hell no maddskilz, if the NRA put out a poll i didnt get it.
Lifted from Washington Post:
Taken at face value, the new ATF guidance is nothing more than a restatement of existing legal requirements. It merely identifies those who are already subject to the relevant federal requirements and does not in any way expand the universe of those gun sellers who are required to obtain a license and perform background checks. In other words, it is - as the document says - a guidance, and not a substantive rule. It has no legal effect.
If the ATF guidelines are nothing more than a guidance, but not a tightening of the relevant legal standard - why would the administration do this? First, guidance documents are often useful insofar as they explicate relevant legal standards and (as the name implies) provide guidance to the regulated community. Such documents can help people know when they are subject to specific legal requirements.
A second potential reason for issuing a guidance document of this sort is that the administration hopes to “chill” marginal gun sales. Although a guidance document does not change the relevant legal standard, the issuance of such a document can affect behavior. Individuals who learn they are closer to the relevant legal line than they had realized might be encouraged to comply with the relevant legal requirements, or they may opt to stop selling guns. In this way, a guidance document may help to discourage behavior the government wishes to control but which may lie beyond the government’s legal reach.
A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant. (And insofar as Republicans complain and caterwaul about the administration’s actions, this purpose is more fully achieved.)
Taken at face value, the new ATF guidance is nothing more than a restatement of existing legal requirements. It merely identifies those who are already subject to the relevant federal requirements and does not in any way expand the universe of those gun sellers who are required to obtain a license and perform background checks. In other words, it is - as the document says - a guidance, and not a substantive rule. It has no legal effect.
If the ATF guidelines are nothing more than a guidance, but not a tightening of the relevant legal standard - why would the administration do this? First, guidance documents are often useful insofar as they explicate relevant legal standards and (as the name implies) provide guidance to the regulated community. Such documents can help people know when they are subject to specific legal requirements.
A second potential reason for issuing a guidance document of this sort is that the administration hopes to “chill” marginal gun sales. Although a guidance document does not change the relevant legal standard, the issuance of such a document can affect behavior. Individuals who learn they are closer to the relevant legal line than they had realized might be encouraged to comply with the relevant legal requirements, or they may opt to stop selling guns. In this way, a guidance document may help to discourage behavior the government wishes to control but which may lie beyond the government’s legal reach.
A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant. (And insofar as Republicans complain and caterwaul about the administration’s actions, this purpose is more fully achieved.)
My opinion of why? The objective is to redirect attention from the Middle East and how Hillary and Obama has destabilized the region.
I agree. That is essentially what Paul Ryan said - a distraction.
I read the EO regarding private sales, and agree that it purports to do nothing to change the substantive law on who is "in the business" of selling firearms. An EO cannot modify a statute. Basically it is the Obama Admin. saying "we really really mean it, and might even start enforcing it." Anyone who talks to many gun show exhibitors knows that the BATFE has already been quietly increasing enforcement of this over the past year, or at least threatening to, at gun shows, where people who regularly bring large private collections have been warned by agents to cease and desist or face possible prosecution.
So carry on with your Classifieds, gun show, and Armslist private sales. Just watch your back if you are doing it regularly and in large volume, or anything else that might make a fed think you are really "in the business."
So carry on with your Classifieds, gun show, and Armslist private sales. Just watch your back if you are doing it regularly and in large volume, or anything else that might make a fed think you are really "in the business."
Well stated!
I don't remember the exact year that the Brady checks started, but when they did, I was working at Spencer PD. The Chief called me in one day and said that I was in charge of running all background checks and to approve/disapprove all 4473's that were submitted for gun purchases for Spencer residents.
My instructions also included that anyone who was denied, that the information was to be faxed over to local ATF for prosecution. The form itself said "any false statements are perjury and will result in felony conviction and fine" or words to that effect. I faxed ten denials to ATF one day. They had been denied cause they were all convicted felons and were trying to get their guns back from pawn shops.
Not long after the fax was sent, I got a call from ATF. They said not to send any more cause there was nothing they could do about it. The agent told me that there was a superior court case that they had lost on the basis that the form violated their fifth amendment right of self incrimination when they filled it out.
Here is a document published by ATF that clarifies current law:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
Of course, elections have consequences. If we get a democratic congress and whitehouse again, all bets are off.
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
Of course, elections have consequences. If we get a democratic congress and whitehouse again, all bets are off.
Similar threads
