I don't think it was as feel good as people think. It isn't really as big a deal as it could have been for sure. And it really has zero effect on 99% of lawful gun owners. But my belief is that he made this one pretty tame for a reason. If the people, legislature, and supreme court give him a pass on this because of it's mildness he will come back with an EO that outlaws AR style rifles and high cap mags.
If he is allowed to slip by on this one then he will get serious on gutting gun rights in his last year in office.

I simply believe there should be checks and balances when selling firearms between 2 individuals (or people in the business of making a profit on firearms without an FFL). Plain and simple. 2 strangers should not be allowed to sell and buy a firearm without the purchaser being allowed to own a firearm through the proper channels. Otherwise, having any kind of background check and paperwork is worthless on the front end.

So, do we ban gas for the cars that kill people?

It amazes me that there are so many out there who accept that there are dangerous people walking the streets as though it's just a simple fact of life that has existed since they became aware, and therefore that must be the natural order of things.

Life and history did not begin the day you discovered you could think. What you accept as "normal" is NOT normal. You've been told to accept it as normal, and you DO IT.

WTH?

The very same mindset that created the environment that nurtures the existence of these people is the mindset that does indeed want to strip you of your liberties. And you're swallowing it all hook, line, and sinker.

My faith in this country is at an all-time low.

How will it make it harder for the common Joe to acquire a firearm, if he is able to have one in the first place? Go to a dealer and do a transfer, ok, that's pretty easy. In theory, it should have one more method to prevent someone from obtaining a firearm that shouldn't have one. Will it change how criminals get their firearms, no. But there are many people out there that have things on their record that they "forgot" about that creates an issue with a firearms transfer. I have seen it first hand.

He can't do that by executive order. He can say it, and write it, but it won't stand.

by your logic yes... cars or gas should not be sold to anyone who has not undergone a background check. What if you're an alcoholic or have sleep apnea... YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE OUT CRIMINALITY.

So no one else sees a problem or the risk of selling a firearm to a stranger on the open market but me? Seriously.

lmao. Stranger danger... Criminals don't follow laws Chad. They will get what they want illegally. This affects law abiding citizens not criminals. Keep up.

But there is NO law currently preventing me from selling a firearm to you now, person to person, face to face. If I am selling a pistol, I would like to know that you are of sound mind and not a criminal. How would I know? A CHL or a background check would do this. How would I know if you are a criminal or not. I don't know you. Maybe you are the criminal.

Chad, I love ya, but I'm no on board with ya on this. The gasoline statement is perfect. In my 18 years in the fire service the ratio of car deaths to firearm deaths (caused by another person) is probably 500:1. Cars are deadly weapons people operate, by the millions every day. I answered a call to a wreck this morning, and last shift, and the one before that, the one before that, pretty much every day I am on duty. Zero firearm deaths did I see all of 2015. THE LAW says we must have a DL, we must have insurance, the car must pass inspection annually, and be registered annually. Yet probably half of all those hundreds of wrecks I see, one operator violates one or more of those laws every day. And the Police does not arrest for those offenses, they may write a citation. The illegal immigrant won't pay that citation and will continue to operate, business as usual.

The same holds true for these proposed regulations. Me being a law abiding citizen means that if a friend wants to sell me a rifle at my range I cannot legally purchase it without an FFL transfer. OK, I can call Vernon, he is five miles away. Nope Vernon is five counties away deer hunting, and you are what 60 miles away?

See the pain in the azz this just became for law abiding citizens? Yet the people that should not get their hands on firearms will continue to do so on the new black market.

That is my point. There is NO law currently preventing face to face transactions.

So my question is this then- What would be the first few steps or ways to prevent criminals from getting guns? I seriously want to know! What steps, what laws, what regulations could there be that would help reduce the chance (not eliminate the chance, but reduce the chance) of someone obtaining a firearm that shouldn't have it in the first place?

You put their sorry asses in prison and you leave them there, and you leave the law-abiding alone. That's step 1.

Wow..... NOTHING. NOT THIS LAW OR THE NEXT. And there will be a next and a next and a next. smh

Exactly.

Buy into this, and it'll be easier to sell you on the next infringement.

Agreed.

Chad, with hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms. It would be like trying to eliminate every grain of sand from from 100 square feet of beach, with tweezers. I really believe over 300 years of private gun ownership on this continent has made it impossible to make firearms 100% unobtainable for psychotics and felons. You of all people should understand and promote more good people carrying firearms. Yesterday, on my range, you had your Glock concealed and I had my XDs concealed. No way we're we going to be victims of anything.

Firearms are like fire hydrants, you never know where you will need one, so put them everywhere. These regulations make it more difficult for the right people to get guns and does nothing to prevent the wrong people from getting guns.

He couldn't do what he just did by executive order but he just did. Now the SCOTUS will have to rule on it. The same will be true with any gun law or restriction he does by EO.
Do we trust SCOTUS to make the right decision?

One of the things mentioned would help deter crime, and that is punishment. If found guilty of possessing guns illegally or any numerous myriad of other crimes that are already on the books, there should be a public punishment. One thing we don't have is a law issue, we do have a law enforcement issue...

But there will always be bad people out there that are evil and have evil in them, we can't fix that issue, only one can and until He comes back, we are in a fallen world.

If you are so concerned with it, why sell ammunition to people. I bought 100 rounds of rifle ammo from you a few months ago, and I'm sure I will again, so don't take this as an attack. How do you know I didn't take that ammo, use the dope chart you gave me, and kill a few people at 500 yards away?

Criminals will be criminals. The current system already makes it tougher for criminals to get guns. They can't run down to academy and pick one up, but it will always be available. Like I said earlier. I'm OK with background checks, simply because it atleast makes it tougher for criminals to get a gun. But it will never stop a bad guy from getting on eventually.

Think in terms of his signing NDAA 2013 that allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism.............

His latest executive order is child's play. Welcome to the new USA.

Marc

One thing to consider when people say everyone should have to go to an FFL to transfer a firearm is that there are places in the US where there isn't a local or easily accessible FFL. Take the folks in Chicago. The poor, inner city folks can't just walk down the street to a local gun store to do a transfer because there aren't any local gun stores and there won't be any because the city has basically zoned them out of existence. So what is the poor person in Chicago, who doesn't own a car and can't drive out of the city, supposed to do? Do you deny them their right to own a firearm for self defense because they are poor and don't have access to an FFL? What if they are living paycheck to paycheck and don't have the $20 or $50 or $100's it might cost for the FFL transfer? It doesn't even have to be Chicago. It could be any rural town in the US where the nearest FFL may be an hour away.

This is the same argument the left and the ACLU uses when you try to institute voter ID. They bring out how the poor can't afford the ID or can't get to a location to get a free ID and that is basically a "poll tax" on their right to vote.

And there doesn't need to be. Here is the reason why: NO law exists because if it did...it would tend to inconvenience MILLIONS of law abiding citizens, in exchange for the 'possibility' of preventing someone disqualified from attaining a firearm. So you are willing to burden MILLIONS in order to prevent a minuscule number of people from getting a firearm, knowing that other laws are already in place and sufficient (when enforced)?



In this setting (occasional sale/trade/swap of firearms) by a law abiding citizen, it is not incumbent upon you to know WITHOUT QUESTION whether or not a person is a "Criminal" (or non-qualifying). Lacking information otherwise you are to 'presume' they may legally possess it. You already can not make a transaction IF you 'reasonably know or suspect' a person is forbidden. In addition you do not have to sell/trade/give a firearm to ANYONE for any reason (privately) if YOU choose not to. But don't require the same of us!

Chad, there is risk in everything we do. Daily, we choose to weigh those risks against the potential gains.

The remedy for your concerns would be the strict enforcement of the MANY gun laws already on the books. I would be in favor of harsher sentences for certain offenses, but I do not see the need for additional laws, particularly those which will not (and have not) passed Congress (which by the way is the Governmental version of 'Checks and Balances').

WHEN firearms are misused (criminally) then a stiff, swift and certain penalty needs to be the deterrent. You can not legislate (in this case dictate) away criminal behavior. We can only harshly penalize it...when it occurs.

When it comes to your 'rights', please endeavor to look at proposed law carefully. Your rights (and mine) are being chipped away at daily. Don't help give it away.

Sad thing is I am all in favor of a poll tax....gets rid of all the riff raff at the polls

I know that isn't the "right" thing, but I believe there is a cost to citizenry, and believe we all need to participate. Either pay the money or join the military, either way gets you entrance to being a full US citizen with all the rights that entails.


How you like them apples?

you got it now your last sentence hits the nail on the head
otherwise having any kind of background check and paperwork is worthless on the front end
this is exactly right the only people that do it are law abiding citizens there is no reason to have the checks at all it does nothing to stop criminals access to guns as is preached by govt this govt has been caught running guns illegally under fast and furious but still wants the subjects to follow the rules

I had faith you would figure it out

see you figured it out