Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

[PoliticAverse]

Source: Washington Post

In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.

Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers.

As the president heads to Roseburg, Ore., on Friday to comfort the survivors and families of those killed in last week’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College, the political calculus around his most vexing domestic policy issue is shifting once again.


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-weighs-expanding-background-checks-through-executive-authority/2015/10/08/6bd45e56-6b63-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

[Duckhunter935]

1. That is already

Part of the existing ATF regulations. Describes exactly what a dealer, part of it is number of weapons and income from sales. Might just have to clarify it.

[PoliticAverse]

3. It appears it's what is being discussed is just putting a cap on the number of guns an individual

could sell without being classified as a dealer and then having to be licensed.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Seems reasonable

[petronius]

8. I may just be imagining this, but I thought there used to be threshold

for "engaged in the business," and it was much lower than the proposed 50 per year (for some reason I think it was 4 ).

The federal code just says:

as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

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

I'd agree that something a bit more specific would be appropriate...

[Duckhunter935]

9. Yes, that is what I remember

It could be cleaned up a bit.

[groundloop]

2. I knew it, I knew it..... that librul black man is comin' for my guns

Seriously, I hope he can do something, though I'm sure that whatever is implemented will wind up at the Supreme Court.

Also, I agree that this article seems to be poorly written and needs some clarification.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. lol. He has my support.

[uhnope]

6. about time

I'm a huge supporter but even when listening to his impassioned words after the Oregon shooting, all I could think was that he keeps urging Congress to act, but what about Congressional Dems? and what about some executive action?

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Make the gun nut shitheads squeal

Fuck them sideways.

[Lunabell]

10. Wow, I can hear the internet explode now

The ammosexuals will shriek that Obama is coming for their guns again!

[davidpdx]

13. That was my thinking too

Holy moly will there be fireworks. Please oh please President Obama do it!

[C Moon]

11. Ouch! I'm sure I'll hear a high pitched scream from a Tea Bag neighbor over this one.

He sits in his backyard many nights, talking loudly on the phone, and has no problem with using derogatory terms for everything that would label him a racist.

[branford]

12. Expanding the definition of "dealer" presents a number of legal, political and logistical issues,

and these reasons were why Obama did not try this back in 2013 along with his other executive orders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/07/obama-administration-has-doubts-that-key-hillary-gun-proposal-can-work/

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. Would applying IRS rules help?

If the objective is to distinguish between occasional and regulat gun sales, perhaps defining dealers as those who made profits from selling firearms in three of the last five years would work. See http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2014/03/31/does-the-irs-view-your-side-hustle-as-a-business-or-hobby.

[branford]

24. The profit component was only one factor in a larger IRA analysis,

although using IRS guidelines that apply widely to all business, not just firearms, is certainly a more objective means to consider as a baseline for determining who is a dealer.

However, I really don't understand what the problem is with the current "dealer" determination. It seems that the president and gun control advocates want universal background checks (i.e., inclusion of non-dealers), are totally unable to achieve it legislatively, and are now just pandering and trying to use executive action to bypass the actual law. It seems transparent that the administration (or at least the Democratic presidential primary contenders) actually wants to sweep-up non-dealers by making the definition of dealer so broad as to be virtually meaningless, thus creating a de facto UBC situation. Again, they did not do so earlier in 2013 with the other executive orders because of all the legal, practical and logistical problems with such a policy.

In order to even attempt to pass legal muster, the number of new "dealers" in any executive order will likely be minimal, the policy might still be overturned in court, it will prove extremely difficult to enforce, and it will energize gun rights advocates and hugely boost their fundraising going into a presidential election cycle.

I think the president may ultimately talk about a new policy while Oregon is still in the news (and its fading fast), and then quietly table the idea rather than engage in a potentially bruising and ultimately futile battle.

[Democat]

14. Would this have prevented any of the recent shootings?

The Oregon shooter didn't appear to have a problem that would show up on a background check, and Elliot Rodgers had been previously questioned by police who refused to hold him.

[Duckhunter935]

15. would not have prevented most if not all of them

If people would actually look, most weapons used in these spree murders were purchased legally after passing a federal background check at dealers.

but it is good feel good stuff

[Democat]

16. Reactionary laws can be dangerous

I'm sure there are examples of good reactionary laws (AMBER Alert seems to work), but think about all of the terrible laws that get passed right after a high profile crime. People want something done, and they don't care what it is. The Patriot Act is probably the worst example.

[Duckhunter935]

17. I was going to say

PATRIOT act, so true

[Sunlei]

20. Is it typical for people in their 20s to buy a large collection of guns and the body armor sets too?

maybe the database can flag these kind of 'collectors'?

I know it is NOT typical for message board posters, like this last shooters 4chan posts to make a direct 'warning threat' like he did 24 hours before he started.

I was surprised with how many billions we pay NSA that whoever the people are who do read/ auto flag threats like that missed it.

[Duckhunter935]

22. It only takes one

[Doctor_J]

34. so this executive action that he is "seriously considering" would accomplish nothing except

Enraging the teabaggers.

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. Might slow the flow to Gang Bangers etc.

Not going to impact the Spree Killer but could impact the flow of weapons to those already disallowed from having them.

[Democat]

29. Yeah, I don't think background checks are a bad idea

I just wonder how this relates to the school shootings.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the school shootings, but I think it's going to take more than a quick reactionary rule change.

[Lizzie Poppet]

28. Mass shootings aren't really the target of this proposal.

This is aimed at the far-more-prevalent cases of private individuals selling firearms to prohibited persons (that is, convicted felons, mostly). This could inhibit at least some of those cases.

And yes, you see what I did there: "aren't really the target" "aimed at"

[Sunlei]

19. wait. don't all dealers "perform background checks" on "potential buyers" already?

Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers.

[PoliticAverse]

25. I think that's badly worded, what you say is true the issue is how many sales per year

would cause someone to be considered a "dealer" and have to get a license and perform background checks.

[Sunlei]

32. Thanks. Now I understand what they meant. Private sellers who are "really" gun dealers.

Small "home businesses" that sell guns (and list anywhere regular business advertising) should have a license and do background checks

[Travis_0004]

30. Yes.

What this changes is if somebody had a collection they want to get rid of, they could not sell off more than 50 a year without becoming a dealer.

There probably are a few people who buy and sell guns who should legally be a dealer but are not. This would establish a number that means they have to be classified as a dealer. (its legal for me to buy a gun, then decide I don't like it, and sell it. Its not legal for me to buy a gun with the intent to sell it later).

[GGJohn]

21. Huh?

That's already law, if a seller exceeds a set amount of sales of firearms per year, they are required by law to obtain an FFL from the ATF.

[PoliticAverse]

23. I think there currently isn't a "set amount of sales" that triggers the "dealer" designation. n/t

[Duppers]

27. BLTN

[wordpix]

31. do it! Let repukes cry & whine about how the non-regulated "militia" need unlimited no. of guns

and dealers who will sell them to the RWnuts who "need" an arsenal. I'm referring to the 2nd Amendment and the "well regulated militia" phrase.

[jwirr]

33. In all our suggestions regarding guns we talk about dealers,

background checks, too many guns, mental illness, etc. But none of this fits all of the shooters or even a majority of the shooters.

As someone else in this thread said many of the guns were purchased legally after a background check. Most dealers are obeying the laws and I don't know how many of these guns were obtained from gun show dealers. Likewise many of the shooters were not labeled mentally ill until after the shootings. As to too many guns - not all gun owners go around shooting up the country.

And IMO one thing we seldom talk about is hate speech. FoxNews, Limbaugh, etc. have as much to do with these shooters as anyone else. Yet we - how do we stop them?

[GGJohn]

35. Short of criminalizing hate speech,

not much can be done about them.

[jwirr]

36. Unfortunately but they are a big part of it. They are either

preaching fear or hate and both contribute to the killings.

[GGJohn]

37. I agree.

I don't want any speech criminalized, but there are times...................................

[jwirr]

38. If we could get people to realize just what effect this kind of

speech has maybe some of it could be ended just by making them lose their audience. We helped bring down Beck and Limbaugh is not doing so well right now. In some cases we can go after sponsors. Now I do not see that happening with sites like Stormfront etc.

[GGJohn]

39. Going after the sponsers of these hate mongers seems to be pretty effective, as you say,

look at Beck and Limbaugh.
I don't know how we can take down Stormfront without running into 1st Amend. issues, but there's just got to be a way to shut these vile hate mongers down.