Obama plans curbs on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lily_Bernans said:
It probably wouldn’t have, but if it saves one life in the future it’s worth it.

I firmly believe people on the “no fly” list should not be able to buy a gun. Also people being treated for mental illnesses.

I know you weren’t addressing me, so sorry to butt in.
Click to expand...
Well, then are you with me on banning gun free zones? If it saves one life, it will be worth it. And potentially, it could save a lot more than just one life.

Prohibit restrictions on magazine capacities. Folks have been killed after running out of ammo in a fight with a bad guy (Massad Ayoob has a lot of documentation)-- if ensuring folks have sufficient ammo saves one life, it will be worth it.

My problem with the ban is it is for folks on the terror watch list, ~1.5 million people 5 years ago by some guesses but it’s classified so it could be millions more, the ‘no fly’ is only a very small subset of that list ~50 thousand people.

There is no hard requirement/process for putting folks on the list, no way to know if you are on it until you’re denied some service by the government (passport/firearm purchase), and no process for removal. You could be on it Lily, they won’t tell you why, and they can’t tell you how to be removed from it. Anything that aroused some government employee somewhere to believe you’ve done something ‘suspicious’ by their judgment. Internet posting, communication to someone (even inadvertent), association with someone however nebulous.

I need to read more closely, when they’re developed, the specific regulations the president/AG/DHHS/ATF are proposing to enact directed at mental illness. I think we can all agree that has been a huge factor in many of these shootings. I mentioned the CA law, empowering families to be able to take action to limit access to firearms by people known to have issues of concern makes sense. (It’s the due process aspect that concerns me. An accusation isn’t proof. How do they get fundamental rights restored etc.)
 
styrgwillidar said:
The only reason the NRA has any influence is they represent the views of tens of millions of Americans across the country. And those tens of millions vote. Kind of how are political system is supposed to work. Among most gun owners the NRA are viewed as the moderates on gun rights and historically been too compromising. A lot folks won’t join it as this individual states, because they’re ‘squishy’ on gun rights. But Obama and the current push for restrictions aren’t just pushing gun sales, they’re pushing more folks to join the NRA. A lot of them minorities, the gun store recognized as signing the most new NRA members up over the past year was the one just outside of Chicago with primarily African American clients. (FWIW, I am not a member of the NRA)

esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6965

"After 20 years of evading joining the NRA, I finally did it last week.

I’ve never been a huge fan of the NRA because, despite the fearsome extremist image the mainstream media tries to hang on it, the NRA is actually rather squishy about gun rights. A major symptom of this is its lack of interest in pursuing Second Amendment court cases. Alan Gura, the civil-rights warrior who fought Heller vs. DC and several other key cases to a successful conclusion, was funded not by the NRA but by the Second Amendment Foundation. Also, in the past, the NRA has been too willing to acquiesce to unconstitutional legislation like the 1986 ban on sales of new automatic weapons to civilians."
Click to expand...
Our political system is supposed to work by the elected reps doing the will of the people who elect them…not by gutless politicians who do the bidding of the NRA who threatened to oppose them if they voted for any form of gun control…and that was when something like 80-90% of people wanted at least some form of background check…if the NRA represents tens of millions of Americans then why aren’t there ten of millions of members…instead around 5 million…makes you wonder how the greatest power on earth can be held to political ransom by an organization with so few members.
 
Peebo said:
Our political system is supposed to work by the elected reps doing the will of the people who elect them…not by gutless politicians who do the bidding of the NRA who threatened to oppose them if they voted for any form of gun control…and that was when something like 80-90% of people wanted at least some form of background check…if the NRA represents tens of millions of Americans then why aren’t there ten of millions of members…instead around 5 million…makes you wonder how the greatest power on earth can be held to political ransom by an organization with so few members.
Click to expand...
Personally, I prefer “gutless politicians” to hyper-aggressive politicians who lie to us about what they’re doing. “If you like your doctor…” “Benghazi was due to a video…” “Not a smidgeon of corruption…”
 
Ridgerunner said:
Personally, I prefer “gutless politicians” to hyper-aggressive politicians who lie to us about what they’re doing. “If you like your doctor…” “Benghazi was due to a video…” “Not a smidgeon of corruption…”
Click to expand...
Or change rules to ram through a law no one has read with the lead for that party saying-- ‘we have to pass it to know what’s in it!’

These folks are our employees. Imagine your lawyer coming to you with a legal document (will/contract etc) and telling you - you have to sign it for me to let you know what’s in it!!

You’d fire them.

Folks try and point at the NRA as some bugaboo, as if the organization manipulates folks for some nefarious purpose vice just represent a point of view. A point of view which is supported, apparently given various elections throwing gun control advocates out, by tens of millions of Americans. That’s their only influence on the system- they speak for a large block of voters.

But- we’re not talking about Obama’s specific proposals. Unfortunately, many of them are simply high level bullet points. Not the actual regulations that the various departments will put out with the details.

I’m all for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. One of his proposals is to allow doctors to flag/share medical information to identify folks at risk. How exactly is that going to be accomplished? I want to know the details first, prior to the regulations being enacted. I think each one of these will have to be rules posted in the federal register for public comment. Which, if the bureaucrats listen and incorporate everyone’s concerns, could result in beneficial regulations that do respect due process, restoral of rights, specific definitions of ‘at risk’ mental conditions etc.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Personally, I prefer “gutless politicians” to hyper-aggressive politicians who lie to us about what they’re doing. “If you like your doctor…” “Benghazi was due to a video…” “Not a smidgeon of corruption…”
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with this subject…nobody has said they agree with those matters neither…nor this present administration
 
Lily_Bernans said:
It probably wouldn’t have, but if it saves one life in the future it’s worth it.

I firmly believe people on the “no fly” list should not be able to buy a gun. Also people being treated for mental illnesses.

I know you weren’t addressing me, so sorry to butt in.
Click to expand...
“If it saves one life” is a lame fallacy, trotted out when you have no other argument. We should ban all cars and save future millions of lives.

Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list, it’s capricious and lacks due process for a legal citizen. I’m OK with not selling guns to foreigners on the list though.
Peebo said:
So the logical thing to do is to do absolutely nothing…I’m sure that will stop more children being saughtered
Click to expand...
Action for the sake of action is pointless. In fact, few children are being ‘slaughtered’ and there are constructive steps that could be taken.
  • teach kids about gun safety
  • eliminate ‘gun free zones’ (not the same as banning visitors and students from carrying a gun)
 
The devil is in the details, as they say. There is no due process around the terror watch list or the no fly list. None. They really lost me there with that one. I don’t really object to the lists in the first place, but there needs to be a well defined process for getting oneself off a list once one finds out he’s on it. Otherwise it’s an example of dictatorship via bureaucracy. So … I see that they’re supposedly including due process in the new regulations: I’d like to see that that’s going to work before I say anything else. But the truth is, I don’t have much faith in the government to get this right.

Mental illness is pretty nebulous whether one realizes it or not. The definition begins with someone else’s evaluation of one’s mental state. Sure there are people who are definitely recognizably cuckoo, but not all mental illness is that stark. For example, how about simple depression? Who decides? Who watches the deciders? Is the appeal process going to be reasonable? This cannot help but lie on a slippery slope which could easily end at “you oppose President Smith therefore you are deemed mentally ill” down the road. In other words, when Obama couldn’t get Congress to do his bidding, he found another way in.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
The devil is in the details, as they say…
Click to expand...
One of the more interesting changes will be to NFA procedures. It’s being reported the NFA trusts (which I honestly don’t completely understand) will now have to have every responsible member provide paperwork including fingerprints— I think for every transaction, so a lot more paperwork. But-- NFA transactions will no longer require a local Chief Law Enforcement Officer sign off. So a local anti-2A police chief/sheriff can no longer be a roadblock to law abiding, qualifying citizens from obtaining NFA items. Only applies to folks with the disposable income to buy NFA items and pay the fees/taxes, but I’m hearing that’s a pretty significant improvement.
 
Heard the regulations are a thousand pages long. Plenty of room to hide worse stuff than people expect, like Obamacare.

I guess selling one gun will require one to be a registered firearms agent, whatever it takes and however much it costs to be one of those. And where is the burden of proof if I GIVE a gun to my son? Is it on me to prove I DIDN’T get any money for it? Probably.

And I guess everybody on Social Security is subject to confiscation if some doctor says you should be confiscated. So let’s see, if grandpa GIVES his gun to his granddaughter out of fear of his doctor, can he do it without breaking the law? He sure can’t sell it to her without being a registered dealer and getting her on the “scary gun owner list”.

Guess we all need to know whether our doctors are gun haters or not, and we certainly should never tell any medical person that we own a gun. And if a new mother has post partum depression, she should hide it and the fact that she owns a gun, if she does.

Not one of the shooter tragedies, I understand, would have been prevented by this. So what’s the objective? One could believe the idea was to simply force something to please the gun haters who will later buy Obama’s books and pay $10,000 to hear him give a speech. Or one could believe it’s a step forward to total confiscation or making it terribly difficult for honest people to own guns.

So which is it? Knowing Obama’s track record, I would guess the second choice is the right one.

Changed my mind. It’s probably both.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Heard the regulations are a thousand pages long. Plenty of room to hide worse stuff than people expect, like Obamacare.

I guess selling one gun will require one to be a registered firearms agent, whatever it takes and however much it costs to be one of those. And where is the burden of proof if I GIVE a gun to my son? Is it on me to prove I DIDN’T get any money for it? Probably.

And I guess everybody on Social Security is subject to confiscation if some doctor says you should be confiscated. So let’s see, if grandpa GIVES his gun to his granddaughter out of fear of his doctor, can he do it without breaking the law? He sure can’t sell it to her without being a registered dealer and getting her on the “scary gun owner list”.

Guess we all need to know whether our doctors are gun haters or not, and we certainly should never tell any medical person that we own a gun. And if a new mother has post partum depression, she should hide it and the fact that she owns a gun, if she does.

Not one of the shooter tragedies, I understand, would have been prevented by this. So what’s the objective? One could believe the idea was to simply force something to please the gun haters who will later buy Obama’s books and pay $10,000 to hear him give a speech. Or one could believe it’s a step forward to total confiscation or making it terribly difficult for honest people to own guns.

So which is it? Knowing Obama’s track record, I would guess the second choice is the right one.

Changed my mind. It’s probably both.
Click to expand...
And given 1,000 pages generated in a hurry, what loop-holes are opened up? Did you catch that a while back the ATF declared NFA trusts aren’t persons. But the ban on new machine guns to the public is on persons manufacturing and/or acquiring- which has led to speculation that a trust could therefore build or obtain a new machine gun legally in the same way an individual can apply to build a short- barreled rifle. Don’t know whatever happened with that, i.e. ATF changed the wording or if anyone tried to do it.
 
styrgwillidar said:
One of the more interesting changes will be to NFA procedures. It’s being reported the NFA trusts (which I honestly don’t completely understand) will now have to have every responsible member provide paperwork including fingerprints— I think for every transaction, so a lot more paperwork. But-- NFA transactions will no longer require a local Chief Law Enforcement Officer sign off. So a local anti-2A police chief/sheriff can no longer be a roadblock to law abiding, qualifying citizens from obtaining NFA items. Only applies to folks with the disposable income to buy NFA items and pay the fees/taxes, but I’m hearing that’s a pretty significant improvement.
Click to expand...
I think you got that wrong. Previously using an NFA Trust you weren’t required to supply fingerprints, passport photo or signature from local LEO for every transaction, now you will (including LEO signature)

Adding more NFA regulations is a pointless exercise. NFA=machine guns, silencers, grenades etc. No NFA Trust weapons have been used in any recent mass shootings and rarely in any crime (hedging my statement). The addition red tape will have zero impact on the gun violence stats.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Heard the regulations are a thousand pages long. Plenty of room to hide worse stuff than people expect, like Obamacare.

I guess selling one gun will require one to be a registered firearms agent, whatever it takes and however much it costs to be one of those. And where is the burden of proof if I GIVE a gun to my son? Is it on me to prove I DIDN’T get any money for it? Probably.

And I guess everybody on Social Security is subject to confiscation if some doctor says you should be confiscated. So let’s see, if grandpa GIVES his gun to his granddaughter out of fear of his doctor, can he do it without breaking the law? He sure can’t sell it to her without being a registered dealer and getting her on the “scary gun owner list”.

Guess we all need to know whether our doctors are gun haters or not, and we certainly should never tell any medical person that we own a gun. And if a new mother has post partum depression, she should hide it and the fact that she owns a gun, if she does.

Not one of the shooter tragedies, I understand, would have been prevented by this. So what’s the objective? One could believe the idea was to simply force something to please the gun haters who will later buy Obama’s books and pay $10,000 to hear him give a speech. Or one could believe it’s a step forward to total confiscation or making it terribly difficult for honest people to own guns.

So which is it? Knowing Obama’s track record, I would guess the second choice is the right one.

Changed my mind. It’s probably both.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree that one should never tell anyone at his doctor’s office that he owns a gun. If asked by a doctor/nurse or on a form, she should always say no. SS recipients should never 'fess up to gun ownership either. But I’m afraid that is only a short term fix and it is just a matter of time before the registered gun ownership lists get collated with reports from the medical profession and the SSA. State gun ownership lists are already shared nationwide so it wouldn’t take much to get to that next step once the new data is available.

I sure would like to see what the new regulations will look like for grandpa to give/sell his gun(s) to someone in his immediate family.
 
Peebo said:
Our political system is supposed to work by the elected reps doing the will of the people who elect them…not by gutless politicians who do the bidding of the NRA who threatened to oppose them if they voted for any form of gun control…and that was when something like 80-90% of people wanted at least some form of background check…if the NRA represents tens of millions of Americans then why aren’t there ten of millions of members…instead around 5 million…makes you wonder how the greatest power on earth can be held to political ransom by an organization with so few members.
Click to expand...
If NRA views weren’t representative of the will of the people who elect politicians, they would have no ability to influence the representative’s votes. How many formal members the NRA has is not relevant to the number of people who agree with their views on gun control.
 
Theo520 said:
I think you got that wrong. Previously using an NFA Trust you weren’t required to supply fingerprints, passport photo and sig from local LEO for every transaction, now you will (including LEO signature)

Adding more NFA regulations is a pointless exercise. NFA=machine guns, silencers, grenades etc. No NFA Trust weapons have been used in any recent mass shootings and rarely in any crime (hedging my statement). The addition red tape will have zero impact on the gun violence stats.
Click to expand...
Well, several sites are reporting the elimination of the CLEO sign off, this first seems skeptical of government intentions: ace.mu.nu/ (Title: Barack Obama’s Executive Order on Guns Is Partly Defensible, Partly Alarming, and Partly… Helpful?)

“The reform part comes in that the new order strikes the requirement of getting a community local law-enforcement officer to sign off on any purchase of such a weapon. Anti-gun local cops had routinely refused to sign off on such purchases, even if the purchases were sought by otherwise qualified and law-abiding people. The new EO gets rid of that requirement, for reasons I can only imagine are pure incompetence on Obama’s part (that is, he couldn’t possibly intend to harass gun-owners less).”

thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/president-obamas-executive-orders-what-they-mean-and-their-impact-on-you/

“One positive change that came out of this: the removal of the CLEO sign-off requirement. People living in Democrat controlled areas whose elected chief of police has been refusing to sign off on NFA paperwork can now legally purchase and register whatever they want. All that is required now is notification — not approval.”
 
Theo520 said:
I think you got that wrong. Previously using an NFA Trust you weren’t required to supply fingerprints, passport photo and sig from local LEO for every transaction, now you will (including LEO signature)

Adding more NFA regulations is a pointless exercise. NFA=machine guns, silencers, grenades etc. No NFA Trust weapons have been used in any recent mass shootings and rarely in any crime (hedging my statement). The addition red tape will have zero impact on the gun violence stats.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, while it is possible to buy a machine gun if one goes through the hoops and pays the fees and consents to a home search with no notice at any time, it is not possible to register a machine gun that wasn’t traced all the way to the manufacturer through legal sales.

I understand that during and after WWII (possibly Korea as well) a lot of servicemen sent or brought home a lot of fully automatic enemy rifles and pistols. None of those can ever be registered and will remain illegal forever. Since one assumes they are historic weapons or at least that some of them are; collector’s items really, one would think there would be a way to legalize them. But it’s my understanding that it can’t be done because they can’t be traced back, owner to dealer to owner to dealer to manufacturer. Nobody knows how many are out there, but it would surely be in the thousands, given the WWII soldiers’ penchant for sending back souvenirs.

One wonders, then, when the government will declare all unregistered and unrecorded firearms without a clear chain of dealer origins, illegal just like those WWII weapons. Vast numbers of guns in the hands of citizens would then be illegal overnight. And people owning them would then do what?

I’m reminded of something Solzhenitsyn once said, referencing the Soviet Union: “The government should not be so excessively fierce that it drives its citizens to deceptiveness.”
 
styrgwillidar said:
Well, several sites are reporting the elimination of the CLEO sign off, this first seems skeptical of government intentions: ace.mu.nu/ (Title: Barack Obama’s Executive Order on Guns Is Partly Defensible, Partly Alarming, and Partly… Helpful?)

“The reform part comes in that the new order strikes the requirement of getting a community local law-enforcement officer to sign off on any purchase of such a weapon. Anti-gun local cops had routinely refused to sign off on such purchases, even if the purchases were sought by otherwise qualified and law-abiding people. The new EO gets rid of that requirement, for reasons I can only imagine are pure incompetence on Obama’s part (that is, he couldn’t possibly intend to harass gun-owners less).”

thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/foghorn/president-obamas-executive-orders-what-they-mean-and-their-impact-on-you/

“One positive change that came out of this: the removal of the CLEO sign-off requirement. People living in Democrat controlled areas whose elected chief of police has been refusing to sign off on NFA paperwork can now legally purchase and register whatever they want. All that is required now is notification — not approval.”
Click to expand...
That’s actually a good link to read. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top