Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wasn't it the Great BillClinton who eliminated "Kitchen Table FFLs"?
You remember, those terrible Licensees that operated their "gun business" out of their homes?
Now obama wants to recreate them?
Hey, whatever floats yer boat.
Oh, wait, perhaps that should be "Whatever trips yer trigger!"
By the way, background checks, in spite of what some commenters here seem to believe, are NOT State Laws! The background check is a FEDERAL requirement in which ALL Federal Firearms Licensees MUST participate!
As some have stated, it pays to know what the laws IS before running off at the mouth (or the fingers) about what the law SHOULD be!
Bringing back kitchen table FFL's would be pretty awesome.
You are right. But tell me - what will happen if they can't buy one at a gun show? Will they just not get a gun? There's a hint in there........"criminal". It means if they can't get it at a gun show, they'll get illegally somewhere else. So, what did that prevent? Nothing, except to trample the rights of non-criminals.
couple of things... What rights of non-criminals have been trampled on?
Also, yes criminals can get guns elsewhere, but now it is a bit more difficult to do so. The example given earlier, well, just take 400 bucks and go into East LA and buy one from some gang banger. Chances are, you will get robbed of your 400 bucks along with everything else you brought with you and not given the gun.
couple of things... What rights of non-criminals have been trampled on?
Also, yes criminals can get guns elsewhere, but now it is a bit more difficult to do so. The example given earlier, well, just take 400 bucks and go into East LA and buy one from some gang banger. Chances are, you will get robbed of your 400 bucks along with everything else you brought with you and not given the gun.
Restricting the capacity of the law abiding to sell their firearms is an infringement. Now a deal with the GCA and NFA being removed from law in exchange for a BG check system one can do in the privacy of their own home with no tracking would be a reasonable compromise.
Wasn't it the Great BillClinton who eliminated "Kitchen Table FFLs"?
You remember, those terrible Licensees that operated their "gun business" out of their homes?
Now obama wants to recreate them?
Hey, whatever floats yer boat.
Oh, wait, perhaps that should be "Whatever trips yer trigger!"
By the way, background checks, in spite of what some commenters here seem to believe, are NOT State Laws! The background check is a FEDERAL requirement in which ALL Federal Firearms Licensees MUST participate!
As some have stated, it pays to know what the laws IS before running off at the mouth (or the fingers) about what the law SHOULD be!
Seems so. Per the WH, location no longer matters.
Plus, I think people aren't aware of how gun shows work. If you sell guns at a gun show and hold a FFL, you must still perform background checks. I think the 'average' citizen if listening to CNN, MSNBC, etc believe no background checks are ever required at gun shows. So perhaps there is a problem with lack of understanding by so many people.
I'm a Texan. (Yeah, I'm just going to mention that first, because as far as gun owners goes, there's no doubt we're leading the nation in gun ownership per capita.) I own several guns, even the prerequisite AR-15.
The gun laws in this country are ridiculous. To buy my AR-15, I went online and ordered it, then had it delivered to my local FFL dealer. Then I had to fill out their paperwork, and then pass the background check. Everything checked out, and I got my gun.
Let's say I lose my job next month and I decide to sell my AR15 to make ends meet. I can post it online on a local forum, I can sell it in a garage sale, I can sell it to whoever I want... WITH NO BACKGROUND CHECK WHATSOEVER.
It's a HUGE hole in the law, and it needs to be fixed. All gun transactions need to be going through an FFL, who can do the proper background checks.
I am so sick and tired of idiotic gun nuts screaming about how this is "against the constitution" or "infringing upon my rights."
If you're buying your guns legally, this won't affect you AT ALL. It will only affect the people who shouldn't have access to guns in the first place.
I definitely agree with this, I'm just not happy with a president doing as he pleases and going around congress. I happen to agree with it, but would I be ok with it if it was something I didn't agree with? I have friends praising Obama for doing this, while I agree with the need for closing these loop holes I don't agree with Obama circumventing the proper channels to do so. Why have congress if people are ok with the President circumventing it whenever they see fit?
Why have congress if people are ok with the President circumventing it whenever they see fit?
In this case and in many of the other cases, a Republican controlled Congress is against anything the President does and will vote against it no matter what they are voting on. We would see the same thing if the roles were reversed as well. Our Congress is so divided, nothing can really get done. So, the President is using another option to try and get things done. Whether or not what the President is doing is the right thing to do, is up to opinion. Some say yes, some say no.
In this case and in many of the other cases, a Republican controlled Congress is against anything the President does and will vote against it no matter what they are voting on. We would see the same thing if the roles were reversed as well. Our Congress is so divided, nothing can really get done. So, the President is using another option to try and get things done. Whether or not what the President is doing is the right thing to do, is up to opinion. Some say yes, some say no.
Other presidents have dealt with a Congress from the other party. Can it create gridlock? Yep. And perhaps it's needed to have gridlock at times, passing only those laws that everyone, both left and right, agree upon. However, taking unilateral action because Congress won't do what he wants is not within the scope of his powers. Of course, as with everything, it depends on the wording. If he's flat out writing law with the EO, not allowed. If clarifying existing law where there is not definitive direction (e.g. defining terms, etc), allowed if that regulatory body is given that power by the law.
In this case and in many of the other cases, a Republican controlled Congress is against anything the President does and will vote against it no matter what they are voting on. We would see the same thing if the roles were reversed as well. Our Congress is so divided, nothing can really get done. So, the President is using another option to try and get things done. Whether or not what the President is doing is the right thing to do, is up to opinion. Some say yes, some say no.
I don't disagree. But IMO that just means the country is torn on the issue. If it were really important enough to the voting base they would elect someone into office that is for or against gun control. IMO it just becomes a slippery slope. People praising him for his initiative when they agree with what he is trying to bypass congress to make law. What about if a future president takes to the pen to stop immigration from certain countries? If we are cool with Obama doing this, do we really have the right to not be cool with Trump stopping immigration from Islamic countries? Sure I guess, but it's about as hypocritical as you can get.
I don't disagree. But IMO that just means the country is torn on the issue. If it were really important enough to the voting base they would elect someone into office that is for or against gun control. IMO it just becomes a slippery slope. People praising him for his initiative when they agree with what he is trying to bypass congress to make law. What about if a future president takes to the pen to stop immigration from certain countries? If we are cool with Obama doing this, do we really have the right to not be cool with Trump stopping immigration from Islamic countries? Sure I guess, but it's about as hypocritical as you can get.
I agree with you. I personally think that EO should be extreme last resorts (or legit war time decisions that are extremely time sensitive).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
