Obama’s “Town Hall”

Because I don’t have cable, I had to watch President Obama’s “Town Hall” forum 10 minutes at a time on “CNN Go” free trial, so I missed a lot of it. Based on what I did see, I think the forum was a lot less stacked toward the gun control side than I expected it to be. Obama was asked some hard questions, which he not so delicately danced around. Overall, I don’t think things went all that well for him.

He did an awful lot of describing serious federal crimes as “loopholes,” perhaps channeling Joan Peterson’s “if it happens, it’s legal” philosophy. But unlike her, he knows better. This was his normal schtick of throwing out half-truths and outright lies to low-information types, while absolutely enraging people who actually understand this stuff.

Why Have the Dems Become so Gun-Ho for Gun Control?

Bob Owens did a tweet string that explains the motivations behind the Dems embracing gun control. I agree that philosophical progressives are terrified of an armed citizenry, because such an idea runs counter to technocratic central planning, but I view most politicians as opportunists, rather than die hard ideologies. There’s two reasons the Dems are so crazy for gun control today.

One is the Democrats mounted a comeback strategy that culminated in retaking Congress in 2006 largely by running “blue dog” candidates that were good on guns and could win in their local districts. The theory was that the gun vote could deliver a lot of single issue voters, and would therefore help Democrats hold their seats. NRA issued a lot of endorsements to blue dogs in the 2010 election, despite taking a lot of crap from their members. They bent to the will of their members and pulled Harry Reid’s endorsement largely because he voted in favor of Sotomayor and Kagan. The blue dogs were laid to waste in the 2010 election. Democrats took the lesson, rightly or wrongly (I would argue wrongly), that there was no use chasing gun votes, since they weren’t reliable for Democrats.

The second reason the Dems are so gung-ho for gun control in 2016 is because of the vast sums of money that Mike Bloomberg’s bringing to the table. He’s not necessarily bringing all that money in for guns, but you can bet when a big donor is willing to dump a million bucks worth of ad buys into a state-level race, even of those ads aren’t on guns, politicians will start dancing that donor’s tune on gun control if they know that’s a big issue for him.

The older I get the less I think politics has really anything to do with political philosophy and reason. Sure, there has to be enough of that for the chattering classes, but for the most part it’s really just a bunch of hucksters, grifters, and opportunists vying for media time in order to manipulate poorly informed people they are worth coming out for and checking their name in the box at the next election. The people who are good at that win elections, and the people who suck at it lose.

What keeps me from becoming completely jaded is that I do believe it’s possible for motivated groups of people to play this game, manipulate the manipulators, and come out ahead. What will make the Democrats listen on the gun issue? A motivated group of people (it would probably only take a million nationwide) willing to be visible in the Democratic coalition and willing to withhold their votes and money solely on the issue of gun rights. If we had that, they’d start to listen.

Blogaversary: Number Nine

It was nine years ago today, January 6, 2007, that I got started with this blog, and I do intent to make it to a full decade. That’s a lot of photons under the (FiOS) bridge. For those of you who have been reading from the beginning, thank you. For those of you who haven’t been reading that long, thank you too.

I always imagined my graceful exit from this genre would involve some decent protections for the Second Amendment from the courts, and the political fight headed in the right direction. I’m feeling pretty good about the latter, but not at all about the former. The latter could be unraveled with one bad election. The GOP won’t be in power forever, and at this point the Dems are fully dedicated to gun control.

I might not have the time anymore to do 10 posts a day, but it is not yet time to throw in the towel. We’re in a better place than I would have thought we would be after eight years of Obama, but there are very real threats on the horizon if the GOP continues to be a three ring circus.

By the time my Tin anniversary rolls around next year, we’ll know who the next occupant of the White House will be, and God help us no matter how this goes. But I will say this, if it’s Hillary Clinton, the Second Amendment will effectively be dead. The one thing I’d hate is to retire from this blog at some point in the future because all is lost.

Nick Johnson in WSJ: “A Glittery Gun-Control Distraction”

Prof. Nick Johnson has an article running in the Wall Street Journal which gives people a lot of missing background on Obama’s Executive Orders in regards to new guidance on when an FFL is required, including the previous history of overzealous prosecution, and then the later double cross with the “kitchen table dealer” actions by the Clinton Administration.

Now President Obama proposes moving the furniture around again. The ATF’s new guidance on the matter says that storefronts are irrelevant: “it does not matter if sales are conducted out of your home, at gun shows, flea markets, through the internet, or by other means.” The agency also emphasizes that “courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold.”

As someone pointed out, if you go to the application for an FFL:

FFL App 18a

So they are going to require gun show sellers to get FFLs, but they aren’t going to accept FFL applications for people who only do business at shows. One reason most machine gun possession prosecutions can no longer happen under the National Firearms Act (rather than 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)) is because it has been held by the courts that the government can’t charge someone for failure to pay a tax that the government refused to collect. This would seem to me to be a similar situation.

If the Obama Administration were to actually reverse or partly reverse Clinton-era policies meant to shut down hobbyists or part-time FFLs, he might actually accomplish something in terms of getting more people currently making marginal sales licensed again.

Why I’d be Angry at Obama if I Favored Gun Control

The positive reaction of the gun control crowd to Obama’s executive orders frankly astonishes me. It would seem that Elliot Fineman of the National Gun Victims Action Council is the only group that’s willing to see this for what it is. When you don’t have a seat at the table, what have you got to lose, really?

Headlines like this are now spread all over the media, “Obama closes gun background check loopholes with executive action.” I can point to dozens of other stories talking about how Obama is now requiring background checks at gun shows and with Internet sales. The media has fallen for this maneuver hook, like and sinker. It’s not surprising, because understanding the truth requires knowing a thing or two about federal gun laws, a topic with which most non-gun people have little or no familiarity.

Word is spreading like wildfire that Obama closed these background check loopholes, when in reality all he did was have Loretta Lynch wag her finger and issue vague threats of prosecuting people selling guns for being engaged in the business without obtaining an FFL. As Volokh Conspirator Jonathan Adler pointed out at the WaPo, “In other words, it is — as the document says — a guidance, and not a substantive rule. It has no legal effect.”

People are being deceived into believing there’s been substantive reform on background checks. That can only serve to dampen enthusiasm among the general public for further measures, “Didn’t Obama fix this problem? It was all over the papers.”

President Obama may have done himself a tremendous favor, in terms of pleasing certain parts of the Democratic base who will cheer these headlines, completely unaware this represents no substantive reform, but he’s done the gun control movement no favors. If I had to bet, the gun control groups probably realize this, but are concerned about the consequences of not seeming to enjoy their bone. Beggars can’t be choosers.

More on ATF 41P

Josh Prince, who is an attorney familiar with this area of law, has a summary of the 41P rule released last night. He notes that it has not yet been published in the Federal Register, so the clock is not currently ticking toward implementation. He also notes that there’s vagueness issues when it comes to “responsible persons”:

Throughout the final rule, ATF seemingly proposes several different interpretations of what constitutes a Responsible Person based on the entity type. This results in serious questions, such as whether the language is overly vague. Are now all employees who can possess a firearm of an LLC/Corp RPs? And also, whether ATF is treating different fictitious entities differently in violation of the law. Are trustees who can possess firearms of the trust RPs, but employees who possess firearms of LLC/Corps not? Moreover, what is the basis for treating non-licensees and licensees differently? The exact language for an RP can be found on page 238-239, which declares

Read the whole thing.

Final Version of 41P NFA Trust Rule Released

This is interesting. Originally 41P was going to require CLEO signoff on all NFA transfers, even if you were a person on a trust. I don’t have time to read thoroughly and comment as I need to hit-the-hay soon, but let the overnight and early-morning discussion begin:

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations ofthe Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm undertake National Firearms Act(NFA). This final rule defines the term”responsible person,”as used in reference to a trust, partnership, association, company, or corporation; requires responsible persons of such trusts or legal entities to complete a specified form and to submit photographs and fingerprints when the trust or legal entity files an application to make an NFA firearm or is listed as the transferee on an application to transfer an NFA firearm; requires that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm, and the specified form for responsible persons, as applicable, be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the applicant/transferee or responsible person is located; and eliminates the requirement for  certification signed by the CLEO. These provisions provide a public safety benefit as they ensure that responsible persons undergo background checks. In addition, this final rule adds a new section to ATF’s regulations to address the possession and transfer of firearms registered to a decedent. The new section clarifies that the executor, administrator, personal representative,or other person authorized under State law to dispose of property in an estate may possess a firearm registered to a decedent during the term of probate without such possession being treated as a ”transfer” under the NFA. It also specifies that the transfer of the firearm to any beneficiary of the estate may be made on a tax-exempt basis.

If I am to understand this correctly, much like with a Type 03 FFL application (C&R) you have to inform the CLEO, but you do not need to get his or her sign off. This does not only apply to trusts, but to individual applications as well. Did the Administration just blink?

If I’m not reading something wrong at this late hour, it would seem that malicious compliance can make a real difference.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch Clarifies FFL Rule

I suspect President Obama is hoping for ignorant crap like this from the media to make it look like he’s really doing something:

This has always been the law if you have a Federal Firearms License, and it’s always been illegal to be selling guns for “livelihood or profit” without first obtaining an FFL. The new EOs change nothing in that regard. But we do have some guidance from the Attorney General that indicates the Administration may indeed try to prosecute marginal cases it previously would not have:

Lynch insisted Monday that the new guidance on the gun show loophole sets “clear, definitive standards” for anyone who wants to sell firearms. However, the new guidance does not include a specific number of guns that must be sold to qualify as a dealer, since existing law does not specify a number.

However, court rulings have set a precedent that says a person could sell as few as one or two guns and still be considered a dealer, depending on the circumstances. For instance, Lynch explained, if an individual sells a gun clearly for profit, or if they buy and sell a gun kept in its original packaging, they may be considered a dealer.

“It’s important to note the hobbyist and collector exception is still there,” she said. Now, though, dealers can no longer “hide behind that.”

The ATF will engage in a “business educational initiative” in the first part of 2016, Lynch said, to help gun dealers, hobbyists and collectors understand the new guidance. This effort will target gun shows, flea markets and online dealers. Lynch added, “We will be looking for those individuals who seek to avoid registering.”

How many of you have a big tupperware bin full of “original packaging?” I certainly do. A few of my rifles just came in a case. Is that “original packaging?”

So this is not to be part of any rule change, but merely a policy decision to prosecute “gun dealers, hobbyists and collectors,” under the “new guidance.” Rather than change the rule, they will use the current vague rule to send “hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” Though, in this case, it’s not mere harassment, but an intent to imprison.

They know if they don’t put the dampers on the growing gun culture, their dream of destroying the Second Amendment will never be realized.

Executive Orders: The Shoe Drops

The White House has released a press statement (which I do not yet have a link to) [UPDATE: The link can be found here.] announcing their plans. I have to say, for the most part, it’s a big nothingburger. The EO plan is far less bold and ambitious than I was expecting, but we are dealing with a semi-retired President here. Here’s some text from the press release:

 

 

 

Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:

o A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. 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.

o Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

o There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

What is this? Just a finger wagging? There don’t seem to be any specific numbers attached to this like we were expecting. It’s a restatement of current law. I’m not sure how this changes anything. Maybe they are planning to prosecute more marginal cases they wouldn’t have taken to court previously?

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation.  The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.  But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities.  In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014.  ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

This is 41p, but it says ATF is finalizing the rule. They’ve been doing that for months now. Will they finish? What’s the timeline?

Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting.  Congress has prohibited specific categories of people from buying guns—from convicted felons to users of illegal drugs to individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.  In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress also created incentives for States to make as many relevant records as possible accessible to NICS.  Over the past three years, States have increased the number of records they make accessible by nearly 70 percent.  To further encourage this reporting, the Attorney General has written a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified for mental health reasons, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence.  The Administration will begin a new dialogue with States to ensure the background check system is as robust as possible, which is a public safety imperative.

Oooh, a new dialog. That’ll show them!

Make the background check system more efficient and effective. In 2015, NICS received more than 22.2 million background check requests, an average of more than 63,000 per day. By law, a gun dealer can complete a sale to a customer if the background check comes back clean or has taken more than three days to complete. But features of the current system, which was built in the 1990s, are outdated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will take the following steps to ensure NICS operates more efficiently and effectively to keep guns out of the wrong hands:

o FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks. This new hiring will begin immediately and increase the existing workforce by 50 percent. This will reduce the strain on the NICS system and improve its ability to identify dangerous people who are prohibited from buying a gun before the transfer of a firearm is completed.

o FBI has partnered with the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) to modernize NICS. Although NICS has been routinely upgraded since its launch in 1998, the FBI is committed to making the system more efficient and effective, so that as many background checks as possible are fully processed within the three-day period before a dealer can legally sell a gun even if a background check is not complete. The improvements envisioned by FBI and USDS include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.

Again, nothingburger. Though, there is a lot of potential for abuse here, in terms of retaining records the law says have to be destroyed. We’ve seen them do that before.

The release also notes that the President is asking for a lot more funding to hire more ATF agents, to enhance to National Integrated Ballistics Information Network, and to establish an Internet Investigations Center inside ATF to track “illegal online firearms trafficking.”

Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns.  Under current law, federal firearms dealers and other licensees must report when a gun from their inventory has been lost or stolen.  The regulations are ambiguous, however, about who has this responsibility when a gun is lost or stolen in transit.  Many lost and stolen guns end up being used in crimes.  Over the past five years, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a licensee that claimed it never received the gun even though it was never reported lost or stolen either.  Today, ATF issued a final rule clarifying that the licensee shipping a gun is responsible for notifying law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.

I don’t really have a problem with this, to be honest.

Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.  Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.  The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.  The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

We’ve known about this. It’s old news. It doesn’t even say they are finalizing a new rule, just that they will begin the rule making process.

Finally, Obama is directing federal agencies to look more into smart gun technology and increase R&D efforts, and look into smart gun procurement by federal agencies if they would meet “operational needs.”

So he’s basically just restating current efforts, and not really changing anything about “engaged in the business.” This is a lot less ambitious and bold than I was expecting.

Obama’s EOs Coming This Week

There’s going to be an Obama “Town Hall” this Thursday, so it’s a safe bet the Executive Orders will be coming either that day, or a day or so before. Supposedly Obama’s spending today with AG Loretta Lynch finalizing the orders. By this point we have a pretty good idea that one of the big changes will be that anyone who sells more than 50 (the most credible number I’ve seen floated around) guns in a year will be considered “in the business” and required to obtain an FFL. As I’ve said, they can’t simultaneously stiffen the requirements for obtaining an FFL, and speak of reducing the number of FFLs as a net good while also requiring more sellers to obtain them. This problem could easily be fixed by going back to the pre-Clinton standards for obtaining an FFL.

Whatever is coming, expect a lot of lawsuits to be filed. The Republican field is already taking this on. The Dems want to make this race about gun control? Let them.