W.H. Posts The Executive Order Plans

[MikeD]

I've said it before and I'll say it again with regards to "smart guns": A gun that a family member or friend can't pick up and fight with if I go down, or vice versa, is utterly useless and I will not own one. If that means I am at higher risk of being shot with my own gun then so be it. I'll take those odds.

 

[aksavanaman]

@John A.

I really appreciate your input on this. As a prior FFL, I have no doubt that the BS Obama has been spouting out the last couple days has to be frustrating to say the least. I kid you not, a week ago I was going to set up a trust and head over to one of our class III's to make a deal on 308 can... guess I'll either go the Form 1 route or wait and see if a new Pres might repeal this nonsense.

I'm mad today... just mad

 

[MikeD]

Did he actually negate the usage of an NFA Trust? Been putting off doing that myself for too. I guess I thought part of the tax stamp application included a check at the fed level even if the applicant was via trust. I understand that other members of the trust may not have forgone the same check.


LOL just saw this:

Link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...not-entitled-to-this-childish-temper-tantrum/

GOP Congresswoman Rips Obama’s Gun Control Moves: He Is Not Entitled to ‘This Childish Temper Tantrum’

President Barack Obama’s announcement of his executive action on gun control is nothing more than a “childish temper tantrum,” according to one GOP House member.

A gun owner herself, Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) scathingly slammed the president immediately following his unveiling of his planned executive order to increase gun control. During his announcement, Obama said that, in order to protect innocent people, some “constraints on freedom” are acceptable.


“President Obama’s contempt for the 2nd Amendment — and the constitutional separation of powers — is well documented but that does not entitle him to this childish temper tantrum,” Black said in a statement. “This is nothing more than a cheap stunt by a lawless president looking to seal a political legacy in the last months of his failing administration.”


Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) takes her seat for a House Budget Committee hearing. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

“The specific proposal the president has put forth may be more narrowly tailored than, say, his illegal executive amnesty — which, by the way, is still on hold through a court order — but it isn’t any less unconstitutional,” Black told TheBlaze. “For a president who bragged in his speech about having taught constitutional law, he ought to at least understand that Congress makes the laws, not the president — that’s elementary civics.”

Black, who is also a member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, told TheBlaze that as a grandmother and mother she is “as sickened as anyone” by any person who commits any act of gun violence — which is why she has a handgun carry permit.

“f the unthinkable occurs, I am equipped to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones. President Obama doesn’t get that,” she said. “He assigns blame to guns instead of the violent criminals who pull the trigger.”

Black added that Obama’s plans “lack any basis in fact” and pointed to a previous report from the Washington Post that concluded that presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was correct in asserting that none of the major shootings that happened in the U.S. over the past few months could have been prevented by tougher gun laws.

In her statement, Black called on Congress to use any means necessary, including legal action, in order to “put a check on this unconstitutional overreach.”

 

[MikeD]

Lets see where this goes.

Link: http://thehill.com/regulation/264714-house-republican-defund-doj-over-gun-executive-orders

Republican eyes DOJ budget to block Obama gun orders

Getty Images
By Tim Devaney - 01/04/16 05:24 PM EST

A powerful House Republican is threatening to block President Obama’s executive order on guns by defunding the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department, warned against enforcing the new gun restrictions.

"The next twelve months will be an especially dangerous time for Americans who treasure our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Culberson said.



"I have formally notified Attorney General Lynch that I will aggressively protect our Second Amendment rights using Congress' power of the purse,” he added. "I notified the attorney general that if the Department of Justice attempted to create new restrictions on our Constitutional rights that I would use every tool at my disposal to immediately restrict their access to federal funding.”
Culberson appears to be the first Republican to call to block DOJ funding over the executive action on guns.

In future budget agreements, House appropriators could specifically prohibit the Justice Department from enforcing the gun restrictions without defunding the entire agency.

Culberson warned Lynch not to “create new law” in his letter.

“The House Appropriations Committee will not provide resources to your department for the development or implementation of unlawful limitations on the unambiguous Second Amendment rights of Americans,” Culberson wrote.

Culberson’s letter follows harsh words that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) had for the Obama administration earlier Monday.

He accused Obama of “subverting” Congress by taking executive action on gun control.

“We all are pained by the recent atrocities in our country, but no change the president is reportedly considering would have prevented them,” Ryan said.

 

[John A.]

@John A.

I really appreciate your input on this. As a prior FFL, I have no doubt that the BS Obama has been spouting out the last couple days has to be frustrating to say the least. I kid you not, a week ago I was going to set up a trust and head over to one of our class III's to make a deal on 308 can... guess I'll either go the Form 1 route or wait and see if a new Pres might repeal this nonsense.

I'm mad today... just mad

To be perfectly honest, it is hard for me to handle. At least without yelling and pulling my hair.

At the end of the day, I know a lot of people don't really know a lot about the majority of gun laws. So, when someone says they're going to "close down the gun show loophole and require FFL's to do background checks", well, I already know that law already exists, yet, for reasons unknown, there are many politicians who are inclined to spout that repeatedly like it is truth, but I know for 100% certainty, it's a bare faced lie and there is not an FFL anywhere that would do that. That would put the FFL at risk of fines, imprisonment, and losing the business that they've worked to create. Why would an FFL do that just to make a sale on a gun that they're only going to make a $25 or $35 profit on a single gun? They're not.

As for gun shows, I have even heard stories of DOJ documenting license plates of everyone entering and leaving the premises of gun shows. Surveillance of the entrances documenting what gun(s) certain people take into or bring out of a gun show.

As for changing the definition and standards of gun trusts, that is a concern for multiple reasons. The biggest is that it will likely end the "efile" program because you won't be able to submit fingerprints in that format. Something trusts didnt' have before, but will now be required. I think efile is toast.

But one of the changes that I saw said:
DOJ has revised the final rule to eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) and instead require CLEO notification.

I am a member of a few NFA specific forums that some (many) of the members are industry professionals. I was able to find a copy of the changes to trusts dated yesterday as well as public comment. I am still digesting the information trying to determine what I think of it, but I will add it here for reference. The reg's are more than 20 pages, and there are over 200 pages in all.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

 

[cmcdonald]

Forgive my ignorance...I've been trying to follow all the details here.

What exactly is a gun trust? If I'm not mistaken and my understanding is not way off here...I think in some ways you guys have a rougher go than we do.

 

[John A.]

No apologies necessary. It's messed up anyway.

When someone wants to buy a transferable machinegun, silencer, short barrel rifle, short barrel shotgun or other NFA classified weapons, it has been required to have your local chief of police, sheriff or chief law enforcement officer in your area to sign the back of the forms saying that he doesn't have any information to think that you are a "wanted" person. It was done that was since 1934 because at the time, police chiefs knew who the troublemakers in their community were because they dealt with them regularly and also, there were no federal databases for anything like that.

In 1934, the police chief signature was essentially your background check. The police chief knew if you've been in trouble or were a problem or not.

The NFA laws were made before we had a unique and individual social security number (citizen number), it was before we had computers that could check each state for felonies in seconds. In other words, the law really needs updating to modern standards, but they're not. Mainly because many fear that if they update the law, they would also increase the cost of the tax to current inflation rates. While a $200 tax is bad enough now, in 1934 standards, was $3,557.76

I have no doubt that when the law was made, the tax amount was intentionally prohibitive for the common man. That was their way to prohibit you from owning a particular gun, without outlawing them altogether (which would be against our constitution). They essentially taxed them out of existence for years until inflation eventually surpassed 1934 rates.

Well, back on subject, some sheriff's or police chiefs flat out refuse to sign the forms even to this day, which essentially denies your constitutional right and stops you from being able to own it even if you had a squeaky clean record.

That is where a trust comes in, because a trust or corporation is not a person, the atf hasn't required chief law enforcement signature, or even fingerprints.

So, in those circumstances where chief leo won't sign, anyone legally able to own an nfa weapon had no other means of owning them unless they started a gun trust or corporation.

 

[cmcdonald]

No apologies necessary. It's messed up anyway.

When someone wants to buy a transferable machinegun, silencer, short barrel rifle, short barrel shotgun or other NFA classified weapons, it has been required to have your local chief of police, sheriff or chief law enforcement officer in your area to sign the back of the forms saying that he doesn't have any information to think that you are a "wanted" person. It was done that was since 1934 because at the time, police chiefs knew who the troublemakers in their community were because they dealt with them regularly and also, there were no federal databases for anything like that.

In 1934, the police chief signature was essentially your background check. The police chief knew if you've been in trouble or were a problem or not.

The NFA laws were made before we had a unique and individual social security number (citizen number), it was before we had computers that could check each state for felonies in seconds. In other words, the law really needs updating to modern standards, but they're not. Mainly because many fear that if they update the law, they would also increase the cost of the tax to current inflation rates. While a $200 tax is bad enough now, in 1934 standards, was $3,557.76

I have no doubt that when the law was made, the tax amount was intentionally prohibitive for the common man. That was their way to prohibit you from owning a particular gun, without outlawing them altogether (which would be against our constitution). They essentially taxed them out of existence for years until inflation eventually surpassed 1934 rates.

Well, back on subject, some sheriff's or police chiefs flat out refuse to sign the forms even to this day, which essentially denies your constitutional right and stops you from being able to own it even if you had a squeaky clean record.

That is where a trust comes in, because a trust or corporation is not a person, the atf hasn't required chief law enforcement signature, or even fingerprints.

So, in those circumstances where chief leo won't sign, anyone legally able to own an nfa weapon had no other means of owning them unless they started a gun trust or corporation.

Thanks for that John! Makes sense to me now....well I understand, but it seems a pretty convoluted business.

Here we have a one time background check. You can qualify (with the appropriate courses) for non-restricted or restricted licenses. (That refers to the category of firearm) Prohibited licenses are no longer granted to private citizens which would include full auto and any other firearm they deem too evil.

However, once you have a license for the appropriate classification of firearm...it's simply a matter of paperwork. Doesn't matter if it's a private sale or transfer or whatever.

Our biggest restrictions come in after the purchase or obtaining. That is what we can and can't do with those firearms.

 

[John A.]

It is far more convoluted than necessary, and that was just to buy one. There's more reg's when you do.

Notifying them when you travel with them, a $200 tax every time it is transferred (the gift that keeps on giving) and others.

 

[aksavanaman]

T
But one of the changes that I saw said:
DOJ has revised the final rule to eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) and instead require CLEO notification.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

Correct me if I'm totally off here John, but since the Form 1 requires you to submit fingerprints, wouldn't an individual still have to go to their local CLEO to have them done, still creating the possibility of the CLEO to deny your request? Are there non LE agencies that can perform the actual fingerprinting for you?

What really gets me is that Gun trusts are also used by persons to guarantee and secure their family assets. As I understand it, if I were to own an SBS or suppressor and in the unfortunate event I died... my wife (as no kids are over 18) would have to file a Form 1 within 30 days of my death or she could face prison time for owning an NFA item without the stamp. The gun trust ensured that any trustee named therein would be legally allowed to do so without having to file additional paperwork. I can tell you now, the last thing on my wife's mind would be my firearms after I passed away...

As for this verbiage about Internet sales and background checks... Ever since living in more remote communities up here I've had to rely on buying guns online, simply because of availability. I mean I've always had access to an LGS, but nothing compared to the large outdoor stores in the lower 48 that would give me the access to a vast inventory. Not once did a gun show up at my doorstep without going through and FFL and doing a NICS check ... not once in probably 20+ gun transfers I've completed. Where is just one person with some common sense to stand up in a press conference and point out this fact...

You know what, forget the press conference... what about Mrs. Lynch? The darn Attorney General of the United States and part of Obama's team in this BS? You're telling me the highest ranking LEO in this nation can't do 10 seconds worth of research to find out that this crap is already law?

I'm beginning to think that most everyone in D.C, especially the appointed cabinet members of Obama are all incompetent figure heads... put there out of favors, formalities and backroom handshakes.

 

[CaddmannQ]

I think they know more than it would seem, but for political reasons they feign ignorance. Just as they know but never mention the fact that the greatest impact of gun control laws is on poor folks. Every word from DC makes it more difficult for a poor person to own the protection and comfort* of a personal firearm.

*Yeah I said it. Happiness is a warm gun.

 

[John A.]

aksavanaman, Most folks still go to their local police office for fingerprints. Though you can go elsewhere, as long as they're done correctly, it doesn't matter. And for more info, some police agencies charge a fee for doing it for you.

I'm pretty certain that in case of death, a lawful heir (or one eligible to inherit the gun) would have to be 18 anyway and it's a form 5 (tax free transfer).

But your wife doesn't have to transfer it to herself since she would be over the estate. She is granted time to carry out your wishes while in probate court, which around here is about 6 months. However, If the kids are still very young, I think it would be in their best interest to transfer to herself and then pay the tax when they're old enough to prevent the guns from being surrendered as I understand it because probate court doesn't last years or a decade.

The transfer to your wife or heir would be tax free just the same, but subsequent transfers afterwards would be regular price when they are old enough to own them. That's the real part I hate about nfa laws is the damn tax and the way they have it set up. But I already have all of the transfer forms filled out myself for when I die to make it easy for her. All my wife would have to do is date it and mail it. The form 5 is simple and straightforward though.

I may be wrong about trustee's having to be at least 18, but I don't think I am. That's something you'd have to ask the attorney writing up the trust. All of my stamps are owned as an individual, so while I've read a lot about trusts and I think I understand the major jist of it, I'm not entirely the best source of info in regards to it.

I have considered making a family trust for the very reasons you mentioned, but if I did, I would have to pay a thousand dollars in taxes over again to "transfer" my stuff to my trust because they're owned as an individual now. I'm just too invested to change now I guess.

 

[oli700]

new poll in Pennsylvania news outlet.....I voted, we are winning !

http://abc27.com/2016/01/05/poll-do-you-favor-expanded-background-checks-for-gun-sales/

 

[SHOOTER13]

I voted too Oli... 1/6/2016 @ 16:48

===================

Thank you for voting!

No 54.77% (3,173 votes)

Yes 45.23% (2,620 votes)

Total Votes: 5,793

 

[oli700]

still winning !

 

[CaddmannQ]

54.72%...SLIPPING SLIGHTLY

 

[carbinemike]

The ATF page where people can ask them questions got trolled pretty good. See screen shot below in red.

 

[MikeD]

Who defines what a personal collections is? The only loopholes I really see in the current laws are those that the government can use to **** you over buy changing the the interpretation of their own definitions at as needed. The people in this country need to wake up if they care at all about their futures. I don't think people really understand what the word "freedom" means. Forcing people to walk the line by enticing them with free cheese is not freedom.

 

[CaddmannQ]

still rising now @ 58%

 

[CaddmannQ]

. . . I don't think people really understand what the word "freedom" means. Forcing people to walk the line by enticing them with free cheese is not freedom.

I believe to so many, it mainly means freedom from labor. So much is done by machines now that the average schmoe can't deal with it. I spent 40 years as a desk jockey, programming those machines, so I know whereof I speak.

Not just physical labor, but mental labor is done for people. They don't want to deal with the strain of thinking, of remembering, of knowing.