There are rumors that an EO will revive the ATF rule change of 1998, where domestic violence misdemeanants may not own firearms under the Prohibited Persons clause of Brady. While this is somewhat already the case, in application the Prohibited Persons clause is generally only used to deny purchase from an FFL, although it does state possession is disallowed. In practicality, there won't be much difference.
There appears to be no attempt to put people on a 'terrorist' list and arbitrarily deny them purchase.
Ping your pingees.... who’s the banglist guy, you?
States: resist and nullify.
States and American People: call for and insist on Obama’s impeachment and conviction for treason and wanton disregard for the Constitution and his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Its gonna be a LONG year.
Americans need to implement Obama/Hillary/Sanders control come NOVEMBER 2016
While it may require an FFL, something tells me that FFL approval procedures might be obfuscated, delayed, lost, misdirected, and otherwise slowed to nothing under this administration’s watch.
The # of individuals who sell more than 50 firearms per year is trivial, which means that this EO is just to mollify some of Obama’s anti-gun base while needlessly stirring up our side against something minor.
Sure, we hate *any* restriction on firearms...hate away...but this EO is far milder than the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).
It’s also an easy EO to reverse once we have the White House in 2017.
I dont see how the limit would or could be enforced. Who is keeping track of private sales? No one that I know of in most states. Either youre an FFL or you arent. If you arent then there is little scrutiny beyond what your state requires...if you even bother to comply.
my question, as always with this criminal cabal...is “why NOW?”
Why did he wait this long to do this kind of crap? One would think that, if he had ANY meaningful leverage, he would have done it a long time ago...
so...why is he pushing it now?
last ditch effort?
Pandering to the loony base?
sleight of hand? (what else is he up to?)
Ummm.... how would they know?
How will the BATF know if you buy and sell more than 50 guns per year?
I predict massive noncompliance.
I will not comply.
5.56mm
“He may have made a boo boo here.”
Indeed: they worked hard to eliminate “kitchen table FFLs”, but this “50 sales per year” eviscerates that “dedicated storefronts only” policy.
Consider the phrase “malicious obedience” alongside “unintended consequences”.
If there’s any _chance_ you might sell 50 guns, it behooves you to get an FFL. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/instructions-form-7-application-federal-firearms-license
For those of us already thoroughly registered (C&R, NFA, various registration-required states), another registration (with benefits!) isn’t a meaningful burden (hold your fire on that one, keep reading). Now the BATFE is in the reversed position of having to process and issue a HUGE number of FFL licenses (including personal interview with BATFE agents), at a relatively paltry (to them) $200 each; litigation may then be brought as people find it necessary to sell but are hindered from doing so precisely because their FFL application takes more than a few days to approve, and/or any “you’re not a serious business with a storefront” resistance now ends precisely because you’re just some guy trying to liquidate/cycle a collection.
He also blows the “gun show loophole” issue with the Left precisely because this is an attempt to close it without closing it. 50 is a lot; many people buying a table at a gun show likely will have less than that, so there they are selling guns without an FFL & background check involved.
He’s going to lose a fight, restoring some of our rights in the process, which wasn’t going to win anything for his supporters & causes anyway even if it did go exactly as planned.
FWIW: a case of 20 Mosin-Nagants can be had for $2000. Seems a possibly interesting data point.
Yeah, major boo-boo.
His only winning move is to require NICS checks, provided for free to anyone anytime and taking no more than 15 minutes each. Expanding interpretation of “in the business”, when Clinton worked so hard to contract it, is just going to make a mess.
May I suggest, should the Obama require FFL for anyone selling more than X/year, everyone here apply for an FFL? While many act on non-compliance, there’s also value in overwhelming (as in: can’t deal with the load) compliance.
All this does is employ a lawyer for 10 hours who can setup a number of LLCs for an individual selling guns.
50...25...15...10...5...1 and there you are.
Six sensible steps...
I refuse to be infringed.
Except... All Obama has to do is make the FFL so expensive that no one will bother. For example when I was asked to quote a job in my shop the cost of FFL and ITAR were close to $3500. Thank Holder for that little new rule.
I agree that this might work to advantage, with people who wish to sell 50 or more guns a year claiming that they would be exempt from the requirement for a storefront, local zoning requirements, etc.
It might actually work out that way.
There were have to be court actions, I presume. It might not last long enough as an executive order for that to happen, if a Trump or Cruz is elected this year.
