Jump to content

Biden to sign new gun control executive order

Warped

By Warped
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

Yeti Member

Yeti

Posted
Posted
On 3/14/2023 at 9:39 AM, Hap said:

Anyone seen any details? All of this is pretty vague, starting with the background check stuff.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer | The White House


https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our-communities-safer/
 

Not much in the way of details.  Includes publicizing dealer issues (wonder if that includes dealers who make innocent mistakes?).  Probably still waiting to translate with Crayons for The Big Guy so he can use “his words” to describe it.

 

 

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 3/14/2023 at 9:39 AM, Hap said:

Anyone seen any details? All of this is pretty vague, starting with the background check stuff.

It sound like the FFL's who cant sell guns, won't be able to sell guns....

Adding the DOD,DOJ, FTC to the mix, and enhancing NIBIN.

"Enhanced Background Checks" for those under 21, *cough age discrimination*. 

Exactly what  is an "Enhanced background" check as opposed to a "Background Check"?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-sign-executive-order-require-background-checks-more-gun-sales

 

Hap Member

Hap

Posted
Posted

It sounds like they’ll be trying to include more private sales (for people selling more than one firearm) in the “background check required” category.

From the EO:

Quote

Sec. 3.  Additional Agency Actions to Reduce Gun Violence.  (a)  The Attorney General shall develop and implement a plan to:

          (i)    clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus required to become Federal firearms licensees (FFLs), in order to increase compliance with the Federal background check requirement for firearm sales, including by considering a rulemaking, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law;

I'd bet the intent is to go after people who privately sell small numbers of firearms, e.g. three or four a year. Basically trying to draw the line between being in the business of dealing in firearms, and being a private seller who is, say, thinning out a collection, in a different place from where it's been drawn in the past. Hey, nobody needs more than one gun anyway, right?

JTHunter Member

JTHunter

Posted
Posted

Most of us have heard this phrase before and might have said it ourselves.

 

"What effect will new gun laws have on crime?  Nothing because the criminals don't obey laws anyway."

 

This is just more of the "feel good" platitudes the Left uses to pander to their base.

Bubbacs Member

Bubbacs

Posted
Posted
On 3/14/2023 at 9:16 PM, JTHunter said:

Most of us have heard this phrase before and might have said it ourselves.

 

"What effect will new gun laws have on crime?  Nothing because the criminals don't obey laws anyway."

 

This is just more of the "feel good" platitudes the Left uses to pander to their base.

But.  You have to admit that they pander better than anyone else in the US!  That's why they are in a power position.  The Great Panderer!

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted

With the inevitable legal challenges, it's going to interesting how Bruen weights in on this.

 

I would argue that mandating a federal license to sell guns is already on shady ground as I don't believe that it is backed by foundation era history and tradition, this move by Biden will almost certainly fast track challenges to FFL licensing overall, and to be honest I don't believe it can stand under Bruen precedent.  The only thing I believe maybe survive is it being under a interstate or international commerce clause, I don't personally believe that Federal authority extends to in state sales.  And I would argue that states trying to mandate their own systems like FOID are on shady ground already...

 

The next 5 or so years is going to be quite interesting, Bruen is going to change everything most of it in our favor.

 

lilguy Member

lilguy

Posted
Posted

WAIT WAIT!! I thought the Supreme Court decision was suppose to protect us from this sort of overreach?  Oh well, I still have my unconstitutional FOID card to keep me safe.

 

 

“The next 5 or so years is going to be quite interesting, Bruen is going to change everything most of it in our favor.”        Don’t bet the farm yet.

 

 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/vladeck-the-5th-circuits-rahimi-decision-reveals-two-problems-with-bruen/

GTX63 Member

GTX63

Posted
Posted
On 3/14/2023 at 10:14 PM, kk5 said:

I thought Murder was illegal. How many more laws do we need?

 

Yeah but without guns there would be less murders, or something, right?

 

Jeffrey Member

Jeffrey

Posted
Posted
On 3/15/2023 at 9:35 AM, RECarry said:

100,000+ deaths from fentanyl poisoning is less horrible to moms who demand stuff...or something.

I can't understand how a guy in a POTUS position who still has a drug addict son living but is not interested in helping stop his supply.  Dems will eat their own.

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 3/15/2023 at 10:25 AM, Jeffrey said:

I can't understand how a guy in a POTUS position who still has a drug addict son living but is not interested in helping stop his supply.  Dems will eat their own.

Because the wrong son died.

BobPistol Member

BobPistol

Posted
Posted
On 3/15/2023 at 8:25 AM, Jeffrey said:

I can't understand how a guy in a POTUS position who still has a drug addict son living but is not interested in helping stop his supply.  Dems will eat their own.

 

Addiction is slavery.   The leftocrat party loves slavery and supported it from day one.

 

Addicts are easy to control.    That's why totalitarians love to increase addictions of multiple kinds.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...