WhatFinger

....Mostly

Obama's gun control orders amount to nothing - a restatement of existing law and common sense



For the last few weeks, gun owners and constitutionalists have been wringing their hands, worried that Obama's executive orders would implement the left-wing wish list of gun control tropes. We heard he was going to ban "large capacity" magazines, or limit sales of so-called "assault weapons." There were also rumors that he was going to unilaterally strip 2nd Amendment rights based on nebulous watchlists. Two days ago, when he said his orders would be entirely consistent with the Constitution, he tipped his hand. He was going to do none of that.
For the most part, what he did do was restate existing law and focus on a mythical epidemic of unlicensed dealers operating online and at gun shows. Via USA Today:
Here are three things that are in the package (according to the White House fact sheet):
  • Hiring more people to run the FBI background check system, so the government can be "processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
  • Requesting from Congress an additional $500 million to increase access to mental health care.
  • Clarifying that people selling guns over the Internet can still be required to conduct background checks on buyers if they are "engaged in the business" of selling guns, not just a hobbyist.

The first item here is a no-brainer. One wonders why it took Obama - who's absolutely obsessed with background checks - 7 years to figure out the background check system is underfunded and understaffed. Even pro-2A gun purchasers have been saying this for years. Along the same lines, it's rare to find someone who thinks the feds are spending enough on mental health. As long as they're not going to try some hare brained end-run where they declare the desire to own a gun a symptom of paranoia, this is no big deal. In fact, it's welcome. The one thing everyone agrees on is that we have to keep firearms out of the hands of legitimate crazies. If this can help with that goal, it's good news.
Where this does get a bit tricky is in the third point. what exactly "Engaged in the business" means is painfully ambiguous. This is basically a reiteration of a law passed in 1986. According to the New York Times, Obama even acknowledges that this is nothing new.
Mr. Obama will clarify that existing laws require anyone making a living by selling guns to register as a licensed gun dealer and conduct background checks. White House officials said the president would note that criminal penalties already exist for violating those laws.
...But it sounds like the Obama admin is going to tightenting the applicable standards. The problem, as the Times admits, is that no one is entirely sure what new standards they'll be using.
Under his plan, the White House said, officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will begin contacting gun sellers to let them know of new standards to "clarify" who would be considered a regulated dealer -- taking into account factors such as whether someone has a business card, uses a website or sells guns in their original packaging. But there will be no set number for defining how many guns sold would make someone a "dealer" -- a standard that some groups had pushed as essential to giving the changes more teeth. White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks.
The Daily Caller has the following quote from the ATF, which makes things even murkier:
"For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store." Additionally, the ATF points out that although quantity and frequency of sales are "relevant indicators," there is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement, noting that "even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is "engaged in the business.'
If you're among those whinging statists hoping that these new regs will end the largely fictional "gun show loophole," well, the truth is we just don't know yet. It might, if the ATF enforces their new standards with an iron fist. However, they probably lack the staff and coordination to do that on a large scale. Even if they did, they'd be solving a problem that's basically non-existent. As the Washington Times reminds us:
The "gun-show loophole" is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Gun shows aren’t the equivalent of the Wild West. The vast majority of vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale. What the gun grabbers are really after are transactions between private individuals trading or selling their personal property.
We'll have to wait and see just how stringently the ATF applies those "relevant indicators" and whether they end up used as a kind backdoor blanket gun control that targets individual sales between law-abiding owners. In the meantime, Dems who were hoping that Obama would finally deliver a death blow to the 2nd Amendment are bound to be disappointed. America's greatest gun salesman has, thankfully, done little of substance.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate


Subscribe

View Comments

Robert Laurie——

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.


Sponsored