Executive Orders on Guns Coming

Obama has been meeting with Bloomberg. I really have no idea what’s coming, or what the timeline is going to be. It seems that no one else does either. There is speculation that it will be related to the requirements for when you need an FFL because you’re “in the business” of selling firearms.

Officials say expanding background checks by closing the “gun show loophole” is the most likely option, though they concede legal and administration hurdles have slowed the process.

In his executive action, Obama could alter the government’s definition of who is “in the business” of selling guns, expanding it to include private dealers and others who can currently sell without completing a background check.

This is likely going to demand ATF set a fixed number of guns people could sell before being considered “in the business.” If they really wanted to solve this problem, they’d remove all the Clinton-era restrictions on obtaining a Federal Firearms License, including reducing the fee back down to what it used to be. Let’s be clear about what these fanatics are doing:

  • Step one: Make FFLs much more expensive and difficult to obtain, so as to drive hobbyists and occasional sellers out.
  • Step two: Punish hobbyists and occasional sellers for not getting FFLs when they really should.

I won’t deny there are people out there who are walking a thin line in regards to “in the business,” but this was less of an issue when the government made FFLs relatively easy and cheap for part-time and occasional sellers to obtain. Instead they smeared hobbyists and occasional sellers as “kitchen table dealers” who were of course Shady People whose only interest was selling guns to the underworld.

I think people are starting to realize that the only thing the gun control movement is good at is manufacturing bullshit issues aimed at sticking it to Those People, with Those People being people like us.

11 Responses to “Executive Orders on Guns Coming”

  1. AnOregonian says:

    I’m thinking the meetings with Bloomberg are mostly to coordinate the media coverage and ensure consistent messaging.

  2. Jake says:

    “This is likely going to demand ATF set a fixed number of guns people could sell before being considered “in the business.””

    Which makes me wonder: Is there anything keeping them from setting that number at “1”?

    • Archer says:

      Just 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(21): The term “engaged in the business” means—
      (C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms; [emphasis added]

      Common-sense would dictate, if a person makes his/her living, or regularly makes a majority or substantial portion of his/her living, by selling or re-selling firearms, then that person meets the statutory definition of “dealer”. The statute says that someone who occasionally divests him- or herself of a firearm or two from his/her personal collection is explicitly not a “dealer”.

      Any executive order contrary to statutory law (enacted by Congress) is null and void; the President has no Constitutional authority to change or override such statutes.

      Then again, this Administration isn’t exactly known for adhering to common-sense dictates.

  3. Evets Steve says:

    my guess: If you sell more than one gun a month, then you are “in the business” and need an FFL. if you do actually sell just that one gun a month for more than one or two concurrent months, then you are guilty of structuring your sales to avoid needing a FFL. Grandpa dies and leaves you his collection of 36 guns, you think you can split them among you and 5 cousins over a year ? all y’all are now guilty of conspiracy to avoid needing a FFL. bend over middle America.

    • Publius says:

      Probably not that last thing. Probably. Wouldn’t put the rest past ’em.

      • Bill Twist says:

        Yeah, the statute itself says “all or part of his collection”. So if you’re selling off all of dear departed Uncle Joe’s collection (or just the ones you don’t want), you’re expressly protected by that statute and there isn’t anything they can “interpret” there to screw you.

  4. SPQR says:

    People have sometimes complained that there was no bright line marking when you were a dealer. ATF exploited that. I think this “bright idea” will actually backfire on Obama and Bloomberg.

  5. Chase says:

    I’ve only heard the term “kitchen table dealers” used fondly, to refer to small hobbyist FFLs during the old regime, and to a lesser extent today. I didn’t know it was ever used to smear them as nefarious gray-market elements.

    • Brad says:

      just google,

      kitchen table dealers vpc

      I won’t post a link to those jackals at the Violence Policy Center.