If you want laughs watch cspan during the viewer calls.
John Oliver's updates on that host are amazing. He must pop a few Xanax before each show cuz he's so damn calm
If you want laughs watch cspan during the viewer calls.
FFL holders and businesses already need to conduct background checks, it's private dealers who do not. Some states already require all dealers to do them, some just on handguns, some not at all.. but all FFL have too no matter what.
Any law wouldn't be aimed at gun shows, as that's just a way of making it sound good to the public, but truly be aimed at any private sale no matter where it is made.
It's an important distinction to make, but it doesn't matter much to pro-gun people as they know it's about private sale, and anti-gun people pretty much want to ban all guns. Those in the middle don't understand and just take the buzzword "gun show loophole" and think, yeah that's a good idea without understanding what it's really about.
Weren't most of those done legally with BGC though, meaning this law won't really effect that.. but what it could effect and help is with is tracking and reducing access to guns used in non-mass shootings.. it'll take awhile as there is so many guns on the streets already in criminals hands, but it will make some people more hesitant to private sell guns that can be tracked back to them and reduce straw purchases in the long run. Thus hopefully driving up the black market and making it harder to obtain.
Long run, should help somewhat reduce shootings, but it'd take awhile. Won't change mass-shootings.. as again.. most of those were already being done legally.
You drive a car, hand it to an unlicensed driver, and they drive, that's also illegal. Don't see the problem here.
Everyone handling a gun should be required to, at minimum, pass a safety course. Even the rural states require you to do this before you can legally hunt.
Courts are likely to though, as there is zero basis for this in the laws.
This isn't a loophole in the ATF's interpretation of the law, the background check law specifically only applies to FFLs, and the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce.
There is no such thing as a 'private dealer'.
If you are a dealer, you need an ffl, and if you have an ffl you have to do background checks.
I expect the attempt will be to try and change the definition of dealer, but I see no possible way under the law to do this in an enforceable way. So either the courts will overturn it, or there will be no possible way to enforce it.
Hard to say "both sides" in this argument when one extreme is represented with government power and the other side actually proposes reasonable measures. The problem is some gun owners see any sort of regulation as an extreme position.
Do you?
Executive Orders are legally binding. You have to go to the Supreme Court to overturn them and they have almost universally never done that. While it isn't specifically a law, it's the President ordering the agencies under him on how to proceed going forward.
They've been used to justify sending troops to war zones and even starting the Japanese internment camps in WW2.
It's possible. There's a lot of republicans who are more centrist saying they'll vote Clinton if he runs and another group that just won't vote. If trump running suppresses the GOP vote but bolsters the DEM vote then it's possible. Though probably still really difficult. If trump runs 3rd party there's an argument to be made that this will actually increase GOP turnout and likely be bad for DEMS down ticket even though it would ensure a Hillary win.
If you assume most people who come out to vote will vote down the line - ie if you vote a republican president, you will vote republican everything else, and likewise democratic president then democratic everything else - its still really to early to figure out what Trump vs Hillary would be like.
I could counter that just as many people who decide to stay home if Trump is on the ticket, there would be just as many democrats who are un-enthusiastic about Hillary and stay home. Historically older, white voters tend to be pretty reliable voters and its harder to get minorities and young people to get out and actually vote. Obama definitely energized the young into coming out. I think Hillary will definitely energize many women to come out, but will she get young people to come out? End of the day you are going to go out and spend an hour or two of your time because you believe in something, not to vote against someone else.
Historically as well voters tend to split control of President/Congress, and stick with incumbents. The majority of seats up for grabs will be held by incumbents. Democrats would need to pick up 30 seats to gain control in the House. In 2012 Obama won 209 congressional districts, the democrats currently control 188 of those (they lost 21 so far). So they'd have to win all those back plus 9 more districts that have traditionally voted Republican. Not impossible, but fairly difficult.
Only twice have more than 30 House seats switched hands during a presidential election - Ronald Reagan in 1980 and LJB in 1964 (a year after the Kennedy assassination).
I don't really have a problem with Obama passing this executive order, almost certainly it'll get shot down in courts and even if it doesn't, it doesn't really change much. 82% of guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally by the owner and passed a background check. The gun show loophole is real for sure, but people will just agree to meet up afterwards to conduct the sale so not really sure what its going to change. Online dealers can't directly ship guns to people, they must send them to a local FFL dealer who then runs a background check. But the whole thing is going to rile up a lot of people, not sure if it helps or hurts Hillary but it definitely helps Trump and the Republicans.
I just meant wanting a 'complete ban' on all guns, which, let's be honest just isn't going to happen and isn't reasonable.
I didn't specifically mean "dealer".. but at gun shows there is unlicensed people who sell guns that isn't their primary business. They are just considered a private party.
Except that the privilege is more important to the daily lives of Americans and the other isn't.
It still doesn't exclude the fact that you can't change one as easily as the other.
Mhm that's true, and I do think the side that won't relinquish any sort of ground in controlling sales is the far bigger problem.I agree. And I think those people definitely represent the "extreme" end of the gun control argument. However, I don't think it's fair to characterize them as part of the problem. I've talked to plenty of people who favor a complete ban, and I never met one who therefore didn't support any incremental measures. If you're interested in a solution that's somewhere in the middle, and one side is absolutely intransigent, and the other side wants something impossible, but will take incremental step, then I don't think you can blame both sides.
There is sticky points to this.
Say I go shooting with my brother, and I pick him up. The guns are in my truck, and we go out in the woods to plink some targets. It's not my gun I'm shooting, it's my brothers. It's now technically in my possession.
Did my brother need to BG check me, did he give me the gun legally? If I'm in the state of Washington, then yes he would need to do that. I am not allowed to handle his weapon unless we were to get a background check from a licensed dealer, then transfer it, then do the same to transfer it back to my brother.
If the law is done in a way such as I594 then it's directly effecting an issue that should not be an issue, the sharing of a firearm while both parties are still present.
Hopefully if he does something it puts in provisions for such things as shooting on private land or in places that are federally or state legal to shoot firearms (such as hunting, targeting shooting on federal or state land, etc). The fact that technically someone is a criminal for being handed a gun from their friend isn't the point of the law, but with I594 it makes that a criminal activity.
No but it's an example of how fucked up our priorities are that it's harder to gain access to something that is necessary for many Americans to live their lives than it is to buy something that isn't. Getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a car.
The machine gun type, that can spray countless bullets in minutes.
Eh... I feel like this is potentially starting a bad trend, even though I agree with his stance on guns in America.
One that will almost certainly be repeated if a Republican is in office with a Democratic Senate.
Um, what do you mean the "machine gun type"? You can't just go out and buy a machine gun. You pay a tax to the ATF, undergo a very extensive background check, wait approximately six months while all the paperwork is done, then you're allowed to pay the $15,000+ that they actually cost and are then subjected to random inspection at the discretion of the ATF.
If you're taking about those "scary" looking AR-15s that mass shooters seem to prefer, can you explain to me how that gun is any different from any other semi-automatic gun? How is it any different than a Mini-14 in how it could be used?
People really need to do some basic research before advocating for something.
What trend? Every President issues executive orders.
And Obama doesn't even have that many versus others. Bush still has more and Roosevelt has issued thousands.
isn't that akin to saying you can make any choices as long as they are these?
I mean, I don't like guns, never held one, have no interest of owning one, but it just doesn't seem like a good way to do it. From an outside perspective, it almost seems knee-jerk.
Why would any sane person object to this? He's not taking your toys away.
Maybe we should ban semi automatic guns?
edit: And that bolded process, what is the downside to making that the process to buy any gun?
So - what if your brother loans you his car and you get in an accident and you are at fault? Genuine question as I'm not sure what happens with insurance and all that?
Clinton won't toss this though
Obama literally cannot do anything right in their minds anyway, so might as well just do what he wants to do regardless of what they think.
Without a list of registered guns this EO means dick. It's unenforceable.
I would be supportive of such a process with a few minor changes, but the ATF can't keep up with the paperwork as is (hence the long wait time). The would need to expand their system, but I would be all for it. I also forgot to mention that your local sherif needs to sign off on an NFA purchase. So if he or she feels you don't have a good reason, they can deny your application.
The problem with banning semi-automatics is the term covers a huge variety of guns, many of which aren't necessarily more dangerous than a pump-action shotgun or revolver. It's putting something like a Ruger 10-22 (a small-caliber target rifle with a low capacity magazine) in the same category as an AK-47 or a Glock 19. Banning 80% of all guns is just as unlikely to happen as a complete gun ban.
The majority of Americans don't even support a ban on assault weapons, and that number continues to increase (FYI a few decades ago, 80% of the population wanted to ban them), so a law that would essentially ban almost all handguns and most rifles will never have meaningful support here.
exxxxactly
Roosevelt was a complete dictator that got away with it because of the depression and the world war, that's a pretty damn low bar.
exxxxactly
Shit like this makes me feel like gun owners are just all shitty people. Fucking why.
You don't need a fucking AR. But - before I preach to you about something you most definitely know way more about than myself - what does one do with such a toy?But the S&W M&P is a great budget AR.
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that Executive Orders aren't law and as soon as somebody who doesn't like it makes it to the presidency, it's as good as dead.
And that also doesn't take into account how hard these things are to enforce. Remember that immigrant Executive Order that happened a few years ago? It really didn't do much.
So glad my wife and I are completely on the same page on stuff like this, and that she isn't anything like the rest of her family. It makes visiting very tiring though. Most of the time I just keep quiet and try to ignore them, because "discussing" it only ends up with us being attacked.Oh thank God.
I wanted to spend my Christmas defending my progressive beliefs against the onslaught of the pro-gun conservative family I'm surrounded by. I did want to cause rifts and fights and possibly end up being ignored by my wife until New Years. I really did, please understand that.
You don't need a fucking AR.
It's hilarious to think that transportation in America is treated with less respect than owning a toy that can be used to kill people.
When the NRA (read: gun manufacturers, or less than 5% of all gun owners) completely own a political party (Republicans), sometimes you have to take drastic measures.
Most people would agree that gun show loopholes and background checks not being universal are things that could be fixed without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners. Therefore, common-sense solutions that our government could provide in this case are being held up by special interests.
you have the right to freely travel in the US but to operate a car is a licensed activity, which varies from state to state, some states you can mail in and get a "license" others you will have to get a lot of trainning and pass written and driving tests. The right to defend yourself isn't something that is legislated its something that all laws are to secure.
What is licensed is recreational usage of firearms or sustainable harvest of resources so hunting and trapping, which is why those are also licensed.
One is a fundamental right , and the other activities are licensed behaviors so driving and hunting and all the various levels that entails.
It's not surprising imo.
Terrorist are getting guns and killing us thus more guns is the answer.
Not to mention a huge subset of gun owners that believe their guns will make them heroes when they shoot the bad guy or the government comes to take their guns, etc.