TexasCHLforum.com

From what I read one area he has discussed using executive order on is private sales to tighten the rules on who is in the business of selling firearms. The "gun show loophole" which in itself is such a stupid term people assume gun shows have 0 background checks. I've had to educate people on that and the Internet firearms sales myths
But how do you do that without tracking sales? You can't so I'm expecting a ban on any private sale without a ffl

rentz wrote:From what I read one area he has discussed using executive order on is private sales to tighten the rules on who is in the business of selling firearms. The "gun show loophole" which in itself is such a stupid term people assume gun shows have 0 background checks. I've had to educate people on that and the Internet firearms sales myths
But how do you do that without tracking sales? You can't so I'm expecting a ban on any private sale without a ffl

I have a vivid imagination. One where they significantly increase the fee for FFL license. Require background checks for all sales, not just gun shows but including private sales anywhere. Or how about adopting CA style and require checks to purchase ammo. Or reclassify everything on a gun as something that requires an FFL and background check to complete purchase (need a new mag, see your FFL; need a new spring, see your FFL). Mag size restrictions have been on the list for a long time. So has monthly limits on number of purchases. It just seems to me that they have a long list of things that he could try. I do question whether anyone would do anything in Congress to fight it.

rentz wrote:From what I read one area he has discussed using executive order on is private sales to tighten the rules on who is in the business of selling firearms. The "gun show loophole" which in itself is such a stupid term people assume gun shows have 0 background checks. I've had to educate people on that and the Internet firearms sales myths
But how do you do that without tracking sales? You can't so I'm expecting a ban on any private sale without a ffl

That would be almost impossible to enforce though for any firearm manufactured and originally purchased prior to the ban. Why? Because it requires the seller/buyer to willingly participate in funneling it through an FFL. Let's say such a ban was passed, and I sold you one of my pistols post ban and without passing the sale through an FFL, and months later you are caught with the pistol for some reason or other. They try and charge us with violating the ban. Our defense is that I sold you the gun before the ban, when such records were not required. There are, in round numbers, something north of 350 MILLION firearms in the private hands of a majority of the 330 million Americans at this point in history. That's three hundred fifty million firearms that would be possible to sell FTF even without an FFL, even if such a ban on FTF transactions without FFL were enacted today - because both parties to the sale could claim the it happened before the ban was enacted.

I keep reposting this video all over the web since I first saw it on Facebook......"How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4 (warning: has one f-bomb in it)

The five steps?

1. Elect a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress.
2. Have that majority propose and vote on an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
3. Convince the legislatures of 38 states to ratify this new amendment.
   
   (At this point, you've still done absolutely nothing to "reduce gun violence".)
4. Enact "common sense" gun reform to outlaw all privately owned guns and get the president to sign it.
5. Actually ENFORCE the new law.....the guns don't just disappear because you've made them illegal. Someone has to go TAKE them by force from millions of well armed Americans, many of whom would rather start a revolution than aquiesce.

The thing is, gun-grabbing liberals know this. AR15 owners in Connecticut and New York have not turned in their guns or standard capacity magazines. The police in those states have conceded that their new laws are unenforceable, and they are not going out to confiscate them en masse. Why? Because they know it would be a suicide mission. People like Obama and Clinton can enact all the restrictions they want, but at the end of the day, they can't enforce them. And when they've passed enough such laws, they will either lose elections for their party for the next 50 years, or they'll tip the country into something far more violent.

For 13 years - 1920 to 1933 - it was illegal.....by Constitutional amendment, no less..... to buy or sell or transport booze. It wasn't just illegal by legislation, it was illegal according to the Constitution. What happened is that it was unenforceable. Crime went up. People died of poisoning because the government began to deliberately poison industrial supplies of ethyl alcohol to prevent it being used in illegal liquor trading. Eventually the ban was rescinded; but not before it caused the growth of organized crime, the imprisoning of thousands upon thousands of people, and the deaths and killings of many more.

And that is nothing like the potential fallout from tying to ban guns.....particularly by executive fiat. George Bush may have been a less than ideal president in some regards, but he did sign CHL into law as governor, and he did preside over the sunsetting of the AWB. If complaints over executive orders restricting guns are loud enough, a subsequent president can easily rescind them. And if that doesn't happen, then the nation eventually descends into exactly the kind of violence that the traitors had hoped to prevent with their fascist doctrines........and the traitors will be 100% responsible for that state of affairs.

If they don't want none, don't start none, and there won't be none. It's that simple.

The limits of executive actions would likely prohibit anything as radical as suggested above. At best, an executive order can direct ATF to interpret existing law to require FFL's to do XYZ or comply with ABC. So a requirement put on individuals, like background checks for intrastate private sales...how would that be enforced? What happens if I sell my firearm to my buddy in Texas. Who's going to stop me? ATF? OK what criminal law violation are they going to charge me with...violating the Presidents wishes? Are they going to get a Federal grand jury to indict me for selling a private firearm intrastate? There is no law against such. And it's rather clear that the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate such sales or it's highly likely they would have included it in GCA 1968.

Glockster wrote:

powerboatr wrote:executive actions easy
he has and can do pretty much anything, he has ordered the murder of us citizens abroad.
what is stopping him? nothing, he does not believe he has to ask for permission or even follow the law.
he can easily stop all firearm sales, by dictating some czar..take over all background checks with some new group of paperwork.
look what he had the faa do with drones...register them??? with N numbers...o sure i will get right on it

our congress is worthless at stopping anything he wants to do


but my midsouth order arrived three days early

Especially when there would be that very vocal minority applauding loudly. For the children.

They are worried about votes they will never get? Half of the voices are not eligible to vote.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

rentz wrote:From what I read one area he has discussed using executive order on is private sales to tighten the rules on who is in the business of selling firearms. The "gun show loophole" which in itself is such a stupid term people assume gun shows have 0 background checks. I've had to educate people on that and the Internet firearms sales myths
But how do you do that without tracking sales? You can't so I'm expecting a ban on any private sale without a ffl

That would be almost impossible to enforce though for any firearm manufactured and originally purchased prior to the ban. Why? Because it requires the seller/buyer to willingly participate in funneling it through an FFL. Let's say such a ban was passed, and I sold you one of my pistols post ban and without passing the sale through an FFL, and months later you are caught with the pistol for some reason or other. They try and charge us with violating the ban. Our defense is that I sold you the gun before the ban, when such records were not required. There are, in round numbers, something north of 350 MILLION firearms in the private hands of a majority of the 330 million Americans at this point in history. That's three hundred fifty million firearms that would be possible to sell FTF even without an FFL, even if such a ban on FTF transactions without FFL were enacted today - because both parties to the sale could claim the it happened before the ban was enacted.

I keep reposting this video all over the web since I first saw it on Facebook......"How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4 (warning: has one f-bomb in it)

The five steps?

1. Elect a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress.
2. Have that majority propose and vote on an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
3. Convince the legislatures of 38 states to ratify this new amendment.
   
   (At this point, you've still done absolutely nothing to "reduce gun violence".)
4. Enact "common sense" gun reform to outlaw all privately owned guns and get the president to sign it.
5. Actually ENFORCE the new law.....the guns don't just disappear because you've made them illegal. Someone has to go TAKE them by force from millions of well armed Americans, many of whom would rather start a revolution than aquiesce.

The thing is, gun-grabbing liberals know this. AR15 owners in Connecticut and New York have not turned in their guns or standard capacity magazines. The police in those states have conceded that their new laws are unenforceable, and they are not going out to confiscate them en masse. Why? Because they know it would be a suicide mission. People like Obama and Clinton can enact all the restrictions they want, but at the end of the day, they can't enforce them. And when they've passed enough such laws, they will either lose elections for their party for the next 50 years, or they'll tip the country into something far more violent.

For 13 years - 1920 to 1933 - it was illegal.....by Constitutional amendment, no less..... to buy or sell or transport booze. It wasn't just illegal by legislation, it was illegal according to the Constitution. What happened is that it was unenforceable. Crime went up. People died of poisoning because the government began to deliberately poison industrial supplies of ethyl alcohol to prevent it being used in illegal liquor trading. Eventually the ban was rescinded; but not before it caused the growth of organized crime, the imprisoning of thousands upon thousands of people, and the deaths and killings of many more.

And that is nothing like the potential fallout from tying to ban guns.....particularly by executive fiat. George Bush may have been a less than ideal president in some regards, but he did sign CHL into law as governor, and he did preside over the sunsetting of the AWB. If complaints over executive orders restricting guns are loud enough, a subsequent president can easily rescind them. And if that doesn't happen, then the nation eventually descends into exactly the kind of violence that the traitors had hoped to prevent with their fascist doctrines........and the traitors will be 100% responsible for that state of affairs.

If they don't want none, don't start none, and there won't be none. It's that simple.

Well said and you are 100% correct.