41p is official

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

How big is that rock you're typing from underneath?

If you have a trust for your NFA firearms I suggest you get with the lawyer who wrote yours up to see if it makes it difficult to add new items.

As it reads right now according to one of the lawyers is that all trustees must go through fingerprinting. I'll be making a new trust that has co-trustees that won't have the ability to manage and sell items but can possess.

BHO stated they are taking a closer look at those "hiding behind trusts & corporations"...

People, he's not "taking away" your guns. I haven't fully read exactly what the new "rules" will be exactly. But the summary of what I have read is ALL individuals will need to have a background check when buying a gun, known as the "gun show loop hole". Once the original person buys a firearm from a dealer (with a background check) and later wants to sell that firearm, the original buyer can sell it to whomever they want. The new buyer does not go through a background check. This new rule will require the new buyer to have a background check. I have never understood why (me as an 01 FFL dealer) must go through all this paperwork to be licensed and the purchaser have to get the background check, when once the firearm leaves the dealer, the firearm can go anywhere or sold to anyone, without a background check. Honestly, I'm for this. Think about that for a second. It's common sense. I may get flack for saying that, but it only makes sense for ANYONE buying a firearm to have the proper background check as the original buyer did. If you can not pass a common background check, or have been declared mentally unstable, then you probably should not have a gun. I'm a hard core Republican, and huge pro 2nd amendment, but there does need to be some common sense to ALL firearms transactions.

On the trust ruling, you can have criminals/felons (or someone who cannot pass a background check) currently on your trust. You can also have firearms and class 3 weapons (full auto and suppressors) in your trust that these criminals can legally possess (if not a felon) and have access to with the current law. Seriously, put some common sense to this.

Again, he's not taking away your guns! He's closing the gun show loop hole.

On the trust ruling, you can have criminals/felons (or someone who cannot pass a background check) currently on your trust. You can also have firearms and class 3 weapons (full auto and suppressors) in your trust that these criminals can legally possess (if not a felon) and have access to with the current law.

I suspect the AR15s will start to show up in the classifieds any day now and all of a sudden they will all be 1500 dollar ARs

I'm a Republican and 2nd amendment advocate. But I believe anyone buying a gun should have a background check. If you're not a law abiding citizen then you forfeit your gun rights. If you can't pass a background check because your a hot head or mentally unstable you dont deserve the ability to legally buy a gun.

The good thing about 41p is Cleo signature went away, now it's notification.

So to by an nfa item you submit finger prints and a picture and that's it.

What will be interesting is do you do finger prints every time or will it be streamlined?

With the removal of the requirement for the CLEO approval, will NFA trusts serve a purpose for an individual?

If CLEO signature goes away, then what's the need for the trust? At that point, couldn't you just buy it and then transfer it to the trust, seems like that would bypass the all pics/prints issue?

What about current items on the trust and trustees? Lets just say I wont purchase anything else and put it on my trust, are the trustees on my current trust required to send in fingerprints/photo still?

What about current items on the trust and trustees? Lets just say I wont purchase anything else and put it on my trust, are the trustees on my current trust required to send in fingerprints/photo still?

Hows this gonna effect the THF classifieds?

It's not...buyer and seller will have to go through an FFL to complete the transfer and BG check.

That is an effect. No more parkinglot purchases. No more mailing a rifle from one man to another within the state.

Yet criminals will continue to get their hands on what ever they want. Short barreled shotgun, all you need is a saw. SBR, all you need is a lathe. Full auto rifles, just basic tools. Suppressors can be made from household items.

This EO will do zero to curb crime, yet make life more of a PITA for law abiding citizens, same as most other gun laws.

What I'm curious about though is what about items currently in possession?

So exactly how are they going to even begin to enforce a face to face sale between two private individuals?

So exactly how are they going to even begin to enforce a face to face sale between two private individuals?

It's not...buyer and seller will have to go through an FFL to complete the transfer and BG check.

That is an effect. No more parkinglot purchases. No more mailing a rifle from one man to another within the state.

Yet criminals will continue to get their hands on what ever they want. Short barreled shotgun, all you need is a saw. SBR, all you need is a lathe. Full auto rifles, just basic tools. Suppressors can be made from household items.

This EO will do zero to curb crime, yet make life more of a PITA for law abiding citizens, same as most other gun laws.

Only thing I can think of, in my situation, is that me being the only trustee of the trust I'm the only one that will have to submit the finger prints and photos and background check. But if something were to happen to me my wife is my beneficiary so the NFA items would be then passed onto her and she could either sell them or keep them and wouldn't have to repay the $200 tax stamp for each item. Not sure what happens to NFA items if you're buying it as an individual without a trust. If you die, do they just get forfeited and go to the ATF to be destroyed? Does a family member have a chance to have them passed down, but would still have to go through the registration process and pay $200 per item?

Step 2 is a nationwide gun registry....pay attention...it's coming.

I will say as I read the reg this would not effect private sellers selling to each other...only guys who are "dealers" selling used guns. Now, define "dealers"...that is the grey area here.

TXG308 - I don't read the reg to effect two THF'ers selling a gun to have to go to an FFL to do the deal. Just if you sell a used gun (stupid, stupid, stupid...but that is how I read it). Or I'm miss-interpreting the reg (which wouldn't be a first, I'm a software guy not a lawyer )

That is an effect. No more parkinglot purchases. No more mailing a rifle from one man to another within the state.

Yet criminals will continue to get their hands on what ever they want. Short barreled shotgun, all you need is a saw. SBR, all you need is a lathe. Full auto rifles, just basic tools. Suppressors can be made from household items.

This EO will do zero to curb crime, yet make life more of a PITA for law abiding citizens, same as most other gun laws.

I'm not a lawyer.
I believe for an individual, you can inherit the NFA items one time without any new tax stamp, but there is Form 3 paperwork. When that person dies, then the next heir would have to pay $200 for each NFA tax stamp and do the Form 3 paperwork.

The real issue here is the malicious intent of these laws. In spite of the Democratic rhetoric, the long term intent of the party is very clear: virtually total firearm confiscation. The party, as defined by the urban masses, hates hunting as a sport and views firearms as weapons, not as sporting goods. These new laws were created out of their sense of frustration with Congress and are intended as active legal instruments of harassment, since it's clear they will have **no** effect on crime. They are designed to harass ordinary gun owners.

Consider 41p. How many legally registered Class 3 items are used in crimes? Virtually none. Tightening up the requirements of Class 3 ownership can have **no** effect on major crime statistics. It is intended to harass Class 3 owners, virtually all of whom comprise a group of the most law abiding citizens in America. If your sole intent was to protect the American public, why on Earth would you tighten regulation where it was demonstrably unneeded and could have no effect?

Make no mistake, the intent of these laws is to harass and ultimately destroy. They are a demonstration of malicious intent by an administration that's politically impotent and wants to lash out at its adversaries.

As has been stated several times. Private sales will still not require a background check. Guys just can't be "gun dealers" anymore without doing background checks. Guys who use gun sales as a form of income on a regular basis.

And SHOCKING to see an FFL on this thread happy about a new order that he believes will bring him more FFL X-fer business yet claims he his pro 2nd amendment. Laughable.

Cbs mentioned that some courts have said selling one nib gun could be construed as in the business...


It all depends on definition of in the business. Supposedly the atf will release guidance

What do you guys think will happen to people who are already in the process of buying class 3 items? I have paid for and submitted a form 3 on 3 suppressors that I am awaiting approval on.

And SHOCKING to see an FFL on this thread happy about a new order that he believes will bring him more FFL X-fer business yet claims he his pro 2nd amendment. Laughable.

What do you guys think will happen to people who are already in the process of buying class 3 items? I have paid for and submitted a form 3 on 3 suppressors that I am awaiting approval on.

And SHOCKING to see an FFL on this thread happy about a new order that he believes will bring him more FFL X-fer business yet claims he his pro 2nd amendment. Laughable.

The ATF guidance is posted in this thread already. Look up.

Whom are you referring to? Certainly not me; I never said or implied anything of the sort. I only stated IF a background check is required then going through an FFL would accomplish this.

People, he's not "taking away" your guns. I haven't fully read exactly what the new "rules" will be exactly. But the summary of what I have read is ALL individuals will need to have a background check when buying a gun, known as the "gun show loop hole". Once the original person buys a firearm from a dealer (with a background check) and later wants to sell that firearm, the original buyer can sell it to whomever they want. The new buyer does not go through a background check. This new rule will require the new buyer to have a background check. I have never understood why (me as an 01 FFL dealer) must go through all this paperwork to be licensed and the purchaser have to get the background check, when once the firearm leaves the dealer, the firearm can go anywhere or sold to anyone, without a background check. Honestly, I'm for this. Think about that for a second. It's common sense. I may get flack for saying that, but it only makes sense for ANYONE buying a firearm to have the proper background check as the original buyer did. If you can not pass a common background check, or have been declared mentally unstable, then you probably should not have a gun. I'm a hard core Republican, and huge pro 2nd amendment, but there does need to be some common sense to ALL firearms transactions.

Whom are you referring to? Certainly not me; I never said or implied anything of the sort. I only stated IF a background check is required then going through an FFL would accomplish this.

He's not referring to you. He's talking about this.

So exactly how are they going to even begin to enforce a face to face sale between two private individuals?

I wish I could put down my 100's of thoughts about some of the posts above. There is A LOT of false info there on the posts.

Since I am an FFL, I see a lot of behind the scenes that other people don't see. As an FFL, we have tons of paperwork for new firearm transfers while completing a background check. Once the original buyer wants to sell it, he can sell it to anyone he wants- criminal or non-criminal, ANYONE. Take the most recent tragedy, the San Bernandino shooting. The guy sold his AR's to his neighbor/friend, the 2 muslims, that killed the 14 people. If the original buyer was required to complete a transfer to the 2 muslims, who knows if the 2 muslims would have passed that or not. But it wouldn't have been as simple as handing over money to get the AR's. It's a borderline straw purchase. How do you not see this as a problem!!

I have asked my ATF agents why there are no regs for background checks after the initial sale. They had no answer.

I also have a problem with individuals who "sell guns" as income and do it as a business, with no FFL. They buy guns from people, and sell them for a profit. But they don't carry the FFL that's required. They don't complete any background checks on the buyers. They don't pay any taxes on their sales. How is this a bad thing?

I have spoken to several FFL's and 2 class 3 dealers now about this new EO. All but 1 said this is not such a bad deal. 2 of us were all on board with it. I think if you really look into what this is, you may understand it more. I'm not saying I agree with Obama at all. But something like these regs has been needing to happen for a while. The next question is how will they pay for it, implement it, and figure out the logistics of this.

The main way would be after the fact, or after something happens. For example, take the San Bernadino shooting. The neighbor/friend sold the 2 muslims his AR's. If this new ruling was in effect making it required for them to have a background check for the transfer from the neighbor/friend, then the neighbor could also be held responsible for their wrong doings.

I wish I could put down my 100's of thoughts about some of the posts above. There is A LOT of false info there on the posts.

Since I am an FFL, I see a lot of behind the scenes that other people don't see. As an FFL, we have tons of paperwork for new firearm transfers while completing a background check. Once the original buyer wants to sell it, he can sell it to anyone he wants- criminal or non-criminal, ANYONE. Take the most recent tragedy, the San Bernandino shooting. The guy sold his AR's to his neighbor/friend, the 2 muslims, that killed the 14 people. If the original buyer was required to complete a transfer to the 2 muslims, who knows if the 2 muslims would have passed that or not. But it wouldn't have been as simple as handing over money to get the AR's. It's a borderline straw purchase. How do you not see this as a problem!!

I have asked my ATF agents why there are no regs for background checks after the initial sale. They had no answer.

I also have a problem with individuals who "sell guns" as income and do it as a business, with no FFL. They buy guns from people, and sell them for a profit. But they don't carry the FFL that's required. They don't complete any background checks on the buyers. They don't pay any taxes on their sales. How is this a bad thing?

I have spoken to several FFL's and 2 class 3 dealers now about this new EO. All but 1 said this is not such a bad deal. 2 of us were all on board with it. I think if you really look into what this is, you may understand it more. I'm not saying I agree with Obama at all. But something like these regs has been needing to happen for a while. The next question is how will they pay for it, implement it, and figure out the logistics of this.

Another major thing that needs to be done is updating the database for the background checks. This has been a big issue for a long time also. The problem is the lack of funding to get the records into the database.

Watch this video for some inside info:

https://www.facebook.com/NRANews/videos/10153368465927898/?fref=nf

I wish I could put down my 100's of thoughts about some of the posts above. There is A LOT of false info there on the posts.

Since I am an FFL, I see a lot of behind the scenes that other people don't see. As an FFL, we have tons of paperwork for new firearm transfers while completing a background check. Once the original buyer wants to sell it, he can sell it to anyone he wants- criminal or non-criminal, ANYONE. Take the most recent tragedy, the San Bernandino shooting. The guy sold his AR's to his neighbor/friend, the 2 muslims, that killed the 14 people. If the original buyer was required to complete a transfer to the 2 muslims, who knows if the 2 muslims would have passed that or not. But it wouldn't have been as simple as handing over money to get the AR's. It's a borderline straw purchase. How do you not see this as a problem!!

I have asked my ATF agents why there are no regs for background checks after the initial sale. They had no answer.

I also have a problem with individuals who "sell guns" as income and do it as a business, with no FFL. They buy guns from people, and sell them for a profit. But they don't carry the FFL that's required. They don't complete any background checks on the buyers. They don't pay any taxes on their sales. How is this a bad thing?

I have spoken to several FFL's and 2 class 3 dealers now about this new EO. All but 1 said this is not such a bad deal. 2 of us were all on board with it. I think if you really look into what this is, you may understand it more. I'm not saying I agree with Obama at all. But something like these regs has been needing to happen for a while. The next question is how will they pay for it, implement it, and figure out the logistics of this.

but as far as i can see this ruling isnt requiring every sale to have a background check as its still allowing for the occasional private sale as a hobbyist.
however just as before if you sell an item and it comes back having been used in a crime you're getting a knock on your door.

I think it would be easier if there was some kind of standard form or paperwork that 2 individuals could write up (like a bill of sale) and call in a background check themselves, independently of an FFL. This would be simple and much faster than going through an FFL. I do transfers, but I don't promote that I do them. Why, because they are a PITA to do and you have to keep the records on them.

The main way would be after the fact, or after something happens. For example, take the San Bernadino shooting. The neighbor/friend sold the 2 muslims his AR's. If this new ruling was in effect making it required for them to have a background check for the transfer from the neighbor/friend, then the neighbor could also be held responsible for their wrong doings.

I think it would be easier if there was some kind of standard form or paperwork that 2 individuals could write up (like a bill of sale) and call in a background check themselves, independently of an FFL. This would be simple and much faster than going through an FFL. I do transfers, but I don't promote that I do them. Why, because they are a PITA to do and you have to keep the records on them.

Yes I completely agree with this, if they want 100% background checks on all sales fine I'll do it but give me a system that I can do it on my own with the buyer.....I also think this would then allow for tracking of people conducting a business without a license
HOWEVER it would also open the door to exposure to the batfe saying you are in business when you are simply liquidating a collection and likely requiring sales taxes

My answers are in red

Everything you are using to support this was illegal before. Straw purchase illegal Correct! Enforce this rule as hard as you can!

Selling to someone you know can not pass a background check already illegal. How do you know they are illegal? Have you ever sold a firearm to someone you didn't know? How would you know unless it was checked!? What if that person had a restraining order on them recently. This would prohibit them from purchasing/transferring a firearm to them. (I found out much later that someone I knew had a restraining order on them from their spouse. Technically, they could not legally have transferred a firearm. I don't know if that would be in a background check, but it certainly is one of the boxes you check when buying/transferring a firearm)

Dealing without a license already illegal. Define "dealing"? I see all the time guys that sell firearms for profit, that do not carry an FFL. Yet they make money on "dealing" firearms. If you sell a few joints, are you a drug dealer? If you sell a lot of joints, are you a drug dealer? Again, define "dealing".

Most of what you are complaining about was already illegal but hasn't been enforced well. I have been waiting for someone to be nailed for dealing without a license. You can get on Facebook groups and spot them. However I will never agree with 100% backing checks on every purchase. The only way that can be enforced is with a registry. There is NO registry! When a background check takes place, the only thing the NICS knows is that you are getting a "Handgun", "Long Gun" or "Other". They do not know if it's a Glock, a Sig, a Remington, or an Armalite. All the NICS knows is "Handgun", "Long Gun" or "Other". If you have a CHL, the FFL doesn't even phone in a background check, and no one knows you bought a firearm, except the FFL and you. The ONLY way anyone would know what you bought is if the ATF came and requested your info on a specific purchase. That's it!

I wish I could put down my 100's of thoughts about some of the posts above. There is A LOT of false info there on the posts.

Since I am an FFL, I see a lot of behind the scenes that other people don't see. As an FFL, we have tons of paperwork for new firearm transfers while completing a background check. Once the original buyer wants to sell it, he can sell it to anyone he wants- criminal or non-criminal, ANYONE. Take the most recent tragedy, the San Bernandino shooting. The guy sold his AR's to his neighbor/friend, the 2 muslims, that killed the 14 people. If the original buyer was required to complete a transfer to the 2 muslims, who knows if the 2 muslims would have passed that or not. But it wouldn't have been as simple as handing over money to get the AR's. It's a borderline straw purchase. How do you not see this as a problem!!

I have asked my ATF agents why there are no regs for background checks after the initial sale. They had no answer.

I also have a problem with individuals who "sell guns" as income and do it as a business, with no FFL. They buy guns from people, and sell them for a profit. But they don't carry the FFL that's required. They don't complete any background checks on the buyers. They don't pay any taxes on their sales. How is this a bad thing?

I have spoken to several FFL's and 2 class 3 dealers now about this new EO. All but 1 said this is not such a bad deal. 2 of us were all on board with it. I think if you really look into what this is, you may understand it more. I'm not saying I agree with Obama at all. But something like these regs has been needing to happen for a while. The next question is how will they pay for it, implement it, and figure out the logistics of this.

I would think in Texas you could do it where anyone that has a CHL can sell to another individual with a CHL. There should maybe be a clause added to the CHL law that you can buy/sell/trade fire arms privately and not for business with a CHL. If you have a CHL you have already passed a more extensive background check than the NICS system anyway.


This would probably prompt a lot more people to get CHL's which is a good thing. Would also do away with the sketchy people that can't pass a background check or can't get a CHL going on the internet and meeting up with someone to buy a gun. This would ensure that everyone that buys/sells guns FTF have passed an extensive background check every 5 years.

yes you are saying you agree with it that is all you have said from the beginning (I guess you would vote for your guy again- I have voted straight Republican ticket since I could vote, just FYI). you continue to repeat yourself that you are willing to give up more and more of the publics freedoms because you might make an extra dollar. that is the only reason i have been able to find for your post. F that! I've already said doing transfers is a PITA. I'm an 01 FFL because I have to be. I take possession of some firearms for my ammunition business, which requires me to have the 01 FFL. I already said I don't promote my 01 FFL and do transfers. So, that reasoning is 100% incorrect. I did 30+ transfers in 2014, and a few more than that for 2015 (haven't counted yet). Almost all of those were friends I personally know, and a few business transactions.
If you understood the inner workings a little more FFL's and what goes on behind the scenes, it might be a little enlightening.

explain to me how this will keep guns out of the hand of criminals that want a gun, if no one will sell them one they will steal one. you are all for limiting the freedoms of the lawabiding while doing nothing to stop the criminals. You are 100% correct. Will it stop 100% of criminals- No, not at all. Will it possibly limit the availability of firearms to certain people who should not have them- YES!!!! You go through a TSA screening at the airport, right. It helps keep banned items from coming aboard a flight (most of the time, but that's another debate also!) Same principal with a background check. Yes, it is an inconvenience, but is it worth this inconvenience for possibly keeping certain criminal or unfit individuals from a firearm, IMO, yes!

you want to make a change, set a group not allowed to purchase or possess firearms (oh wait already been done) and set penalties for violations ( oh thats been done too) enforce those laws (thats what needs to be done)

Still unaceptable

My replies are in red

Why would showing your CHL when buying a gun from an individual unacceptable? You show your driver license to buy beer and cigs, but you can't be troubled to show your CHL when buying a gun?

why should a chl be a requirement for buying a gun, that would still be an infringment of my freedom.
im old enough i dont get carded anymore

I'm not saying that a CHL would be required to buy a gun you could still go into a gun store and do an NICS check. I'm saying a CHL is an easy indicator that the person has passed an extensive background check, paid his taxes, has no felonies, pays his child support, and so on.

Fine lets not do the CHL how about a "background check card". You do a one time background check and you get a card in the mail and it is good for 5 years just like the CHL. You can use that background check card to buy/sell/trade FTF with other individuals, no card you must do the transfer at an FFL. In 5 years you'll have to re-certify your background check card same as CHL. They run another extensive background check on you and reissue a new card good for 5 years. Same as with the CHL you must report any changes like change or residences and so on. If you fail to do it your card will be suspended. Pretty much same rules as the CHL. You could even use these in gun stores to bypass the NICS check same as CHL. Also there will be no gun registry or paper trail because you'll still be doing FTF deals and buying/selling/trading with individuals you'll just have a concrete way of telling whether or not a person is legal to own a gun or not. Pretty simple stuff here.

Its like an instant background check in your pocket... I better patent this [censored].. LOL

What freedom loss? There is no loss. The loss is to the people who shouldn't have a firearm to begin with! That's their loss for being a criminal. I stay clean so I have my freedoms intact, and passing a simple background check will not impede my freedoms one bit, or anyone else's. If others are criminals, they lose their freedoms. That's why we have a prison system!

Where did I say FFL's have it bad? I think you are assuming way too much here.

To say no liberty has been lost is to overlook the liberty stolen by NFA and GCA68. This is all just a warmup and letting out the clutch to get things moving. The throttle ain't been touched. Yet.

I really have to wonder about anyone who fears other people's freedom.

There was not and are not "loopholes at a gun shows". If you purchased a gun at a gun show from a vendor you still went through a back ground check. Why does this statement keep coming up.

I am probably going to get beat to mush on this, but here I go. I think that background checks should be in place to keep a gun out of the hand of some gangbanger wanna be, or some crazy that's going to shoot up a mall or school, or whatever is in their demented mind.

background checks are alreay in place. if im a "gangbanger" and i want a gun would i not lie on the paperwork or steal one from a vehicle or house or find one of my buddies to give me one. any person that wants a gun will find a way to get a gun with or without a check.

I don't know how you would be able to resale a gun to your buddy or some stranger that reaches out and buy's what you post in a classified ad since there isn't a background check for those. Closing the loophole at a gun show should be no different than buying it from a gun shop,

this one always makes me laugh what gunshow loophole a licensed ffl has to do the same thing at a gun show that he must at his place of business. and a private party may sale to a person same as they could out side of a gunshow.

and if you can't get on a plane because your on the no fly list, then you shouldn't be able to buy a gun either,

why is the person on the no fly list?

but how and who will do the testing for the insane person that buys it?

define insane? this will be a trouble spot are you insane if you ever seen a shrink? that would depend on the shrink to decide if you are "in the right mind to be trusted" i hope i never have to have people make decisions on my behalf.

I'm sorry if I don't understand all of the discussion, so when you reply please educate and explain the point, not beat up on me for not knowing everything about gun laws. I do know that when you travel out of state, you had better know the laws of the states your going to be in or traveling thru so you stay out of trouble.

There was not and are not "loopholes at a gun shows". If you purchased a gun at a gun show from a vendor you still went through a back ground check. Why does this statement keep coming up.

As an individual, you can buy a table at a gun show for about $20-$40 to sell whatever you want for the weekend. If you buy firearms to sell or have "your personal collection", you can sell them to whomever walks up with money in hand. This individual is not an FFL, and there is no paperwork or background check done to know that the person you are selling it to has the right to own or possess a firearm. What this EO is wanting to do, is if you are "in the business of dealing guns" (which has not been fully defined yet) is requiring a background check, which will require the seller to be a dealer.

Also, as an individual, you can bring your own firearm and walk around with it to find a buyer. It's a simple cash transaction, no paperwork or background check.

Yes, there are some FFL's at gun shows. But there are a lot of transactions that happen with a simple cash transaction.

There was not and are not "loopholes at a gun shows". If you purchased a gun at a gun show from a vendor you still went through a back ground check. Why does this statement keep coming up.

If we were not such a p###sy whipped country this topic would never be an issue but there is a class of people out there that believe if you limit peoples rights you can stop bad people from doing bad things. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it does not work that way.

I am probably going to get beat to mush on this, but here I go. I think that background checks should be in place to keep a gun out of the hand of some gangbanger wanna be, or some crazy that's going to shoot up a mall or school, or whatever is in their demented mind. I don't know how you would be able to resale a gun to your buddy or some stranger that reaches out and buy's what you post in a classified ad since there isn't a background check for those. Closing the loophole at a gun show should be no different than buying it from a gun shop, and if you can't get on a plane because your on the no fly list, then you shouldn't be able to buy a gun either, but how and who will do the testing for the insane person that buys it? I'm sorry if I don't understand all of the discussion, so when you reply please educate and explain the point, not beat up on me for not knowing everything about gun laws. I do know that when you travel out of state, you had better know the laws of the states your going to be in or traveling thru so you stay out of trouble.

you are correct

explain to us how this is a loop hole? the "gunshow Loophole" the PO(TU)S referances and the anti gun folk info pushed out to the masses is that there are no background checks done at a gun show, which is false. those required to do them do them to remain in good standing with the licensing agency.

I am sorry i almost feel like i am picking on you, but really.

at one time you could walk into a store buy a gun and walk out w a reciept being the only paperwork completed even for a machine gun, this should never have changed. our 2nd amendment right have slowly been chipped away and i refuse to surrender any more of my freedoms for govt control. If we were not such a p###sy whipped country this topic would never be an issue but there is a class of people out there that believe if you limit peoples rights you can stop bad people from doing bad things. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it does not work that way.

The loop hole is that not everyone goes through the back ground check process, whether at gun shows, face to face, on-line (and yes you can buy a rifle (not a handgun) in Texas on-line without going through an FFL and have it shipped to you directly with no background check or paperwork). If you are an FFL, the paperwork and background check are verified. If you are an individual, or an individual "dealing in firearms" that does not have an FFL, there is no paperwork or background check completed on the buyer. There are many "gun dealers" at gun shows, on-line, and/or are in the business of selling guns that are not FFL.

listen here folks. Just like there is a lot of talk about how the liberals mis-use terminology and call things like the "gun-show loophole" and "assault rifles" and such silly things with directly inflammatory verbage, there is the same stuff we say that causes as much anger and offense to them; us saying we aren't going to take this any longer and refusing to surrender any more of our rights because we are not a p###y whipped part of the country...

Guess what, until you are willing to throw down that first bullet and have the stand off, or march on Washington, all we are doing is the same the libs are doing to us. Inflaming and insulting doesn't do anyone any good. We hear sh#t talked about all day long, but no one has the balls to do anything about it. The repubs lost an election twice and we as a country have to deal with the ramifications of this for at least another year. It sucks, but that's life. No one said it was fair.

Talking in a civilized manner to our friends here on the forum is about all most of us will ever have as far a political clout. Unless someone is willing to organize a resistance to this EO, there is no doubt we will forced to comply with it and we will be forced to give up more of our "freedoms", as innocuous as that may be for some or as invasive as it may be for others (and whether it was lawful or not to do doesn't matter any more, it is done, unless supreme court rules it was over reach, which probably isn't going to happen since they have shown themselves to be puppets of the mob as well)

When the straw breaks, I will be the first to join in, but until then, insulting and inflaming is doing nothing other than riling people up.

Lets keep the conversation here to what the EO is and what it is not and how we go about doing things we all want to do in the best manner possible within the confines of the law.

BTW, this EO doesn't take effect until at least 180 days, so we have some time to digest and figure things out.

Pretty sure the background check doesn't cost an FFL holder anything. But they have to pay every year to keep that FFL so why not charge for your services? Would you work for free? A background check around here is $15 with CHL and $20 without CHL. If you buy the in their store the transfer is free. Its only outside purchases like from online retailers or auction sites they charge a transfer fee on. They're just charging what they think their time is worth to receive the shipped item, call you when it comes in, then run a background check on you and keep the paperwork on file for ATF if they ever need it.

Ok so I'm not going through 9 pages... here is what I gather...

Every gun sale is going to have to have a pass a background check? so basically an ffl transfer on every gun I buy from my uncle or brother in law?

This is unenforceable right now. We don't have all guns registered... there is no way for them to know if a transfer took place in a face to face cash situation...

that being said. That means that the ONLY thing this is a step toward the (at this rate) inevitable required tracking of ALL GUNS... Huh didn't England and Australia do that... and what's the next step????

Yeah we need to figure out how to get UP IN ARMS about this like RIGHT NOW... I think I'll be contacting my congressmen. Something neads to be done about our POTUS's abuse of the power of the executive branch...

Actually they haven't. They have even said they are going to produce guidance to help clarify. As I said earlier you could be considered in the business even with 1-2 private sales

Today the ATF posted this to clarify who did or did not need an FFL.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

While I don't agree with anything that Obama does by fiat I think everyone needs to read and know that Individuals that sell a gun now and then are not subject to this. Of course as all ATF guidelines these are all subject to different interpretations depending on the ATF agent you are dealing with. Hope if you ever deal with one you get one with common sense.

Here it is again.

The only thing you have came in here and stated over and over is "I am in the gun related industry and I support Obama taking more of the law abiding citizens of the USA 2nd amendment freedoms away from them."

Please if i have overstated it here please someone tell me. I still say NO MORE infringements on my FREEDOMS.

There seems to be a big source of confusion coming out of President Barack Obama's executive actions on guns: Is Obama really closing the infamous "gun show loophole"?

The short version: No.

The long version: For one, the "gun show loophole" is a terrible name. The better way to look at it is a private sales loophole: If someone purchases a gun from a private seller, such as a collector, friend, or family member, no gun background check is required. This is well-known as the "gun show loophole" because these types of private sellers can be found at gun shows. But licensed dealers at gun shows still have to carry out background checks. The actual loophole is that someone can meet with a private seller at a gun show — or, increasingly, over the internet — and buy a firearm from that person without a background check. In other words, the gun show doesn't create a loophole; the private sale does.

Obama's executive actions do not close this loophole. Instead, the president issued a guidance that attempts to narrow the loophole by limiting who can sell guns without a federal license (which requires background checks on sales), and warns gun sellers of the risks if they try to use the private sales loophole to avoid carrying out a background check. White House officials said their primary interest is to go after for-profit dealers who are posing as hobbyists or one-time sellers when they are in fact "engaged in the business" of selling guns.

The idea is, essentially, to make enforcement of existing federal laws stricter so fewer people — whether gun sellers or buyers — take advantage of the loophole. So a better way to look at the move is that it's narrowing, rather than closing, the loophole.

In fact, Obama's executive actions can't completely close this loophole. It's written into law, so it would take congressional action to completely close it. (The White House was clear on this point in a call with reporters, stating multiple times that the executive actions should not let Congress "off the hook" of passing gun control legislation.)

So Obama is taking some steps to narrow the gaps in federal law, and it's certainly the biggest action he's taken yet on guns. But that mostly reflects his inability to do much on guns without Congress, not that these tweaks will add up to enormous changes.

100% incorrect. You are still not hearing me or understanding me. What I have stated is that I am for a more checks and balances system to provide background checks for sales or transfers of firearms between individual to individuals, or any method individuals could acquire a firearm without a background check. Why- because I don't want people who are not supposed to have a firearm have one- i.e.- criminals, mentally unstable, illegal alien, someone addicted to drugs, fugitives, etc. So if you are not in support of background checks, you are then saying it's ok for criminals, mentally unstable, illegal aliens, someone addicted to drugs, fugitives, etc. to be allowed to own a firearm and purchase it. And you think that's common sense? How the EO is going about it is wrong.

Just read this from an extremely left leaning news outlet, but it actually sums up the new EO/EA pretty well.



So basically his EO/EA was just feel good pandering to his base. He has accomplished nothing and can't accomplish anything without congress.

100% incorrect. You are still not hearing me or understanding me. What I have stated is that I am for a more checks and balances system to provide background checks for sales or transfers of firearms between individual to individuals, or any method individuals could acquire a firearm without a background check. Why- because I don't want people who are not supposed to have a firearm have one- i.e.- criminals, mentally unstable, illegal alien, someone addicted to drugs, fugitives, etc. So if you are not in support of background checks, you are then saying it's ok for criminals, mentally unstable, illegal aliens, someone addicted to drugs, fugitives, etc. to be allowed to own a firearm and purchase it. And you think that's common sense? How the EO is going about it is wrong.

Just read this from an extremely left leaning news outlet, but it actually sums up the new EO/EA pretty well.



So basically his EO/EA was just feel good pandering to his base. He has accomplished nothing and can't accomplish anything without congress.

more checks and balances system to provide background checks for sales or transfers of ammunition between individual to individuals, or any method individuals could acquire ammunition without a background check. ..........So if you are not in support of background checks, you are then saying it's ok for criminals, mentally unstable, illegal aliens, someone addicted to drugs, fugitives, etc. to be allowed to purchase and possess ammunition How the EO is going about it is wrong.

On the trust ruling, you can have criminals/felons (or someone who cannot pass a background check) currently on your trust. You can also have firearms and class 3 weapons (full auto and suppressors) in your trust that these criminals can legally possess (if not a felon) and have access to with the current law. Seriously, put some common sense to this.

Again, he's not taking away your guns! He's closing the gun show loop hole.

Your statement could easily read




So you would have no problem with this. Background checks or a foid card system for all ammunition purchases and ammunition components. Add every purchase logged including amount and lot numbers. Restrict private transfer and manufacture of ammunition. After all even illegally possessed firearms can't be fired without ammunition. If not are you saying it is ok with you that criminals, mentally unstable, illegal aliens, someone addicted to drugs, fugitives, etc. should be allowed to possess and purchase unlimited amounts of ammunition. It is no different than your view on firearms.

This is the most tired argument I have every heard. Since when does making something illegal keep criminals from getting their hands on it? It doesn't. All it does is make it a pain in the butt for law abiding people. Let see, pot is ILLEGAL yet people can get it anywhere. Herione? Yep its still illegal and you can get it on half the street corners in dallas. Prostitution? ILLEGAL but I bet I can meet you at the house with 2 whores in about a hour if I wanted too.

How about we just enforce the laws that are currently on the books instead of creating new ones that have a 0% chance of working in the real world?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 understand chad. I just don't fully agree. I agree there should be better control of people who shouldn't get guns getting them. But every time you buy a gun with the paperwork that gun is registered to you. So basically this paves the road for full gun registration and when they are ready to take them there will be little left this hide.

I understand chad. I just don't fully agree. I agree there should be better control of people who shouldn't get guns getting them.

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

The first thing I would do is update the database on which the background checks look at. It is very outdated with many institutions not reporting into it for people who shouldn't have a firearm not in the database.

What pisses me off the most about the EO is Obama saying that this would have prevented Sandy Hook and the San Bernandino shootings. Exactly how does fingerprinting NFA trust members correlate to this crime or any other? Oh and last time I checked the firearms used in those shootings were both obtained legally, at least initially. This was nothing more than an excuse to tighten gun control with lies as a justification. Seriously, what will be next if this stands? Maybe FFLs should be reimbursed by the government for the background checks they are requiring instead of charging people.

I cant stand the man in office, but I havnt seen anywhere where he said this would have prevented the shootings at Sandy Hook and San Bernardino. We don't gain any ground by making stuff up.

Still unaceptable

Why would showing your CHL when buying a gun from an individual unacceptable? You show your driver license to buy beer and cigs, but you can't be troubled to show your CHL when buying a gun?

I'm not saying that a CHL would be required to buy a gun you could still go into a gun store and do an NICS check. I'm saying a CHL is an easy indicator that the person has passed an extensive background check, paid his taxes, has no felonies, pays his child support, and so on.

Fine lets not do the CHL how about a "background check card". You do a one time background check and you get a card in the mail and it is good for 5 years just like the CHL. You can use that background check card to buy/sell/trade FTF with other individuals, no card you must do the transfer at an FFL. In 5 years you'll have to re-certify your background check card same as CHL. They run another extensive background check on you and reissue a new card good for 5 years. Same as with the CHL you must report any changes like change or residences and so on. If you fail to do it your card will be suspended. Pretty much same rules as the CHL. You could even use these in gun stores to bypass the NICS check same as CHL. Also there will be no gun registry or paper trail because you'll still be doing FTF deals and buying/selling/trading with individuals you'll just have a concrete way of telling whether or not a person is legal to own a gun or not. Pretty simple stuff here.

Its like an instant background check in your pocket... I better patent this [censored].. LOL

wow just wow
i dont believe it matters how ya vote it matters how ya live and if you are willing to follow a law that limits the freedoms of a free people it speaks volumes.
you will never convience me or most others on here how horrible ffl's have it if it was that bad no one would do it and most of us have either been,worked with or befriended ffl's. like most other things if you stay on top of the paperwork and keep your records organized it aint that hard.
yes the tsa is a different subject but since you brought it up, lets go there. No one in this country has the freedom to fly so yes those that wish to fly will accept the tsa (which is a freaking joke) those of us that do not wish to accept it as myself will not fly pretty simple. but since my forefathers 200+ years ago did not gaurantee me the freedom to fly shall not be infringed oh well. The last time i stepped off a plane was coming home from deployment, TSA didnt check us then either.

I am sorry you are so willing to accept the loss of your personal freedoms.

have a nice day and remember as John Wayne stated
"Life is hard its harder if your stupid."

To say no liberty has been lost is to overlook the liberty stolen by NFA and GCA68. This is all just a warmup and letting out the clutch to get things moving. The throttle ain't been touched. Yet.

I really have to wonder about anyone who fears other people's freedom.

This is the most tired argument I have every heard. Since when does making something illegal keep criminals from getting their hands on it? It doesn't. All it does is make it a pain in the butt for law abiding people. Let see, pot is ILLEGAL yet people can get it anywhere. Herione? Yep its still illegal and you can get it on half the street corners in dallas. Prostitution? ILLEGAL but I bet I can meet you at the house with 2 whores in about a hour if I wanted too.

How about we just enforce the laws that are currently on the books instead of creating new ones that have a 0% chance of working in the real world?

Your statement could easily read




So you would have no problem with this. Background checks or a foid card system for all ammunition purchases and ammunition components. Add every purchase logged including amount and lot numbers. Restrict private transfer and manufacture of ammunition. After all even illegally possessed firearms can't be fired without ammunition. If not are you saying it is ok with you that criminals, mentally unstable, illegal aliens, someone addicted to drugs, fugitives, etc. should be allowed to possess and purchase unlimited amounts of ammunition. It is no different than your view on firearms.

The loop hole is that not everyone goes through the back ground check process, whether at gun shows, face to face, on-line (and yes you can buy a rifle (not a handgun) in Texas on-line without going through an FFL and have it shipped to you directly with no background check or paperwork). If you are an FFL, the paperwork and background check are verified. If you are an individual, or an individual "dealing in firearms" that does not have an FFL, there is no paperwork or background check completed on the buyer. There are many "gun dealers" at gun shows, on-line, and/or are in the business of selling guns that are not FFL.

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?