President Obama outlines executive orders for gun control (text of proposal on pg5)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

This thread is for discussing the executive orders proposed by President Obama. The general value of owning firearms is not appropriate for this thread.

**Frazzled**

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.

**OgreChubbs**

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.

**Prestor Jon**

OgreChubbs wrote:
Alex C wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
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**

Prestor Jon wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
Alex C wrote:
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.

**whembly**

OgreChubbs wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
Alex C wrote:
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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Breotan**

Alex C wrote:
Apparently there's even less meat to it than I gave it credit for.

Except for scrambling the definitions of what a "seller" is and conflating Craigslist with "internet sales", it is mostly meaningless.

**Frazzled**

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.

**whembly**

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**

Ok, maybe thats a point of clarity. Does a "Seller" as defined, have to have an FFL? I thought so. Am I incorrect?

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Breotan**

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.

I'm sure any court would see that as entrapment.

**whembly**

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.

**Asherian Command**

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**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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

**Breotan**

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**

whembly wrote:
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.

however, the EO supposedly increases the definition of Seller, and no longer limits it to what you noted.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

Asherian Command wrote:
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.

**WrentheFaceless**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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"

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**LordofHats**

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"

This was my thought

**Prestor Jon**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

**CptJake**

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?

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

however, the EO supposedly increases the definition of Seller, and no longer limits it to what you noted.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

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.

Expect a court challenge in 3....2....1....

**CptJake**

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).

**Asherian Command**

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**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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**

Prestor Jon wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

**Dreadclaw69**

CptJake wrote:
Where are these examples of people in the military who refused to do their jobs?

Lets keep it on topic please. Otherwise we invite unhelpful discussion, arguments, and a thread lock

That limited edition or rare firearm that you kept, along with the box etc. that you now want to sell? That could mean you are a dealer
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-moves-to-close-gun-show-loophole-for-background-checks/

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"...