POTUS signing 23 Executive Orders.....Thoughts?

[armoredman]

Boz, again I respectfully disagree, and episodes in our own American history, (Athens, anyone?), tend to, in my mind, prove me right, but perhaps being born and raised in a state that has very few restrictions colors my thinking - we have had no registration, licensing, waiting periods, etc., in AZ for over 100 years, and it seems to work just fine for us. This also includes no restriction on private sales other than, "if you knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor, and get caught, you will face the music."
I've used this argument against 4th Amendment violations, and it works as well here, too, "The mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives nobody the right to look. "
But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as diversity in politics without rancor is the backbone of the American political system.

[bozwell]

I don't really see the parallel.  "The mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives nobody the right to look."  You seem to be making a privacy argument, but if you fail to pass a background check, it will be because of something that is public record.  There's nothing private about information that is public record. 

For that matter, I personally would prefer to do private sales via a FFL, and have done so in the past.  For one, I don't plan to keep the paperwork for the required number of years, as I have enough crap in my house.  For another, it almost certainly alleviates the seller of any responsibility in the transaction.  You simply deliver the gun to the FFL and your responsibility in the transaction (as far as background checks/knowledge of who is a prohibited possessor/etc.) is done.  It's then up to the buyer to jump through the requiresite hoops (background check, class 3 license, etc.) to collect his purchase, and for the FFL to manage the paperwork. 

There are certainly poor ways it could be implemented and I'm not saying there aren't.  That said, I don't really see any reason why a background check is required for a transaction from a license holder and it's not required from a non-license holder, and there are simple ways to make this area of the law more consistent.

[Grendel]

A Right that is limited is not a Right, but a Privilege. A Privilege may be revoked or adjusted at any time. A Right may not. Some people here need to be reminded of this fact as it appears that some are happy to give up a Right if that means they're allowed(!) to continue doing what they want for now.

As for the OP, that's a list of 23 attempts to look good without actually accomplishing anything at all. If he could have enacted gun control by decree, you would be seeing it now, at this very moment. He can't, he knows it and he didn't. The Imperial One is hoping that Congress will pick up the ball and pass the unpleasant parts, but leave him squeaky clean.

That means: You need to focus your attention on your representatives even more so now than before. That's where the battle really is, not this list of empty verbiage and conflated nonsense.

[Sion]

Almost all of those EO's seem very reasonable. Of course I'm not so blinded by party lines, political rhetoric and paranoia that I call anything and everything the Obama administration does as wrong. I'm all for strengthening background checks and mental health. I didn't notice anything that is going to ban your guns or limit magazine capacities, nothing to justify people's irational fears that's brought on the current price gouging we're seeing.

Arizona's private transaction laws are very weak, what is so bad about having a bill of sale or reporting the serial number of the firearm you sold and the name of the person you sold it to? Comparing selling a firearm to a private party to letting your neighbor borrow sugar is a poor comparison. There are no laws preventing convicted felons or the mentally ill from owning sugar, those do apply to firearms and with Arizona's current laws on private sale, there is no way for you to know if the person you're selling a firearm to is even lawfully allowed to own one. Currently it is just an easy way for people who can't legally own a firearm to obtain one without a background check.

I don't believe Arizona's laws have worked "just fine" for us for over 100 years. Had there been stricter regulations on sales and perhaps a waiting period, Jared Loughner, an admitted drug abuser, a student who was required by his college to get mental health clearance to return to school, would not have so easily obtained the handgun he used to kill innocent people and severely wound Gabriel Giffords.

[DenStinett]

How much more will all this cost the Tax Payer ?
There are a few of these EO?s I feel are a violation of our right to privacy
#16 for one
I don?t feel my Doctor(s) need to know if I keep Guns in my home or not

[armoredman]

No, Den, and it has been noted by a medical professional elsewhere that this feels like an attempt to make doctors into employees of the federal government, albeit unpaid ones.

[armed hiker]

And to using the FFL to do your citizens background checks are they going to do this for free? I would doubt so.

Some may not want to spend another $20-40 per transaction on top of a gun sale. What about relatives do I need to pay to have a background check on my children or wife? Giving a firearm that has been in the family but is worth less than $100 now costs enough it may not be worth giving.

Medical records. If you have ever had a diagnoses from the DSM then do you get an asterisk by your name? Can you get your records cleared without spending loads of money on Lawyers? Who will have your records?

It is not like there have been no problems with the no fly list, And it is upon the person wronged to prove innocence. As stated before it is all in the details.

[bozwell]

Sure, it would be inconvenient to pay $20 for a background check when transferring a firearm to a friend or a relative.  On the other hand, let's pretend I'm Joe Convict who just failed a background check because of felonies on my record.  How is Joe Schmoe who's privately selling a gun on armslist supposed to know that I have felonies on my record?  Why should I be able to purchase a firearm through a private individual with no background check (which, in this hypo, I would fail)?  Where's the logic behind me being able to purchase a firearm through a private individual and not being able to purchase the exact same weapon through a licensed FFL?

It may just be me, but if I'm weighing the minor inconvenience of having to pay $20 extra to purchase a firearm through a FFL versus allowing everyone to purchase firearms without going through a background check, I come out in favor of requiring the background check. 

[papaairbear]

Three Sherrifs in my state have sent VP Biden letters stating they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-muellers-letter-to-joe-biden-2013-1

http://watchdog.org/66470/or-sheriffs-protest-obamas-proposed-gun-laws/

Obama bin laden is going to have a very tough time with this dictatorial insanity.

[Grendel]

How much more will all this cost the Tax Payer ?
There are a few of these EO?s I feel are a violation of our right to privacy
#16 for one
I don?t feel my Doctor(s) need to know if I keep Guns in my home or not

You are misunderstanding this one. There is a section in 'Obamacare' that specifically states that Doctors are:



This EO clarifies that there is no requirement under law to ask, but that Healthcare providers may ask if they wish, and that further, there will be no penalty for either doing or not doing so, nor may any results be used to maintain records of ownership.

[armed hiker]

Bozwell
So I assume you would want only registered car dealers to be able to "transfer " your private car sales? You might sell it to someone who has lost or never had a drivers license. In my state you as a citizen you are supposed to know the person you are selling to, If you knowingly sell to a felon ( even though some felons can own guns) you are committing a crime.

$20 (which is rapidly becoming cheap) transfer is an inconvenience to some to others that can be hard to swallow. Remember people out there buy Hi-point handguns and cheap .22 rifles and single barrel shotguns. Many are not doing so because they like the platform as much as that's what they can afford. If the goals are to make it costly enough for those in the lower income brackets to get guns then adding taxes and fees should do the trick just as it has for smoking.

[Grendel]

How about if the Feds mandate it at $100 per transfer for private sales? Or FFLs suddenly realize 'Hey, this is an opportunity to make some easy cash, lets charge those suckers $75 a pop for filling out a form and making a phone call, they ain't got no choice if they want that fancy pistol'. Are we still alright with it then?

[armoredman]

Inmate Laughner did legally acquire a firearm, and passed a background check - system fail. Arizona laws work - we don't have Chicago's or DC's murder rate. If we could close off the drug corridor the feds ceded to the cartels, and quit having Border Patrol agents killed here with guns trafficked to the cartels by our own government, it would be even better.
Having said that, I will again state my opposition to "universal background checks' - they are unconstitutional and unnecessary. I sold guns for a living prior to the Brady Law, (which, BTW, would NOT have stopped Hinckly either), and things were just fine.
And I will add this regardless of how people like my anti co-worker instantly say, "that doesn't matter", if I sell a car to a guy legally not allowed to drive it, is that bad? If I sell a container of fertilizer to a terrorist on the watch list,( that I can't check), is that a bad thing? If I sell gasoline to a released arsonist, should I go to jail? Should we do background checks on all these people before selling them perfectly legal products? Go ahead, those products are not protected under the Constitution. However, I shall continue to blast it - the biggest mass murder of our lifetimes in the US was carried out with box cutters and airplanes - and I can buy any aircraft with no background check needed. I won't address box cutters - been down that road many times, and many refuse to see the connection.
So, again, and I apologize for being forceful in my tone, but I believe this to my core - it's none of their business what I do with my legally held, Constitutionally protected items, and allowing them to shut down something that has been done for 237 years across the country in the name of "safety" and "security", when in reality it provides neither, nah. See, you may have never been in a gun shop when a background check came back "denied"...and watch the cop standing next to him do nothing. Saw it more than once. System fail, and I refuse to trust it over my own self.Incidentally, the vast majrotiy of crime guns come from straw sales, which, Dear Leaders "statement" to the contrary, are already completely illegal...even the straw sales the feds encourage with Fast and Felony Stupid...off to the side, going after gun traffickers, can we expect Eric Holder to be arrested any time soon?
The other main ways are through theft, and the very last way is through purchasing.
Sorry for pontificating - I do that when I'm hungry, gotta go get some microwave pizza.

[Striper Sniper]

I think the cost is $500 million. I just don't think he needed to have children there. I get the point but it seemed exploitive. If he really wants to better this country he better do something to make sure our kids arent $300,000.00 in debt per household. I think the figure is $140,000.00 per household now.

[bozwell]

Bozwell
So I assume you would want only registered car dealers to be able to "transfer " your private car sales? You might sell it to someone who has lost or never had a drivers license. In my state you as a citizen you are supposed to know the person you are selling to, If you knowingly sell to a felon ( even though some felons can own guns) you are committing a crime.

$20 (which is rapidly becoming cheap) transfer is an inconvenience to some to others that can be hard to swallow. Remember people out there buy Hi-point handguns and cheap .22 rifles and single barrel shotguns. Many are not doing so because they like the platform as much as that's what they can afford. If the goals are to make it costly enough for those in the lower income brackets to get guns then adding taxes and fees should do the trick just as it has for smoking.

You're allowed to own a car without a driver's license.  You aren't allowed to drive it (at least on main roads, unsure about private land), but you're entitled to own it.  You aren't allowed to own a firearm if you have, say, a felony on your record and accordingly can't pass a background check.  There's a difference.  Same goes for any other misplaced analogies to selling fertilizer and the like.

As for infringing your rights and "it's none of their business what I do with my legally held, Constitutionally protected items", that's true up until what you do violates another law.  What if you decide you want to sell your legally held CZ Phantom (we know it's a hypo because Aman wouldn't do that ) to a 5 year old (or, to make the hypo more realistic, a 17 year old who looks 25).  Same analysis - same result?  In both cases, you're selling the firearm to someone who isn't legally allowed to own the firearm.  In both cases, it's property you legally own.  Point being, simply because it's something you own doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it under the law.

And there are ways to implement such a system without going through a FFL.  I don't believe the FBI even charges a fee (other than our tax dollars) for FFL's using NICS, and nothing says that this functionality couldn't be opened up to individuals as well, along with a way for individuals to prove that they did the check.  There are numerous ways this could be implemented. 

Would it prevent all gun crime?  Of course not.  Would it be a relatively harmless concession that could potentially be made, in order to avoid stricter requirements and bans?  I think so.  And just logically speaking, I just think we should have background checks for all transactions or no transactions.  There's absolutely no logical reason you should be able to avoid an otherwise mandatory check, simply by buying from a private individual rather than a licensed FFL.