. [whembly: ]
But Obama doesn’t really care about putting these dirtbags down with justifiable self-defense shootings or even warning them away, which is how most defensive gun uses play out. He’d rather have another few thousand defenseless women end up like Carol Bowne.
The part where the President talks about mental illness
There’s a mix of bad-to-awful in this section, and we’ll see how it all plays out.
Dedicate significant new resources to increase access to mental health care. Despite our recent significant gains, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. To address this, the Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to help engage individuals with serious mental illness in care, improve access to care by increasing service capacity and the behavioral health workforce, and ensure that behavioral health care systems work for everyone. This effort would increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.
Funding mental health initiatives is always a good thing. If this initiative actually provides care, then it will be worthwhile.
Unfortunately, there is every reason to suspect that under this Administration that the goal is to merely ensure that more people are labeled as mentally ill to deny them gun rights without getting them any actual help. This is incredibly cynical, and will not help save lives.
The part where he used the Social Security Administration as a weapon
Obama has been consistent in his attempts to use the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to deny citizens their gun rights if they have been declared unable to take care of their affairs.
Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
If we were only talking about people with advanced dementia who were seeing ghosts and could be considered a legitimate threat to themselves or others, then that would potentially be a good move… but that’s not what this is.
Obama is casting his net as wide as possible to ensnare folks who have short-term memory loss issues, who are recovering from strokes, etc. If, for any reason, you cannot “manage your own affairs” on even a temporary basis, a faceless government bureaucrat can strip you of your constitutional rights under this despicable plot.
This isn’t just spiteful, it’s abusive.
Trust us, we’re from the government
The devil is going to be in the details on this one…
Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.
Expect the Obama Administration to attempt to use temporary problems—people who enter into one-time treatment to deal with personal trauma or bereavement issues—to create lifetime bans on gun ownership.
Once again, evil.
And now, blather about the smart guns
Every totalitarian on Earth would love nothing more or less than the ability to render every gun in the nation inert with the press of a computer key, or disabling the guns of selected groups of foes at least. Tyrants could then easily disarm the citizenry, or an military or law enforcement unit that rose in opposition to them, with the flip of a switch.
Did I mention Obama wants to force that sort of technology on the military and federal law enforcement?
Here it is.
Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to take two important steps to promote smart gun technology.
Increase research and development efforts. The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
Promote the use and acquisition of new technology. The Presidential Memorandum also directs the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety. In connection with these efforts, the departments will consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.
We’ve been looking at “smart gun” technologies for more than six decades.
In each and every instance, we circle back to the same inescapable reality that adding needless complexity to weapons will cause them to fail and cost the lives of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, along with police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and federal agents.
These technologies are incredibly fragile novelties, unfit for use in military, law enforcement, or civilians contexts outside of tinkering and amusement. We know this. We’ve known this.
Forcing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to use and acquire these infant technologies will get good people killed.
But it makes tyrants happy.
In summary
Barack Obama has done nothing with his executive order that will have any impact on the single greatest cause of criminal homicides in this nation. The sad acceptance of a “thug culture” that revels in music, film, and a street life that glorifies the use and trafficking of illicit drugs, celebrates “getting by” instead of succeeding, cheapens work and family, and glorifies criminal violence as a way of life is the greatest determent to slashing the current record low per-capita murder rate to even lower levels.
Unfortunately, to target that would be to admit that welfare socialism, the linchpin that holds the progressive wing of the Democrat party together, is an utter failure. No progressive Democrat could ever admit that. They’d rather millions die first… and they have.
Hopefully, the Republican-controlled Congress will stop many of these harmful executive actions by simply refusing to fund the offending initiatives, and run out the clock on Obama’s lame duck Presidency.
Beyond that, it’s up to the American voters to decide whether they want to elect one of the several Republican candidates who have already said they will fight against more gun control, or if they will instead vote for one of three Democrats who have publicly pledged to gut the Second Amendment.
Ultimately, the choice is yours.
Besides the whole fearmongering bits, I think I just laughed out aloud in my office if that EO stands that we could purchase NFA items w/o signoffs from local po po.
d-usa wrote: Smartphones somehow managed to avoid sky high prices despite the addition of biometric scanners.
Smartphones being an electronic device that already has a screen for where the finger may be placed to read, a battery, hardware, etc. all ready to go and it just needs the software? In other words radically different to how a firearm operates, especially when you then factor in the effects of recoil on an electronic system.
Then we have the problems of amalgamating the electronic components with the mechanical device
Given that there is little superfluous space in pistols where do you place the biometric device?
Alex C wrote: Oh, now if we don't agree with him we don't love children or our country.
He talks about the importance of getting out to vote while ignoring the voting process on this BS executive order. He claims the majority of Americans want this while ignoring Congress, which the majority of Americans voted into power to speak for them in Washington.
Unbelievable.
Implying that the congressmen/women actually vote for what their constituents want
Also implying that there is not ridiculous amounts of gerrymandering going on, to the point where voting is effectively useless.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate ReleaseJanuary 04, 2016
FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer
Gun violence has taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country. Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence—and millions more have been the victim of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun. Many of these crimes were committed by people who never should have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. Over the same period, hundreds of thousands of other people in our communities committed suicide with a gun and nearly half a million people suffered other gun injuries. Hundreds of law enforcement officers have been shot to death protecting their communities. And too many children are killed or injured by firearms every year, often by accident. The vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of gun owners—believe we must take sensible steps to address these horrible tragedies.
The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence. Some of the gaps in our country’s gun laws can only be fixed through legislation, which is why the President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people. And while Congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand background checks and reduce gun violence, today, building on the significant steps that have already been taken over the past several years, the Administration is announcing a series of commonsense executive actions designed to:
1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.
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.
ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.
2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.
The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws.
The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.
ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.
The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.
The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.
The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.
The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.
4. Shape the future of gun safety technology.
The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.
The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
Congress should support the President’s request for resources for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws, as well as a new $500 million investment to address mental health issues.
Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do.
New Actions by the Federal Government
Keeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands Through Background Checks
The most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence is to make sure those who would commit violent acts cannot get a firearm in the first place. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was created by Congress to prevent guns from being sold to prohibited individuals, is a critical tool in achieving that goal. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the background check system has prevented more than 2 million guns from getting into the wrong hands. We know that making the system more efficient, and ensuring that it has all appropriate records about prohibited purchasers, will help enhance public safety. Today, the Administration is announcing the following executive actions to ensure that all gun dealers are licensed and run background checks, and to strengthen the background check system itself:
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.
Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting. Congress has prohibited specific categories of people from buying guns—from convicted felons to users of illegal drugs to individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress also created incentives for States to make as many relevant records as possible accessible to NICS. Over the past three years, States have increased the number of records they make accessible by nearly 70 percent. To further encourage this reporting, the Attorney General has written a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified for mental health reasons, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence. The Administration will begin a new dialogue with States to ensure the background check system is as robust as possible, which is a public safety imperative.
Make the background check system more efficient and effective. In 2015, NICS received more than 22.2 million background check requests, an average of more than 63,000 per day. By law, a gun dealer can complete a sale to a customer if the background check comes back clean or has taken more than three days to complete. But features of the current system, which was built in the 1990s, are outdated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will take the following steps to ensure NICS operates more efficiently and effectively to keep guns out of the wrong hands:
FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks. This new hiring will begin immediately and increase the existing workforce by 50 percent. This will reduce the strain on the NICS system and improve its ability to identify dangerous people who are prohibited from buying a gun before the transfer of a firearm is completed.
FBI has partnered with the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) to modernize NICS. Although NICS has been routinely upgraded since its launch in 1998, the FBI is committed to making the system more efficient and effective, so that as many background checks as possible are fully processed within the three-day period before a dealer can legally sell a gun even if a background check is not complete. The improvements envisioned by FBI and USDS include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.
Making Our Communities Safer from Gun Violence
In order to improve public safety, we need to do more to ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws and make sure that criminals and other prohibited persons cannot get their hands on lost or stolen weapons. The Administration is therefore taking the following actions:
Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws. In a call earlier today, the Attorney General discussed the importance of today’s announcements and directed the Nation’s 93 U.S. Attorneys across the country to continue to focus their resources—as they have for the past several years under the Department’s Smart on Crime initiative—on the most impactful cases, including those targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms traffickers, and dangerous individuals who bypass the background check system to acquire weapons illegally. During the call, the Attorney General also emphasized ongoing initiatives to assist communities in combating violent crime, including ATF’s efforts to target the “worst of the worst” gun crimes. These efforts will also complement the following actions announced today:
The President’s budget for FY2017 will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators who can help enforce our gun laws, including the measures announced today. Strategic and impactful enforcement will help take violent criminals off the street, deter other unlawful activity, and prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands
ATF is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). The NIBIN database includes ballistic evidence that can be used by analysts and investigators to link violent crimes across jurisdictions and to track down shooters who prey on our communities. In February 2016, ATF is standing up the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally. These enhancements will support ATF’s crime gun intelligence and enforcement efforts, particularly in communities most affected by violent crime.
ATF has established an Internet Investigations Center (IIC) staffed with federal agents, legal counsel, and investigators to track illegal online firearms trafficking and to provide actionable intelligence to agents in the field. The IIC has already identified a number of significant traffickers operating over the Internet. This work has led to prosecutions against individuals or groups using the “dark net” to traffic guns to criminals or attempting to buy firearms illegally online.
Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns. Under current law, federal firearms dealers and other licensees must report when a gun from their inventory has been lost or stolen. The regulations are ambiguous, however, about who has this responsibility when a gun is lost or stolen in transit. Many lost and stolen guns end up being used in crimes. Over the past five years, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a licensee that claimed it never received the gun even though it was never reported lost or stolen either. Today, ATF issued a final rule clarifying that the licensee shipping a gun is responsible for notifying law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.
Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts. In the event of an emergency, victims of domestic violence should call 911 or otherwise contact state or local law enforcement officials, who have a broader range of options for responding to these crimes. To provide an additional resource for state, local, and tribal law enforcement and community groups focused on domestic violence, the Attorney General is issuing a memo directing U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to engage in renewed efforts to coordinate with these groups to help combat domestic violence and to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.
Increase Mental Health Treatment and Reporting to the Background Check System
The Administration is committed to improving care for Americans experiencing mental health issues. In the last seven years, our country has made extraordinary progress in expanding mental health coverage for millions of Americans. This includes the Affordable Care Act’s end to insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, required coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services in the individual and small group markets, and an expansion of mental health and substance use disorder parity policies, all of which are estimated to help more than 60 million Americans. About 13.5 million more Americans have gained Medicaid coverage since October 2013, significantly improving access to mental health care. And thanks to more than $100 million in funding from the Affordable Care Act, community health centers have expanded behavioral health services for nearly 900,000 people nationwide over the past two years. We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment—and make sure that these individuals and their families know they are not alone. While individuals with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, incidents of violence continue to highlight a crisis in America’s mental health system. In addition to helping people get the treatment they need, we must make sure we keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited by law from having them. Today, the Administration is announcing the following steps to help achieve these goals:
Dedicate significant new resources to increase access to mental health care. Despite our recent significant gains, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. To address this, the Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to help engage individuals with serious mental illness in care, improve access to care by increasing service capacity and the behavioral health workforce, and ensure that behavioral health care systems work for everyone. This effort would increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.
Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.
Shaping the Future of Gun Safety Technology
Tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by firearms every year—in many cases by guns that were sold legally but then stolen, misused, or discharged accidentally. Developing and promoting technology that would help prevent these tragedies is an urgent priority. America has done this in many other areas—from making cars safer to improving the tablets and phones we use every day. We know that researchers and engineers are already exploring ideas for improving gun safety and the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Millions of dollars have already been invested to support research into concepts that range from fingerprint scanners to radio-frequency identification to microstamping technology.
As the single largest purchaser of firearms in the country, the Federal Government has a unique opportunity to advance this research and ensure that smart gun technology becomes a reality—and it is possible to do so in a way that makes the public safer and is consistent with the Second Amendment. Today, the President is taking action to further this work in the following way:
Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to take two important steps to promote smart gun technology.
Increase research and development efforts. The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
Promote the use and acquisition of new technology. The Presidential Memorandum also directs the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety. In connection with these efforts, the departments will consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.
I'd definitely like to know more about that, but otherwise I am clearly optimistic. There are things in there that conservatives have been asking for forever.
So DoD gets to waste precious resources researching 'gun safety' technology and will be put under pressure to include requirements for this tech into the requirements portion of the acquisition process.
The new Army handgun program just got a lot more expensive, will deliver later, and produce a worse weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alex C wrote: I'm vary wary of how vague the language is around determining who is "a dealer" and who isn't.
From everything I have read so far, it can be as little and 1 or 2 guns sold through 1 or 2 transactions.
How is the common gun owner supposed to know how to go about a gun sale with such vague language and thresholds?
Currently the ATF defines dealer/engaged in the practice through published regulatory definitions, which I suspect will now be redefined to better conform with POTUS intent.
Yes, often people on the right are concerned with the military getting good value from tax dollars, I try to say with a straight face.
I don't see anything wrong with researching technology to try and prevent negligent discharges, if possible - presumably it will only prove possible on a single unified platform.
Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights? By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun. I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
Ouze wrote: Yes, often people on the right are concerned with the military getting good value from tax dollars, I try to say with a straight face.
I don't see anything wrong with researching technology to try and prevent negligent discharges, if possible - presumably it will only prove possible on a single unified platform.
I'm about as conservative/right as anyone on Dakka, and I have ragged on DoD spending more than once. I know plenty of folks who feel the same. Don't confuse Big Defense Republicans with all folks on the right.
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
Frazzled wrote: Government had no problem issuing technical mandates for technologies that don't exist. Its a good way to eliminate industries you don't like.
Green house gas standards, CAFE standards, coal pollution standards and mandated scrubber technology. Its all about regulating something right out of existence via bureaucracy.
It's also a good way to stimulate development in industries you do like, e.g. aviation, computing, nuclear.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
Considering that the exact purpose of the order is to provide a concrete definition, from people more qualified to come up with it, that is probably very likely.
Complaining that "the order to come up with a new definition doesn't have the new definition already in it" just seem extra silly, even for OT standards.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
Considering that the exact purpose of the order is to provide a concrete definition, from people more qualified to come up with it, that is probably very likely.
Complaining that "the order to come up with a new definition doesn't have the new definition already in it" just seem extra silly, even for OT standards.
…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. A dealer can be “engaged in the business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does 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 ...
Frazzled wrote: Government had no problem issuing technical mandates for technologies that don't exist. Its a good way to eliminate industries you don't like.
Green house gas standards, CAFE standards, coal pollution standards and mandated scrubber technology. Its all about regulating something right out of existence via bureaucracy.
It's also a good way to stimulate development in industries you do like, e.g. aviation, computing, nuclear.
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.
I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
Considering that the exact purpose of the order is to provide a concrete definition, from people more qualified to come up with it, that is probably very likely.
Complaining that "the order to come up with a new definition doesn't have the new definition already in it" just seem extra silly, even for OT standards.
…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. A dealer can be “engaged in the business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does 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 ...
Seems pretty clear to me... right?
"You purchased and sold 73 guns last year and made quite a profit, why didn't you run any background checks."
"I just have a big collection and I'm always trying to trade with other collectors and buy new guns and sell old ones as I'm tweaking my collection."
Almost like "occasional" isn't a very clear thing at all and can be interpreted very broadly in either direction. Kind of like people are already doing pretending that Obama is going to require you to run a background check if you give a gun to your son.
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
Don't think crew served weapons, think the new Army handgun (about to begin the acquisition process now).
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.
I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.
Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.
The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.
I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.
Cpt'n... shirly you should've checked to see if the reciepiants also has insurance. 'Cuz, god forgive if they were to get into an accident or use it to commit a crime... it could haunt you.
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.
The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.
Just imagine ISIS with a bunch of useless fear that they squired from Iraq.
Although truthfully, I would imagine that military application (if it were to happen) would probably utilize RFID technology over biometric technology.
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
Don't think crew served weapons, think the new Army handgun (about to begin the acquisition process now).
True but most troops don't get issued a handgun and making sidearms locked to one user is a needless hassle for logistics. Is there some big problem with soldiers using other soldiers' sidearms to commit crimes or something going on? I don't see what problem that solves it just makes logistics harder because now you'll have to change the biometrics every time the pistol gets issued to someone else.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
Considering that the exact purpose of the order is to provide a concrete definition, from people more qualified to come up with it, that is probably very likely.
Complaining that "the order to come up with a new definition doesn't have the new definition already in it" just seem extra silly, even for OT standards.
…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. A dealer can be “engaged in the business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does 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 ...
Seems pretty clear to me... right?
"You purchased and sold 73 guns last year and made quite a profit, why didn't you run any background checks."
"I just have a big collection and I'm always trying to trade with other collectors and buy new guns and sell old ones as I'm tweaking my collection."
Almost like "occasional" isn't a very clear thing at all and can be interpreted very broadly in either direction. Kind of like people are already doing pretending that Obama is going to require you to run a background check if you give a gun to your son.
It is clear.
In your scenario, is he selling those guns with "the principal objective of livelihood and profit"?
d-usa wrote: Almost like "occasional" isn't a very clear thing at all and can be interpreted very broadly in either direction. Kind of like people are already doing pretending that Obama is going to require you to run a background check if you give a gun to your son.
I was asking for clarification on if that was the case or not. As a gun owner who may or may not want to sell/trade/gift a gun at some point in the future, I'm trying to stay informed of what all this exactly means for me, but apparently this whole thing is work in progress so we don't know yet.
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.
The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.
Just imagine ISIS with a bunch of useless fear that they squired from Iraq.
Although truthfully, I would imagine that military application (if it were to happen) would probably utilize RFID technology over biometric technology.
I think you're right about that. My point was less "Biometrics are perfect for military application" and more "The example you're putting forward is a very poorly and narrowly considered case. It's like you haven't thought through what the steps in actually implementing such a thing would be and have deiced to run with the worst version you can think of off the top of your head so you can laugh it off".
he made $5,00 last year, but says he is just a collector buying and selling. He just finds cheap deals for his collections and knows how to liquidate items he no longer needs for his collection at a premium. Can't a private collector make a profit selling and buying guns?
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.
I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.
Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?
You're partially correct (and I'm old and forgetful) Looking back, I did provide a bill of sale I typed and printed, leaving the $$$ blank in one case of selling. In one case the buyer had a generic bill of sale and we put in the odometer reading and my name/address. Never needed a notary. The two we gave away I honestly do not recall doing a bill of sale. Maybe the recipients made one up, frankly I never asked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.
The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.
The amount of gear captured from our troops in combat is negligible.The gear they captured in Iraq was abandoned in warehouses when we pulled the troops out. Unissued rifles wouldn't be set up with biometric or RFID locks yet. Considering the people we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have gunsmiths forging guns from scratch I don't think the locks we put on them would be an insurmountable obstacle.
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
This line of thought is off topic and will be reported.
d-usa wrote: Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.
It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?
Don't think crew served weapons, think the new Army handgun (about to begin the acquisition process now).
True but most troops don't get issued a handgun and making sidearms locked to one user is a needless hassle for logistics. Is there some big problem with soldiers using other soldiers' sidearms to commit crimes or something going on? I don't see what problem that solves it just makes logistics harder because now you'll have to change the biometrics every time the pistol gets issued to someone else.
The issue is the Army will be procuring a gak ton of pistols. And the Fed LEAs do as well. What you may see is the Feds/DoD adding availability to include the tech into the requirements process, and will end up increasing the cost of the procurement and basically subsidizing the cost of the tech.
Once the tech is readily available, expect states (see the NJ smart gun law as an example) and the ATF to start looking at mandating new manufacture guns include the tech...
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.
I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.
Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?
You're partially correct (and I'm old and forgetful) Looking back, I did provide a bill of sale I typed and printed, leaving the $$$ blank in one case of selling. In one case the buyer had a generic bill of sale and we put in the odometer reading and my name/address. Never needed a notary. The two we gave away I honestly do not recall doing a bill of sale. Maybe the recipients made one up, frankly I never asked.
.
d-usa wrote: he made $5,00 last year, but says he is just a collector buying and selling. He just finds cheap deals for his collections and knows how to liquidate items he no longer needs for his collection at a premium. Can't a private collector make a profit selling and buying guns?
If he's a serious collector he probably already has his Curio & Relic 03 FFL.
d-usa wrote: he made $5,00 last year, but says he is just a collector buying and selling. He just finds cheap deals for his collections and knows how to liquidate items he no longer needs for his collection at a premium. Can't a private collector make a profit selling and buying guns?
Yup.
Just as long as the profit isn't his "principal objective of livelihood and profit".
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
I need a gun to protect myself from home invaders, muggers and rabid dogs.
If the school let me, I would own a gun and have it on campus, especially after the mugging and robbery of an entire dorm building here.
Alex C wrote: So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.
How is this "common sense"?
Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.
If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.
I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.
Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?
You're partially correct (and I'm old and forgetful) Looking back, I did provide a bill of sale I typed and printed, leaving the $$$ blank in one case of selling. In one case the buyer had a generic bill of sale and we put in the odometer reading and my name/address. Never needed a notary. The two we gave away I honestly do not recall doing a bill of sale. Maybe the recipients made one up, frankly I never asked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
The bait is real!
No bait my opnion on it. Why have a item you never intend to use? When dealing with a device which only purpose is to end a human life and was created to end human life easly. Guns where made to kill and autos where made for millitary to kill mass groups easly. Having a weapon that is designed to kill humans in a social group is a threat.
It is like someone collecting active bombs and saying I have a right to collect them I want to be safe and I wont use them. One mental break and... Ya. With the culture becoming more he hurt my feelings i can use extreme force it is becoming a bigger problem.
This thread is for discussing the executive orders proposed by President Obama. The general value of owning firearms is not appropriate for this thread.
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
Good thing you are a Canadian subject and have absolutely no ability to influence changing the Bill of Rights. Pick up that can citizen. Now back to the thread and implications of the new EOs such as they are.
Ouze wrote: This thread is for discussing the executive orders proposed by President Obama. The general value of owning firearms is not appropriate for this thread.
I will add this then I think any bill put forward to limit the number of guns not used for hunting, and bullets for said guns is a step in theright direction. Hope this one passes, if they slowly upgrade the bill over several decades maybe what I like will be implemented.
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
The bait is real!
No bait my opnion on it. Why have a item you never intend to use? When dealing with a device which only purpose is to end a human life and was created to end human life easly. Guns where made to kill and autos where made for millitary to kill mass groups easly. Having a weapon that is designed to kill humans in a social group is a threat.
It is like someone collecting active bombs and saying I have a right to collect them I want to be safe and I wont use them. One mental break and... Ya. With the culture becoming more he hurt my feelings i can use extreme force it is becoming a bigger problem.
Most gun owners frequently use their guns without killing anyone. Full auto firearms are strictly regulated and very difficult and expensive to obtain. Civilian versions of military weapons are all semiauto. There are numerous semi automatic hunting rifles on the market and a "hunting rifle" is just as lethal and dangerous as an "assault rifle." The definitions of each are arbitrary and meaningless. If you personally don't want to own firearms that's fine but you're not going to take that right away from law abiding citizens just because they frighten you.
Ouze wrote: This thread is for discussing the executive orders proposed by President Obama. The general value of owning firearms is not appropriate for this thread.
I will add this then I think any bill put forward to limit the number of guns not used for hunting, and bullets for said guns is a step in theright direction. Hope this one passes, if they slowly upgrade the bill over several decades maybe what I like will be implemented.
This isn't a bill these aren't new laws. These are executive orders that are very limited in scope and effectiveness. Executive orders only affect the implementation and enforcement of federal laws by federal agencies that report to the president. They are not new laws and do not change the wording or meaning of existing laws.
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
The bait is real!
No bait my opnion on it. Why have a item you never intend to use? When dealing with a device which only purpose is to end a human life and was created to end human life easly. Guns where made to kill and autos where made for millitary to kill mass groups easly. Having a weapon that is designed to kill humans in a social group is a threat.
It is like someone collecting active bombs and saying I have a right to collect them I want to be safe and I wont use them. One mental break and... Ya. With the culture becoming more he hurt my feelings i can use extreme force it is becoming a bigger problem.
Most gun owners frequently use their guns without killing anyone. Full auto firearms are strictly regulated and very difficult and expensive to obtain. Civilian versions of military weapons are all semiauto. There are numerous semi automatic hunting rifles on the market and a "hunting rifle" is just as lethal and dangerous as an "assault rifle." The definitions of each are arbitrary and meaningless. If you personally don't want to own firearms that's fine but you're not going to take that right away from law abiding citizens just because they frighten you.
But if the law changes and people do not abide by them in their owning of said weapons does that mean they are still law abiding? Like those peope who refused to do their job in the millitary because they decided mr obama was not their chief.
I am not sure how to multi quote. Sry.
I admit I do not know the difference but I was watch cnn and they where saying it would limit the ammount of bullets your allowed to buy. Also limit the bullets you can buy to the guns you have registered.
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
The bait is real!
No bait my opnion on it. Why have a item you never intend to use? When dealing with a device which only purpose is to end a human life and was created to end human life easly. Guns where made to kill and autos where made for millitary to kill mass groups easly. Having a weapon that is designed to kill humans in a social group is a threat.
It is like someone collecting active bombs and saying I have a right to collect them I want to be safe and I wont use them. One mental break and... Ya. With the culture becoming more he hurt my feelings i can use extreme force it is becoming a bigger problem.
Most gun owners frequently use their guns without killing anyone. Full auto firearms are strictly regulated and very difficult and expensive to obtain. Civilian versions of military weapons are all semiauto. There are numerous semi automatic hunting rifles on the market and a "hunting rifle" is just as lethal and dangerous as an "assault rifle." The definitions of each are arbitrary and meaningless. If you personally don't want to own firearms that's fine but you're not going to take that right away from law abiding citizens just because they frighten you.
But if the law changes and people do not abide by them in their owning of said weapons does that mean they are still law abiding? Like those peope who refused to do their job in the millitary because they decided mr obama was not their chief.
I am not sure how to multi quote. Sry.
I admit I do not know the difference but I was watch cnn and they where saying it would limit the ammount of bullets your allowed to buy. Also limit the bullets you can buy to the guns you have registered.
A)... there's no plans to limit the amount of bullets. B)... there is no "gun registry", outside of NFA items.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.
Alex C wrote: Ah, excuse me, I was under the impression that this order was actually trying to do something.
Apparently there's even less meat to it than I gave it credit for.
You had high hopes from someone who surrounded himself with survivors of mass shootings so he could propose Executive Orders that would have done nothing to prevent these mass shootings?
OgreChubbs wrote: All guns should be banned except for millitary use.
The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.
Thank you for your opinion. The law of the land here disagrees with you, as do the actions of millions of law abiding Americans who are able to enjoy possessing an inanimate object without harming anyone. You are attempting to drag a productive thread off topic and I would respectfully request that you stick to the topic at hand, that is the Executive Orders that have just been announced and their effect, rather than retread the old ground of "guns should be banned except for hunting" which is usually the hallmark of an incoming thread lock.
If we as a community can also stop rising to obvious bait it will help reduce the need for productive threads to end in flames, Moderator action, and locks.
Now that I think about it, thats a big deal. Literally anyone who tries to sell a firearm could now be considered a seller. Unless they had a full on FFL prior to that, they could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Lets say the local city has a voluntary firearms buyback, like LA does occasionally. Just from that presser, I could theoretically be charged and sent to jail/fined $250,000 if I wanted to sell an old firearm to the city.
Frazzled wrote: Now that I think about it, thats a big deal. Literally anyone who tries to sell a firearm could now be considered a seller. Unless they had a full on FFL prior to that, they could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Lets say the local city has a voluntary firearms buyback, like LA does occasionally. Just from that presser, I could theoretically be charged and sent to jail/fined $250,000 if I wanted to sell an old firearm to the city.
I'm not sure that's how i'd read it...
Are you supposing that any seller, must have a FFL?
If so, then that's a backdoor gun registry and elevates a higher barrier amongst the poor to get their FFL.
Frazzled wrote: Now that I think about it, thats a big deal. Literally anyone who tries to sell a firearm could now be considered a seller. Unless they had a full on FFL prior to that, they could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Lets say the local city has a voluntary firearms buyback, like LA does occasionally. Just from that presser, I could theoretically be charged and sent to jail/fined $250,000 if I wanted to sell an old firearm to the city.
That's why I want to see the details before I make up my mind on it. Look at what happened in Washington State with the background check legislation for transfers. Before voting many people did not realize that transfer did not mean sale, that it meant transfer and now handing your hunting buddy your rifle so you could navigate an obstacle out in the great outdoors was now a felony as there was no FFL to conduct a background check.
Frazzled wrote: Just from that presser, I could theoretically be charged and sent to jail/fined $250,000 if I wanted to sell an old firearm to the city.
Frazzled wrote: Ok, maybe thats a point of clarity. Does a "Seller" as defined, have to have an FFL? I thought so. Am I incorrect?
Incorrect.
The current law is very clear. Only FFL gun dealers are required to conduct background checks, and only sellers whose “principal objective of livelihood and profit is the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” are required to obtain a FFL. Anyone “who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms” is specifically exempted from the licensing requirement.
That's why I want to see the details before I make up my mind on it. Look at what happened in Washington State with the background check legislation for transfers. Before voting many people did not realize that transfer did not mean sale, that it meant transfer and now handing your hunting buddy your rifle so you could navigate an obstacle out in the great outdoors was now a felony as there was no FFL to conduct a background check.
Its very much like selling morphine to people. Yes it is completely harmless by itself, but once you put into someones hands it gets dangerous under certain circumstances. But it should be illegal (Which it is if you are not liscensed to sell them.)
Plus this way it takes the responsibilities of the gun selling off the manufacturers and places it on the sellers.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.
IT already is a case, IT is expensive to own a gun
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Look at what happened in Washington State with the background check legislation for transfers. Before voting many people did not realize that transfer did not mean sale, that it meant transfer and now handing your hunting buddy your rifle so you could navigate an obstacle out in the great outdoors was now a felony as there was no FFL to conduct a background check.
There is definitely a lot of confusion.
Just when the law applies remains up in the air. Mitch Barker, executive director for the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, told the Associated Press that he doesn't think it would prevent somebody from just examining another person's gun, but he admits that part will have to be clarified. On the other hand, Dave Kopel, a prominent firearms expert and adjunct professor at the University of Denver's law school, thinks the plain language of the law does apply to simply holding somebody else's firearm.
Frazzled wrote: Ok, maybe thats a point of clarity. Does a "Seller" as defined, have to have an FFL? I thought so. Am I incorrect?
Incorrect.
The current law is very clear. Only FFL gun dealers are required to conduct background checks, and only sellers whose “principal objective of livelihood and profit is the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” are required to obtain a FFL. Anyone “who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms” is specifically exempted from the licensing requirement.
1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.
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.
And this:
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.
According to the BBC the EO means that all sales of firearms must have a background check performed (although it also errs in fact about the exemptions)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35236630
The executive actions include:
Background checks for all gun sellers, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
States providing information on people disqualified from buying guns due to mental illness or domestic violence
Increased workforce for the FBI to process background checks, hiring more than 230 new examiners
Congress being asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare in the US
The departments of defence, justice and homeland security exploring "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety
If this EO now means that all sales by private citizens not ordinarily engaged in the business of selling firearms must have a background check then that is not a measure that I feel is appropriate.
That's why I want to see the details before I make up my mind on it. Look at what happened in Washington State with the background check legislation for transfers. Before voting many people did not realize that transfer did not mean sale, that it meant transfer and now handing your hunting buddy your rifle so you could navigate an obstacle out in the great outdoors was now a felony as there was no FFL to conduct a background check.
Its very much like selling morphine to people. Yes it is completely harmless by itself, but once you put into someones hands it gets dangerous under certain circumstances. But it should be illegal (Which it is if you are not liscensed to sell them.)
Plus this way it takes the responsibilities of the gun selling off the manufacturers and places it on the sellers.
As a private citizen not engaged in the business of selling firearms I am permitted to sell a firearm without being obliged to conduct a background check. I have no such protection for selling morphine. Your comparison is a false one.
It was never the responsibility of the manufacturers to conduct background checks to begin with. Only those deriving their income from the business of selling firearms was required to conduct an NICS background check. Private sellers not ordinarily engaged in the practice of selling firearms were exempt from the necessity of carrying out a background check.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to
So its fair game to apply the same restrictions and TRAP type laws to guns than it is to abortion rights, which is also constitutionally protected. Which is what this sounds like.
"Its still 'legal" but we're going to make you jump through 23094203984 hoops to get it"
WrentheFaceless wrote: So its fair game to apply the same restrictions and TRAP type laws to guns than it is to abortion rights, which is also constitutionally protected. Which is what this sounds like.
"Its still 'legal" but we're going to make you jump through 23094203984 hoops to get it"
WrentheFaceless wrote: So its fair game to apply the same restrictions and TRAP type laws to guns than it is to abortion rights, which is also constitutionally protected. Which is what this sounds like.
"Its still 'legal" but we're going to make you jump through 23094203984 hoops to get it"
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.
IT already is a case, IT is expensive to own a gun
I would argue that the Heller and McDonald decisions by SCOTUS have shown that it is unconstitutional for Federal or state governments to impose restrictions or requirements on firearms ownership that are so onerous as to be de facto bans and deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights without due process.
OgreChubbs wrote: But if the law changes and people do not abide by them in their owning of said weapons does that mean they are still law abiding? Like those peope who refused to do their job in the millitary because they decided mr obama was not their chief.
Where are these examples of people in the military who refused to do their jobs?
Frazzled wrote: Ok, maybe thats a point of clarity. Does a "Seller" as defined, have to have an FFL? I thought so. Am I incorrect?
Incorrect.
The current law is very clear. Only FFL gun dealers are required to conduct background checks, and only sellers whose “principal objective of livelihood and profit is the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” are required to obtain a FFL. Anyone “who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms” is specifically exempted from the licensing requirement.
1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.
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.
And this:
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.
If that's the interpretation, then Obama is effectively re-writing the law.
Frazzled wrote: Ok, maybe thats a point of clarity. Does a "Seller" as defined, have to have an FFL? I thought so. Am I incorrect?
'As Defined' makes no difference. As it WILL be defined is what matters now. ATF defines it in regulations (I posted a link to how they currently define it earlier).
As a private citizen not engaged in the business of selling firearms I am permitted to sell a firearm without being obliged to conduct a background check. I have no such protection for selling morphine. Your comparison is a false one.
It was never the responsibility of the manufacturers to conduct background checks to begin with. Only those deriving their income from the business of selling firearms was required to conduct an NICS background check. Private sellers not ordinarily engaged in the practice of selling firearms were exempt from the necessity of carrying out a background check.
No you don't but you have the responsiblity to report any stolen weapons, and be responsible for illegally selling weapons to those do not have a liscense. That is the application I see of this bill.
You have a responsiblity to know your customer, yes you will not be charged, but you could be fined for selling it someone who doesn't own a liscense, or anything like that.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So its fair game to apply the same restrictions and TRAP type laws to guns than it is to abortion rights, which is also constitutionally protected. Which is what this sounds like.
"Its still 'legal" but we're going to make you jump through 23094203984 hoops to get it"
You are assuming that I agree with either.
Wasnt assuming you agreed with it, just an observation about the situation
Those on the right shouldnt be surprised that the left is going to use their own tactics against them about something they put on a pedestal above all other things
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.
IT already is a case, IT is expensive to own a gun
I would argue that the Heller and McDonald decisions by SCOTUS have shown that it is unconstitutional for Federal or state governments to impose restrictions or requirements on firearms ownership that are so onerous as to be de facto bans and deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights without due process.
except this isnt a banned designed to make guns unavailable, but technology to, supposedly, make sure only the owner can use it
Granted, with how easy it is for people to just hack phones, I bet these guns will just create a mild inconvienance.
Lynch insisted Monday that the new guidance on the gun show loophole sets "clear, definitive standards" for anyone who wants to sell firearms. However, the new guidance does not include a specific number of guns that must be sold to qualify as a dealer, since existing law does not specify a number.
However, court rulings have set a precedent that says a person could sell as few as one or two guns and still be considered a dealer, depending on the circumstances. For instance, Lynch explained, if an individual sells a gun clearly for profit, or if they buy and sell a gun kept in its original packaging, they may be considered a dealer.
So if you buy a gun on a whim, don't fire it, and want to sell it (as perhaps your only firearm sale all year) then you may now be considered a dealer. I'm glad that we now have such "clear, definitive standards"...
Frazzled wrote: Ok, maybe thats a point of clarity. Does a "Seller" as defined, have to have an FFL? I thought so. Am I incorrect?
'As Defined' makes no difference. As it WILL be defined is what matters now. ATF defines it in regulations (I posted a link to how they currently define it earlier).
AS Defined means Seller is a legally defined term of art under the legislation that requires FFLs. (We're agreeing FYI)
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.
IT already is a case, IT is expensive to own a gun
I would argue that the Heller and McDonald decisions by SCOTUS have shown that it is unconstitutional for Federal or state governments to impose restrictions or requirements on firearms ownership that are so onerous as to be de facto bans and deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights without due process.
except this isnt a banned designed to make guns unavailable, but technology to, supposedly, make sure only the owner can use it
Granted, with how easy it is for people to just hack phones, I bet these guns will just create a mild inconvienance.
Because you know everyone hacks their phones. Technical expertise is not as common as one might think for the average gun owner. Having several skills such as owning a gun, knowing how to bypass security protocols and purchasing a gun are not all going to line up as much as one would think.
Thats......stupid. Like really stupid.
People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it?
By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.
Asherian Command wrote: No you don't but you have the responsiblity to report any stolen weapons, and be responsible for illegally selling weapons to those do not have a liscense. That is the application I see of this bill.
You have a responsiblity to know your customer, yes you will not be charged, but you could be fined for selling it someone who doesn't own a liscense, or anything like that.
You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).
WrentheFaceless wrote: Wasnt assuming you agreed with it, just an observation about the situation
Those on the right shouldnt be surprised that the left is going to use their own tactics against them about something they put on a pedestal above all other things
Assuming that only those on the right own firearms. But if you think that the best way to run a country is on the basis of tu quoque then that is your prerogative.
As a private citizen not engaged in the business of selling firearms I am permitted to sell a firearm without being obliged to conduct a background check. I have no such protection for selling morphine. Your comparison is a false one.
It was never the responsibility of the manufacturers to conduct background checks to begin with. Only those deriving their income from the business of selling firearms was required to conduct an NICS background check. Private sellers not ordinarily engaged in the practice of selling firearms were exempt from the necessity of carrying out a background check.
No you don't but you have the responsiblity to report any stolen weapons, and be responsible for illegally selling weapons to those do not have a liscense. That is the application I see of this bill.
You have a responsiblity to know your customer, yes you will not be charged, but you could be fined for selling it someone who doesn't own a liscense, or anything like that.
You don't need a license to buy a gun.
Anyone who has a 01 or 02 Federal Firearms License has to conduct a background check on the buyer when selling a firearm. Some states, like mine, allow people to use an active Concealed Carry License as proof of a clean background in lieu of doing a NICS check but everyone with a dealer FFL has to conduct a background check regardless of where they sell the firearm, gun show or brick and mortar shop. There is no legal way to buy a gun via an online sale from a dealer without going through a background check. If I buy a gun via an online sale from a gun store that store is legally required to ship the gun to another FFL where I then have to pick up the gun after passing a background check. There is no legal way for a dealer to sell a gun online to a citizen without having that buyer get a background check.
If you have an 03 C&R FFL you can get any eligible C&R firearm shipped directly to you without going through a background check because you have an FFL. However, an 03 license is not a dealer license and cannot be used in lieu of a dealer license to run a business. You also have to keep detailed records of the firearms you buy or sell via your 03 FFL and those records can be examined by the ATF while you have an active 03 FFL.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats......stupid. Like really stupid. People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it? By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.
Difference is that a gun is a weapon, and your selling hobbyist models. They are not a weapon or weapons, they are collectables. A gun is useless without its bullets, but it is still a weapon. IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?
So oh I have all these morphine or focus drugs that I have from my days in the hosptial or when I had ADD to focus on school work, If I sell them that is illegal, I would be fined and thrown in prison.
Not all logic like that makes sense all the time.
Wow this reminds me of the movie Lord of War with nicholas cage.
You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).
Wait a second.
So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?
What the hell.
God America, the rest of the world seems much better now and more inclined to move on from mass paranoia. What is this country living in the 50s?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, are people actually arguing that making a gun more expensive is an infringement upon our rights?
By that logic, if you want to buy a gun, the government has to provide it to you because its to expensive for you to own. Yes, yu have the right to own a gun, but you dont HAVE to own a gun.
I want a gun, but Im poor, so is my right being infringed on?
No one is saying that. Making it so expensive as to prohibit most people exercising that right to serve as a bar to entry from most people exercising that right is what is being objected to.
IT already is a case, IT is expensive to own a gun
I would argue that the Heller and McDonald decisions by SCOTUS have shown that it is unconstitutional for Federal or state governments to impose restrictions or requirements on firearms ownership that are so onerous as to be de facto bans and deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights without due process.
except this isnt a banned designed to make guns unavailable, but technology to, supposedly, make sure only the owner can use it
Granted, with how easy it is for people to just hack phones, I bet these guns will just create a mild inconvienance.
No it isn't. Read the executive order:
Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to take two important steps to promote smart gun technology.
Increase research and development efforts. The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
Promote the use and acquisition of new technology. The Presidential Memorandum also directs the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety. In connection with these efforts, the departments will consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.
The "smart gun" provision only applies to the guns being procured by the federal government. Since procurement is federal spending it requires an Act of Congress to buy smart guns so the executive order still needs Congressional support to actually have any effect. Even if Congress agreed that the military and all armed federal agencies needed smart guns it still has NO EFFECT on guns sold to civilians. There is no law that requires gun manufacturers to only sell "smart guns." No executive order can mandate that manufacturers do so because executive orders can't create new laws.
IF Congress chose to pass a new law requiring that gun manufacturers only sell smart guns, which isn't currently feasible, such an action could be challenged in court because passing a federal law that creates a de facto ban on exercising your 2nd Amendment rights has been ruled as unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats......stupid. Like really stupid.
People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it?
By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.
Difference is that a gun is a weapon, and your selling hobbyist models. They are not a weapon or weapons, they are collectables. A gun is useless without its bullets, but it is still a weapon. IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?
So oh I have all these morphine or focus drugs that I have from my days in the hosptial or when I had ADD to focus on school work, If I sell them that is illegal, I would be fined and thrown in prison.
Not all logic like that makes sense all the time.
Wow this reminds me of the movie Lord of War with nicholas cage.
You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).
Wait a second.
So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?
What the hell.
God America, the rest of the world seems much better now and more inclined to move on from mass paranoia.
US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.
So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?
What the hell.
God America, the rest of the world seems much better now and more inclined to move on from mass paranoia.
So America is at fault because you don't understand the laws as they relate to firearms? What permit was required for your modelling software, because right now it looks like you are stringing together a lot of unrelated examples to make a very poorly expressed point.
US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.
Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?
Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?
If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.
America is at fault because you don't understand the laws as they relate to firearms? What permit was required for your modelling software, because right now it looks like you are stringing together a lot of unrelated examples to make a very poorly expressed point.
I just think it is stupid that I have to have buy a permit for anything like a modelling software or photoshop. The fact that gun owners do not need to buy one is kind of hilarious, and more of, you guys haven't moved on from that idea of constantly under threat. Or under the assumption that guns = safety.
We need to buy liscenses in order to sell our materials or to do anything in the game design field. There is free software but at the same time why would you use a hammer on a screw?
We can practice it but we won't get anywhere, we can't digitially possess something unless we own it ourselves under IP laws. Or we are doing it for educational needs. Building permits for example are needed for just about everything unless! You are involved with a charity or live in unincorpoated area of a county.
So I do think it is a tad bit silly that I need a permit to build a ramp or a railing, but I don't need one for a gun.
Asherian Command wrote: IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?
Selling to a minor is already illegal. Selling to a 'gang banger' is illegal (assuming you mean known criminal when you use the term gang banger). You would already be prosecuted if you got caught doing those things.
US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.
Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?
Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?
If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.
A threat of invasion has nothing to do with my right to own firearms.
Not sure what your problem with firearm ownership is. Most of the people in my neighborhood own guns. We're all good people, we all get along, owning guns has never caused a problem. I'm not afraid of my neighbors or my coworkers or my friends that own guns, they've never given me any reason to be.
US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.
Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?
Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?
If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.
Your statement has nothing to do with the quote you were replying to. Were you trying to reply to another quote?
US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.
Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?
Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?
If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.
A threat of invasion has nothing to do with my right to own firearms.
Not sure what your problem with firearm ownership is. Most of the people in my neighborhood own guns. We're all good people, we all get along, owning guns has never caused a problem. I'm not afraid of my neighbors or my coworkers or my friends that own guns, they've never given me any reason to be.
No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?
The constituion originally put it down because they the congress believed that the militia or the people were going to be the standing military. So they allowed people to bare arms, and also because they didn't at the time have the power to so NO Guns because alot of people hunted and gathered as the US was a frontier country at the time. I don't think they were thinking "This is a permanent thing where it is okay to own an armory." I think it is gone from owning a single gun or two to people owning a bit too much. But that doesn't mean no one can own a gun, just be limited to how many are sold on the market, and to have a check into peoples backgrounds so they aren't crazy.
I ask these questions because I am trying to understand the need to own a gun. I don't own a gun, because I have no need for it, there is no good reason to own it. It would just be an expense or would waste space and being an unneeded hazard.
If there is no specific niche need, other than collection why be so adamant on keeping so many guns in circulation or sale? You don't want background checks to prevent people who are nefarious to use a gun for nefarious or violent means? If the current system is not working to prevent mass shootings don't you think it should be regulated in someway? Yeah there will be illegal gun sellers, but there is already enough guns in the united states to give one to each person. I am not angery just more curious and framing that as a question.
Selling to a minor is already illegal. Selling to a 'gang banger' is illegal (assuming you mean known criminal when you use the term gang banger). You would already be prosecuted if you got caught doing those things.
Good, then that wraps that conversation up nicely.
Your statement has nothing to do with the quote you were replying to. Were you trying to reply to another quote?
US citizens have never needed a license to buy a gun. We've managed just fine for the last 239 and there's no compelling reason pressuring any of our governmental representatives to overturn centuries of case law enshrining our right to keep and bear arms.
Is there really any threat to the united states of mass invasion?
Or by an attack by foreign powers or by terrorist cells?
If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.
A threat of invasion has nothing to do with my right to own firearms.
Not sure what your problem with firearm ownership is. Most of the people in my neighborhood own guns. We're all good people, we all get along, owning guns has never caused a problem. I'm not afraid of my neighbors or my coworkers or my friends that own guns, they've never given me any reason to be.
No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?
Who are you to determine the validity of this "need"?
You mean like;
- Texas Garland attack?
- San Bernardino attack?
- planned New York attack on New Years Eve?
Those attacks or planned attacks from the past 7 months?
Asherian Command wrote: If you are exercising your right to bare arms thats well and good, but at the same time we are living in an age where the united states is the safest country on the planet. You aren't going to have a foreign power attacking the united states. Because it is too big to invade.
I am still able to bear arms for self defense. Or sport. Or hunting
Asherian Command wrote: I ask these questions because I am trying to understand the need to own a gun. I don't own a gun, because I have no need for it, there is no good reason to own it. It would just be an expense or would waste space and being an unneeded hazard.
Great for you that you can decide for yourself not to exercise that right. That does not mean however that because you do not want to exercise that right that you can strip it from other people who can and do exercise their right
Asherian Command wrote: I just think it is stupid that I have to have buy a permit for anything like a modelling software or photoshop. The fact that gun owners do not need to buy one is kind of hilarious, and more of, you guys haven't moved on from that idea of constantly under threat. Or under the assumption that guns = safety.
We need to buy liscenses in order to sell our materials or to do anything in the game design field. There is free software but at the same time why would you use a hammer on a screw?
We can practice it but we won't get anywhere, we can't digitially possess something unless we own it ourselves under IP laws. Or we are doing it for educational needs. Building permits for example are needed for just about everything unless! You are involved with a charity or live in unincorpoated area of a county.
Let me clear this up for you a software license =/= a government license.
Ordinarily I would have said let me see some evidence that we should have moved on from the assumption that "guns = safety", but that is drifting us into dangerous waters and away from the topic at hand - the Executive Orders announced today. If you would like to discuss guns generally then perhaps you should find or create a more suitable thread for that purpose. Accordingly I will not be replying to any more of your off topic posts in this thread to prevent it being dragged further off topic.
The Bill of Rights, including Freedom of Speech, are not predicated on what you need. Its what you already have.
Because I am curious. Other than a personal need is there really anyway to say it is anything but a want or something that you could easily do without?
Ordinarily I would have said let me see some evidence that we should have moved on from the assumption that "guns = safety", but that is drifting us into dangerous waters and away from the topic at hand - the Executive Orders announced today. If you would like to discuss guns generally then perhaps you should find or create a more suitable thread for that purpose.
Oh I think the executive order is bad and good. It has certain things that are dumb. Like the smart gun research. And then the background checks being justified.
I am just trying to figure out if people are afraid of background checks or there being more ATF agents.
offtopic:
You mean like; - Texas Garland attack? - San Bernardino attack? - planned New York attack on New Years Eve?
Those attacks or planned attacks from the past 7 months?
No. Those were handled by police forces, and FBI. Why worry if you are nowhere in trouble.
I mean an executive order or not, I think it is justified to circumvent a terrible congress that has done nothing for the past year. I am also one who thinks that we live in a oligarchy and not a republic.
Who are you to determine the validity of this "need"?
I am not I am just asking what need and why? I can't judge people because of their way of life.
My way of life is about industrial and creativity and problem solving, I have no need for guns because of my industry and my place in the world.
You mean like;
- Texas Garland attack?
- San Bernardino attack?
- planned New York attack on New Years Eve?
Those attacks or planned attacks from the past 7 months?
No. Those were handled by police forces, and FBI. Why worry if you are nowhere in trouble.
I mean an executive order or not, I think it is justified to circumvent a terrible congress that has done nothing for the past year. I am also one who thinks that we live in a oligarchy and not a republic.
That should never be justified.
EO isn't meant to circumvent congress.
Jeebus... that'll be Obama's legacy... a legacy of Presidential Overreach.
Can you imagine of Republican President doing the same sort of things? President Cruz/Trump?
Asherian Command wrote: [No I am just trying to understand why would you have the need to own a gun?
It's irrelevant to this thread, so please stop dragging this off-topic.
True true stopping discussion O.O
Can you imagine of Republican President doing the same sort of things? President Cruz/Trump?
Hahahahaha.
Irony.
Executive decisions can happen and they do happen. Alot more than you think, and they are usually unconstitutional. I am not surprised. Almost every president in history has done it. (well almost every there are always going to be exceptions)
Teddy, Abraham lincoln, Jackson, Theodore, Eisenhower, Nickson, and Bush.
Trump has already proven he's willing to gak all over the 1st and 4th Amendments. Sadly a lot of people seem to agree with him.
Usually ignoring him and his policies will ensure he won't get more popular.
The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.
Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....
The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.
Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....
If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.
I'm curious about this, not from a perspective as to what he's doing, but as to the various reactions of the posters here.
Are you objecting to this proposal because;
a. He's bypassing congress
b. He's trying to impose additional regulations on Gun Ownership
c. The proposal actually does nothing because the laws already exist but they're not enforced
d. You think the next step is to ban guns completely
e. NIMBYism
The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.
Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....
If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.
This. The government can't really 'waste' money on new toys. The government is one of the best customers anyone can hope to have, and most certainly the US Government buys a lot of guns
AndrewC wrote: I'm curious about this, not from a perspective as to what he's doing, but as to the various reactions of the posters here.
Are you objecting to this proposal because;
a. He's bypassing congress
In part yes. I am not a fan of Executive Orders, regardless of which POTUS issues them
AndrewC wrote: b. He's trying to impose additional regulations on Gun Ownership
None of which would have stopped any of the attacks he mentioned, and in fact has muddied the waters on who is required to perfer background checks
AndrewC wrote: c. The proposal actually does nothing because the laws already exist but they're not enforced
In part yes, many of the laws currently relating to firearms are not adequately enforced
AndrewC wrote: d. You think the next step is to ban guns completely
Do I think that his next step is banning guns completely? No. Do I trust someone to support the Second Amendment when he openly praised the Australian model of removing guns from citizens? No.
The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.
Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....
If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.
This. The government can't really 'waste' money on new toys. The government is one of the best customers anyone can hope to have, and most certainly the US Government buys a lot of guns
Yup, all those highly responsible folks in the Secret Service need those guns to protect the guy in the White House who likes to lecture the general populace all about how guns are bad, mmkay.
The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.
Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....
If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.
This. The government can't really 'waste' money on new toys. The government is one of the best customers anyone can hope to have, and most certainly the US Government buys a lot of guns
Yup, all those highly responsible folks in the Secret Service need those guns to protect the guy in the White House who likes to lecture the general populace all about how guns are bad, mmkay.
And former presidents.
And presidential candidates.
And foreign embassies.
And foreign heads of state that come to visit.
And the banks and monetary systems of our nation.
But hey, let's pretend that the 4,000+ officers of the Secret Service only exist to guard Obama.
The EOs are forcing a change upon you that is best illustrated by the earlier OT interlude from a Canadian poster. I'm not American, I currently live in a country with even more 'liberal' gun control laws than you. I don't see a problem with these new regulations, BUT I don't live there it's not my 'back yard' and I'm not so emotionally invested in the outcome.
Perhaps nimby was a poor choice to express that sentiment, my apologies.
AndrewC wrote: The EOs are forcing a change upon you that is best illustrated by the earlier OT interlude from a Canadian poster.
I'm not American, I currently live in a country with even more 'liberal' gun control laws than you. I don't see a problem with these new regulations, BUT I don't live there it's not my 'back yard' and I'm not so emotionally invested in the outcome.
Perhaps nimby was a poor choice to express that sentiment, my apologies.
Cheers
Andrew
More discussion on whether you approve of the right to bear arms is off topic so I am not going to encourage it. What I will say though is that I'm not American either, but I live here and I have little regard for laws that inconvenience the law abiding while doing nothing to solve the purported problem. The only good that I can see coming from these EOs is that more funding is going to mental health services (~60% of deaths by firearm are suicide) and that mental health issues will be better reported to the NICS which will strengthen protections against improper persons passing background checks.
Perhaps that's the tactics behind it? A variation of throwing enough mud in the hope that some sticks? The more onerous propositions get weeded out over the term, and the other less onorous, get through by default. For example the increased spending on mental health that congress may have objected to if it was presented in isolation?
Relapse wrote: I totaly agree with the mental health angle.
Most do, except for a select few, there aren't many people who are going to say "But mental health isn't an issue"
*Que donald trump*
I think mental health has always been an issue in the united states. Well apart from healthcare, but thats another beast entirely.
Mental Health needs to be changed up quite a bit, especially the approach most people have to it and how people regard people with depression etc etc.
Its a laundry list, and I find it far more pressing than the gunlaws as someone has mentioned most gun related deaths are caused by suicide.
Perhaps that's the tactics behind it? A variation of throwing enough mud in the hope that some sticks? The more onerous propositions get weeded out over the term, and the other less onorous, get through by default. For example the increased spending on mental health that congress may have objected to if it was presented in isolation?
Probably
But knowing our congress they wouldn't of come up with something like this, or anything to do with mental health or gun control. Which is always a two side debate for some reason.
But eh digressing.
I do think alot of the action does make alot of sense but some of it just waste of resources.
The whole Smartgun thing seems like it is just going to introduce unneeded complexity. It will be probably a week or two before someone finds an illicit way around whatever is put in place as a security feature, while creating a huge pitfall of extra reasons why your gun won't work when you need it to. Are we thinking a finger print reader? What if you drop your weapon at some point and there's mud, or it's raining, or you are being assaulted so you can't get a clear read? Or are we talking some kind of DNA scan in the grip? RFID bracelet?
It all just seems like introducing a large number of potential points of failure in the legitimate use of guns while criminals will simply disable or buy versions of guns without these features.
If limiting accidental discharges is the goal - don't chamber a round until you plan on firing it. Pretty much 100% effective and chambering a round is faster than a fingerprint scan.
You wouldn't even need to reprogram anything to get around this as a safety feature. Any sort of biometric safety will still have a physical method of preventing the gun from firing, all you need to do is take the gun apart and disable that.
Bromsy wrote: The whole Smartgun thing seems like it is just going to introduce unneeded complexity. It will be probably a week or two before someone finds an illicit way around whatever is put in place as a security feature, while creating a huge pitfall of extra reasons why your gun won't work when you need it to. Are we thinking a finger print reader? What if you drop your weapon at some point and there's mud, or it's raining, or you are being assaulted so you can't get a clear read? Or are we talking some kind of DNA scan in the grip? RFID bracelet?
It all just seems like introducing a large number of potential points of failure in the legitimate use of guns while criminals will simply disable or buy versions of guns without these features.
If limiting accidental discharges is the goal - don't chamber a round until you plan on firing it. Pretty much 100% effective and chambering a round is faster than a fingerprint scan.
That's why everyone involved professionally in the defensive gun use training world speaks negatively of "smart" guns. There's just way too much nonsense associated with it for every little payoff. Fingerprint scanners or something biometic in the grip? Better not have blood or mud or dirt or whatever on your hands. Better hope your wife never needs to use it. Etc.
Accidental discharges aren't a problem we need to be solving. They done been solved. They're so exceedingly rare we might as well start investing in technology to prevent unicorn attacks. Negligent discharges are the problem, and technology's not going to stop those.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control. Kudos to Obama for at least trying.
Also I think this piece from the Daily Show kinda hits the nail on the head...
When you say things like "we are long overdue for some kind of gun control" do you mean in addition to all the gun control we already have, or do you think that up until this point there have been no laws regulating guns?
Also, as much as I generally like the daily show, that video is pretty terrible.
I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.
Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Not to mention frankly unnecessary beyond what we have now. If you are truly so lost as to not remember the four rules (The ones listed in that little book you read to learn how to take the gun apart.) or even the basic sense of "If the hole points at me and my finger gets on the trigger there may be a big ol hole in me" then sitting in front of someone droning in monotone for an hour and a piece of paper isn't going to help you. To keep this from veering off topic: How would a "Smart gun" improve the situation in any meaningful way?
To manage to shoot oneself barring outright mechanical failure, several things MUST be true: There must be a round chambered. It must be pointed at some part of your body. Something must also be activating the trigger. Even -INCLUDING- mechanical failure that spontaneously fires the weapon, it must still be pointed at some point of your body (Which begs the question as to WHY you are pointing a gun at yourself.) In the case of most existing designs where the owner wears a ring, presumably he is still wearing it, thus deactivating the safety assuming that the tech is reliable in the first place.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?
Heard of Form 4473? Again to keep this on topic: Assuming it were not illegal for a centralized database of gun owners and their guns to be maintained, the idea of remote electronic tracking (and possibly deactivation) is appealing on exactly zero levels. None.
Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Not to mention frankly unnecessary beyond what we have now. If you are truly so lost as to not remember the four rules (The ones listed in that little book you read to learn how to take the gun apart.) or even the basic sense of "If the hole points at me and my finger gets on the trigger there may be a big ol hole in me" then sitting in front of someone droning in monotone for an hour and a piece of paper isn't going to help you. To keep this from veering off topic: How would a "Smart gun" improve the situation in any meaningful way?
To manage to shoot oneself barring outright mechanical failure, several things MUST be true: There must be a round chambered. It must be pointed at some part of your body. Something must also be activating the trigger. Even -INCLUDING- mechanical failure that spontaneously fires the weapon, it must still be pointed at some point of your body (Which begs the question as to WHY you are pointing a gun at yourself.) In the case of most existing designs where the owner wears a ring, presumably he is still wearing it, thus deactivating the safety assuming that the tech is reliable in the first place.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?
Heard of Form 4473? Again to keep this on topic: Assuming it were not illegal for a centralized database of gun owners and their guns to be maintained, the idea of remote electronic tracking (and possibly deactivation) is appealing on exactly zero levels. None.
Would safety training be so bad,?
Quite possibly, depending on specifics.
What specifics would make additional gun training so bad? I am curious.
Its a laundry list, and I find it far more pressing than the gunlaws as someone has mentioned most gun related deaths are caused by suicide
It's worth noting, though, that in other countries where major gun control laws were enacted, while the gun suicide rate dropped, the overall suicide rate did not. People just chose different methods.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.
What would safety training accomplish? Injury rates for owning a gun are extremely low, far lower than, say, owning a pool, using a ladder, storing harmfuul chemicals in easy access to children, etc. When you purchase a firearm, you do in fact need to demonstrate knowledge of both firearm safety rules and how the firearm functions. Adding some sort of class would only add unnecessary fees and inconveniences to the buyer. And it's not like it will stop stupid people from being stupid any more than ecisting requirements do.
Similarly, what would the serial numbers really accomplish? Most firearms used in crime are stolen, and it's more difficult to link a particular firearm to a particular bullet and to a particular shooter than tv police procedural shows let on. Meanwhile, a lot of gun owners are super uncomfortable with gun ownership being either public knowledge, or suddenly being put on something that's barely one step removed from a goverment watch list. Considering the controversies surrounding FBI and NSA privacy violations in other areas, does it suprise you that people don't want to be on a politically controversial list? As much as the redneck "guvment gunna take my guns" sentiment gets made fun of, it has happened before.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.
Should folks be forced to attend mandatory training on how to safely exercise their right to free speech? Should that be a Federal Gov't issue? Maybe mandatory training on child proofing homes and swimming pools, accidents are killing kids at appalling rates. No way folks should b allowed to have kids in their homes, even as guests without the Feds certifying they are safe, right?
Spoiler:
I knew all I needed to about gun safety by the time I was 10, no need for a federally mandated class. Besides, the additional cost of ownership ends up hurting poor folks. Would you be okay with poll taxes where folks need to pay to exercise their right to vote?
As for a proper register of guns/owners? Very bad idea for many reasons.
Edited this. It's getting off topic and I have already said all I have to say on the matter.
More on topic:
Fingerprint scanners or something biometic in the grip? Better not have blood or mud or dirt or whatever on your hands. Better hope your wife never needs to use it.
This. In a military or LEO situation it will be worse. I sure hope no one is ever in a situation where they need to use a comrade`s weapon which is locked to the guy who is now missing 3/4ths of himself.
Its a laundry list, and I find it far more pressing than the gunlaws as someone has mentioned most gun related deaths are caused by suicide
It's worth noting, though, that in other countries where major gun control laws were enacted, while the gun suicide rate dropped, the overall suicide rate did not. People just chose different methods.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.
What would safety training accomplish? Injury rates for owning a gun are extremely low, far lower than, say, owning a pool, using a ladder, storing harmfuul chemicals in easy access to children, etc. When you purchase a firearm, you do in fact need to demonstrate knowledge of both firearm safety rules and how the firearm functions. Adding some sort of class would only add unnecessary fees and inconveniences to the buyer. And it's not like it will stop stupid people from being stupid any more than ecisting requirements do.
Similarly, what would the serial numbers really accomplish? Most firearms used in crime are stolen, and it's more difficult to link a particular firearm to a particular bullet and to a particular shooter than tv police procedural shows let on. Meanwhile, a lot of gun owners are super uncomfortable with gun ownership being either public knowledge, or suddenly being put on something that's barely one step removed from a goverment watch list. Considering the controversies surrounding FBI and NSA privacy violations in other areas, does it suprise you that people don't want to be on a politically controversial list? As much as the redneck "guvment gunna take my guns" sentiment gets made fun of, it has happened before.
You know how you stop stupid people from doing stupid things? You teach them. Mind = Blown
Also, serial numbers would increase accountability of gun owners. The plus side to this would be that gun owners would be more inclined to keep their weapons in a place they could not be stolen as well as make them report the thefts. Which is something they do not do now.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.
Should folks be forced to attend mandatory training on how to safely exercise their right to free speech? Should that be a Federal Gov't issue? Maybe mandatory training on child proofing homes and swimming pools, accidents are killing kids at appalling rates. No way folks should b allowed to have kids in their homes, even as guests without the Feds certifying they are safe, right?
Spoiler:
I knew all I needed to about gun safety by the time I was 10, no need for a federally mandated class. Besides, the additional cost of ownership ends up hurting poor folks. Would you be okay with poll taxes where folks need to pay to exercise their right to vote?
As for a proper register of guns/owners? Very bad idea for many reasons.
What are the numbers of deaths caused by the first amendment? Can you get me a number on those?
Congratulations on knowing all you needed to about gun safety by 10! A lot of people do not have the luxury of that sort of education. I didn't know everything I needed to know about gun safety until I was 13 when I attended a state mandated safety class at the local gun club. (It was free!)
So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.
So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.
No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.
Seaward wrote: That's why everyone involved professionally in the defensive gun use training world speaks negatively of "smart" guns. There's just way too much nonsense associated with it for every little payoff. Fingerprint scanners or something biometic in the grip? Better not have blood or mud or dirt or whatever on your hands. Better hope your wife never needs to use it. Etc.
Accidental discharges aren't a problem we need to be solving. They done been solved. They're so exceedingly rare we might as well start investing in technology to prevent unicorn attacks. Negligent discharges are the problem, and technology's not going to stop those.
Better hope you don't have to use your gun in the winter either, because wearing gloves does not mix with biometrics
angelofvengeance wrote: I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control. Kudos to Obama for at least trying.
To keep us vaguely on topic, what EOs do you believe the POTUS should have implemented?
And is that the same Daily Show that aired a segment about a good guy with a gun by someone claimed to want to learn about owning a gun, yet went who went out of his way to not learn?
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.
Leaving aside the obvious Constitutional issues because that will get us off topic the issue with mandatory training is that some States use it as a bar to exercising your right. In DC it was a requirement but finding an instructor seemed next to impossible because of the regulations. In other States local laws on who could train and where their venues could be set up were designed in such a way as to be exceedingly difficult to comply with. So the issue is not with the training per se, the issue is that there is not a lot of faith that it will not be used as a way of preventing people exercising their rights.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.
Getting off topic here - because for many people a registry of guns is seen as the first step in confiscation. And given the current POTUS's admiration for Australian style mandatory buy backs (i.e. confiscation) people may say that fear is founded.
So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.
No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.
Fantastic! I am happy you realized that Gun Training will help prevent accidental injuries and death. I assume by your remark here that you are for decreasing accidental injuries and deaths by promoting gun training!
Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?
Dreadwinter wrote: Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?
Would you address the topic of this thread, namely the Executive Orders announced yesterday? We have had several Moderator warnings to keep the thread on topic, as well as appeals from the community, and it would be nice if we could not get this thread locked.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
You just described most federal efforts.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Safety training done by who? The NRA is pretty much the only game in town in that department, and while the projectile vomiting and mass, lemming-like suicides that followed an effort to shunt federal money to the NRA would be awesome to see, I don't think it's something that would happen.
If you want local law enforcement to run mandatory safety training, well...I think mass suicide sounds like the option that would actually wind up with fewer fatalities.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?
Because many people believe a gun registry would lead to gun confiscations. And thanks to California's "I don't like this person so I'm going to get the government to take their guns away" law that just went into effect, those people don't even have to wear tinfoil hats anymore.
Dreadwinter wrote: Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?
Would you address the topic of this thread, namely the Executive Orders announced yesterday? We have had several Moderator warnings to keep the thread on topic, as well as appeals from the community, and it would be nice if we could not get this thread locked.
Thank you.
Apologies, I thought by the President saying this in the outline of the Executive Order, we would be allowed to discuss gun safety and how to make the US and citizens safer.
"Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do. "
I believe serial numbers, registries, and classes fall under "do our part to keep our communities safe" given they are ways of keeping our communities safe.
So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.
No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.
Fantastic! I am happy you realized that Gun Training will help prevent accidental injuries and death. I assume by your remark here that you are for decreasing accidental injuries and deaths by promoting gun training!
Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?
Not a strawman. The feds have no authority to force mandatory training as a requirement for a citizen to exercise any of the rights in the bill of rights.
And as for the training, look at the numbers. Forcing mandatory safety training is just a fething waste. It does not solve the issue we are being told is The Issue; gun violence. It MAY prevent some of an already minuscule number of accidental deaths and injuries. If you want to maximize benefit to cost ratio, have mandatory training on child proofing homes and pools, more kids are killed and injured due to lack of that than are by accidents involving firearms.
AndrewC wrote: I'm curious about this, not from a perspective as to what he's doing, but as to the various reactions of the posters here.
Are you objecting to this proposal because;
a. He's bypassing congress
b. He's trying to impose additional regulations on Gun Ownership
c. The proposal actually does nothing because the laws already exist but they're not enforced
d. You think the next step is to ban guns completely
e. NIMBYism
So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.
No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.
Fantastic! I am happy you realized that Gun Training will help prevent accidental injuries and death. I assume by your remark here that you are for decreasing accidental injuries and deaths by promoting gun training!
Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?
Not a strawman. The feds have no authority to force mandatory training as a requirement for a citizen to exercise any of the rights in the bill of rights.
And as for the training, look at the numbers. Forcing mandatory safety training is just a fething waste. It does not solve the issue we are being told is The Issue; gun violence. It MAY prevent some of an already minuscule number of accidental deaths and injuries. If you want to maximize benefit to cost ratio, have mandatory training on child proofing homes and pools, more kids are killed and injured due to lack of that than are by accidents involving firearms.
How is it not a straw man exactly? You are throwing up an argument about something that is not even remotely the same as another thing in order to downplay the thing you are in favor of. Free Speech does not kill people, but guns do. So how are they similar in any way?
Show me the numbers. How is it a waste? Saving lives is a waste? Teaching people how to do something so they do not have accidents is a waste?
Also, new parents should have training on child proofing homes as well as other things. Most new parents are morons who have no clue what they are doing and a lot of them will tell you that. But that does not mean we do not need mandatory training on gun safety in any way.
Ouze wrote: I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.
Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.
It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.
If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.
CptJake wrote: It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.
If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.
Hello, kid who made it through High School here. How am I not able to exercise my constitutional right by having to take a gun safety course? I mean, I can still own a gun. Nobody is saying I cannot do it. They just want me to be safe about it.
Nobody here is saying you cannot own a gun. You are the one refusing to grasp the concept here. You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course. The only way you are not is if you say "no, I don't want to be safe"
Now, if they came out and said "You have to take a gun safety course and if you fail it you lose your second amendment rights" then you would be absolutely correct. But nobody has said that. Not once.
CptJake wrote: It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.
If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.
Hello, kid who made it through High School here. How am I not able to exercise my constitutional right by having to take a gun safety course? I mean, I can still own a gun. Nobody is saying I cannot do it. They just want me to be safe about it.
Nobody here is saying you cannot own a gun. You are the one refusing to grasp the concept here. You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course. The only way you are not is if you say "no, I don't want to be safe"
Now, if they came out and said "You have to take a gun safety course and if you fail it you lose your second amendment rights" then you would be absolutely correct. But nobody has said that. Not once.
If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.
CptJake wrote: It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.
If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.
Hello, kid who made it through High School here. How am I not able to exercise my constitutional right by having to take a gun safety course? I mean, I can still own a gun. Nobody is saying I cannot do it. They just want me to be safe about it.
Nobody here is saying you cannot own a gun. You are the one refusing to grasp the concept here. You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course. The only way you are not is if you say "no, I don't want to be safe"
Now, if they came out and said "You have to take a gun safety course and if you fail it you lose your second amendment rights" then you would be absolutely correct. But nobody has said that. Not once.
If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.
Not it is not. In no way is it infringing on my right to own a firearm because I am still able to own a firearm by completing the course. At no point has my right been taken away.
If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.
The US Federal Government abridges the freedom of speech by way of the fighting words doctrine, so it seems a bit odd that it cannot also infringe upon the right to bear arms.
What about the point in time prior to completing the course?
Congratulations! You now own a gun. You are now required to take a gun safety course, if you do not comply within x number of days, you could be subject to fines.
Nobody is going to swoop in and arrest you, nobody has said that at all. Nobody is showing up to take your guns. However, you could have to pay more for them for not complying with the law. In no way does this infringe upon the right to own a gun and it promotes safety.
What about the point in time prior to completing the course?
And what about when the available courses are filled? Or there are none available in your area? Or you can't afford the course? Or you fail?
No way in hell this or ANY mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right passes a SCOTUS look.
And again, the numbers of accidental deaths are minuscule. There is not even anything close to a 'need' for mandatory training other than as a way to infringe on the right. It is an expensive solution that does not solve the stated problem of gun violence.
An unconstitutional requirement that fails to address the issue, I honestly cannot see how anyone would argue it is a good thing.
If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.
The US Federal Government abridges the freedom of speech by way of the fighting words doctrine, so it seems a bit odd that it cannot also infringe upon the right to bear arms.
Don't be an ass, as you well know they already have infringed on the right, multiple times. Many of us want to prevent further infringement.
You were proposing that in order to own a firearm, you had to complete this fictional course first, not that you would simply be fined and allowed to keep the gun anyway.
Dreadwinter wrote:They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first.
Dreadwinter wrote:You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course.
Dreadwinter wrote:I am still able to own a firearm by completing the course.
Alex C wrote: You were proposing that in order to own a firearm, you had to complete this fictional course first, not that you would simply be fined and allowed to keep the gun anyway.
Dreadwinter wrote:They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first.
Dreadwinter wrote:You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course.
Dreadwinter wrote:I am still able to own a firearm by completing the course.
Right, I shouldn't have put the last bit in there. Because it directly contradicts what I said "They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways" here. The point is, you can own a gun. Nobody has stopped you from owning a gun.
Ouze wrote: I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.
Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.
I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.
The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.
The requirement to take a safety course for a hunting permit is again not a protected right, such as the self-defense interpretation as of recent.
Ouze wrote: I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.
Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.
I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.
The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.
Good money say they find something in the Constitution that covers that.
Ouze wrote: I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.
Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.
I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.
The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.
The requirement to take a safety course for a hunting permit is again not a protected right, such as the self-defense interpretation as of recent.
Actually, none of that is correct in regards to my argument. My argument is you can absolutely still own a gun. However without taking the class you could be subject to fines.
Ouze wrote: I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.
Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.
I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.
The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.
The requirement to take a safety course for a hunting permit is again not a protected right, such as the self-defense interpretation as of recent.
Actually, none of that is correct in regards to my argument. My argument is you can absolutely still own a gun. However without taking the class you could be subject to fines.
If I've gotten it right then, the right to bear arms would not be affected at all, so anyone who didn't want to take the course could simply not take it, but that'd mean fines?
CptJake wrote: It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.
If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.
Let's suppose for the sake of a little thought experiment that mandatory safety training for gun use was not prohibited by the Constitution. Would you still hold that safety training was a bad thing?
Mandatory training wouldn't be unconstitutional. See, there's this little phrase in the 2nd Amendment...'Well Regulated'. Seems mandatory training would fall under that.
When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.
I would definitely support nonmandatory safety classes much in the same way I would support a pool safety awareness campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Mandatory training wouldn't be unconstitutional. See, there's this little phrase in the 2nd Amendment...'Well Regulated'. Seems mandatory training would fall under that.
Yeah, that's tied to the idea that you're in a militia. The supreme court recently ruled the second amendment doesn't require militia membership to exercise. You can't just pick words out of the clause and strip them of context - it's a declaratory sentence.
I don't know that I agree with that interpretation, but it is what it is.
I personally think the second amendment is horribly outdated; a relic of the times when the government was not expected to have a standing army. I'm not averse to the idea that people are free to own firearms for self defense but as it's currently implemented, I'm not a huge fan.
skyth wrote: Mandatory training wouldn't be unconstitutional. See, there's this little phrase in the 2nd Amendment...'Well Regulated'. Seems mandatory training would fall under that.
Maybe there's something in that, but the amendment has been interpreted to mean you don't need to be in a militia, so maybe not.
However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)
Ouze wrote: When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.
On the other hand, mine was 2 days at 8 hours per day. One day was classroom going over safety and legal stuff, the other was on the range doing practical exercises. It was extremely thorough and taught by an ex-Detroit LEO and a lawyer.
And yes, those are great features - I know the NYPD has strict requirements for holsters to make it nearly impossible for someone else to pull it off a cop's hip, despite how apparently available it is. 
