Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama ‘Seriously Considering’ Using Executive Authority to Tighten Gun Laws
PJ Media ^ | 10/09/2015 | Liz Sheld

Posted on 10/09/2015 7:34:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

The Washington Post is reporting that President Obama is considering an end run around Congress to make some changes to existing gun laws. In particular, he is considering “imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.”

Under Obama’s proposed executive fiat, dealers who sell more than an arbitrary number of guns will need to obtain a license from the ATF and perform background checks on consumers.

This latest overreach comes on the heels of a tragic shooting at the gun-free Umpqua Community College. Obama has asked his team “to scrub what kinds of authorities do we have to enforce the laws that we have in place more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

“We are hopeful we can find a way to do this,” said one senior administration official, who noted that lawyers were still working through details to ensure that the rule could pass legal muster. “It’s a lot more clear today than it was a year ago how to work this out.”

So what’s on Obama’s executive action agenda that will presumably stop the gun violence?

“The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are ‘engaged in the business’ of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone ‘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.’ ”

We now know that the Oregon shooter purchased his weapons legally and passed a background check to do so. “All were traced to a federal firearms dealer,” said Celinez Nunez, an agent with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The Sandy Hook shooter stole weapons from his mother.

The Aurora movie theater shooter bought his guns legally and passed a background check.

The man who shot former congresswoman and gun-control activist Gabrielle Giffords passed a background check.

The man who shot two Virgina journalists live on the air passed a background check.

So, what is the purpose of Obama’s proposed expanded background checks? Do we have any evidence that expanding the definition of a gun dealer will decrease gun violence?

This is just another useless, empty gesture that inconveniences law-abiding citizens and doesn’t deter criminals and lunatics.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; executiveaction; guncontrol; guns; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: SeekAndFind

First he’s going to disarm the Secret Service. /s


41 posted on 10/09/2015 9:49:29 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m sure one of the other co-equal branches of the government will exercise its Constitutional authority and put a stop to this. /s


42 posted on 10/09/2015 10:06:32 AM PDT by waverna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruoz
Please you live in Florida and believe that.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I don't believe it.

I was just illustrating the democrat talking points that I believe Obama will use to claim justification for taking unilateral action.


43 posted on 10/09/2015 10:14:28 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The wise have stores of choice food and oil but a foolish man devours all he has. Proverbs 21:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bruoz
In my opinion it is not smart to dispose of that firearm that you bought new to someone with no questions asked.

Not at all. Here in MA, you MUST record any such transfer, loss or theft on the Commonwealth's website. Otherwise, you still own it even if you don't have possession. If it is used in the commission of a crime, you're screwed.

44 posted on 10/09/2015 1:14:48 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism. It is incompatible with real freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

LOL.........


45 posted on 10/09/2015 2:15:39 PM PDT by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

The FERAL government is doing it now with the laws that are on the books.

As far as I am concerned they “infringe” on my first amendment rights already.

Obama is seeking to infringe further and further and further.


46 posted on 10/09/2015 2:22:56 PM PDT by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bruoz

Good for you. But, a free man doesnt need permission to sell what is his.


47 posted on 10/10/2015 5:03:19 AM PDT by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

And that picture doesn’t even show the sniper spooks in black bodysuits on every rooftop.


48 posted on 10/10/2015 6:22:55 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson