Obama’s faceplant on gun-control EOs

posted at 8:41 am on January 5, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Give him this much credit — no one puts the lame in lame duck like Barack Obama. After the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Obama promised to use his executive authority to make major advances in gun control, even though the real issue in that mass shooting was how the Obama administration botched the visa vetting of one of its perpetrators, a self-proclaimed adherent of violent jihad. USA Today reminds readers of the promises made by Obama and his White House over the past few weeks about the actions he would take: guaranteeing that every firearm sold would have a background check, banning “large capacity” magazines, and banning firearm sales to people on the no-fly list.

What did Obama actually deliver? Mostly a restatement of existing law, with one important and potentially dangerous twist:

• 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 two of these bullet points qualify for the “what took you so long” category. Those aren’t exercises in executive power; they’re admissions of incompetent governance. It took seven years for Obama to realize the FBI background-check department is understaffed? Similarly, we have been discussing issues of mental health since at least Newtown three years ago, and only now has Obama gotten around to requesting more money in the budget to deal with it.

The third point does reflect a use of executive authority, one that may be dangerously ambiguous. Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch have promised more scrutiny over the definition of “gun dealer,” but can’t define it specifically themselves, as the New York Times notes in its report on the disappointing nature (to the NYT, anyway) of Obama’s actions:

But faced with clear legal limitations on his authority, Mr. Obama will take modest steps that stop well short of the kind of large-scale changes to the gun trade that he unsuccessfully sought from Congress three years ago. That legislation would have closed loopholes that allow millions of guns to be sold without background checks at gun shows or in online firearm exchanges.

Instead, 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. …

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.

This lack of objective definition matters a great deal to those on the cusp of enforcement. It costs a lot of money to become a federally licensed firearm dealer, and the penalties for operating as such without the license are severe. If the line cannot be drawn clearly, the impact of this prosecutorial discretion — and this is exactly what Obama’s proposal is — will be to drive some hobbyists out of the market. That might help larger dealers in the long run, but probably won’t have any impact on gun sales.

In fact, none of these changes restatements of existing law would have had any impact on the shootings that Obama cites for the need to take unilateral action. Valerie Jarrett all but admitted it:

But officials said it was impossible to predict whether the new directives would have made any difference in recent shootings, such as the one in San Bernardino, Calif.

“We can and must do something about it,” Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to Mr. Obama, said on Monday. “Our politics unite us together when we are taking on other epidemics, so why not gun violence?”

In other words, let no crisis go to waste. Only in this case, Obama isn’t actually doing anything. Even the nuanced promise to use prosecutorial discretion to harass hobbyists seems unlikely to pan out. Don’t forget that this is the same administration that won’t follow up on failed background checks because, in Joe Biden’s words, “we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” They’ll offer up a test case or two, but the subjectivity of the prosecution will likely make courts skeptical of the new “definition” in use, and the DoJ will lose interest — especially since they only have a year to go in Obama’s term anyway.

Basically, this is Gun Control Theater — at least thus far. The most likely impact will be to make some lawyers richer, and to perhaps make gun dealerships the fastest-growing part of the Obama economy.

Update: Be sure to read Kyle Wingfield’s analysis in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He worries that the disillusionment when the Left realizes what a retreat this actually is may prompt a second attempt at executive overreach. Both Kyle and the Locke Foundation’s Jon Sanders extend my thoughts on cronyism and arbitrary prosecution as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

BOTH political parties are HYDRA……and the Constitution is SHIELD.

But who is our Captain America?

PappyD61 on January 5, 2016 at 12:58 PM

Worth repeating.

$10 says that third point is actually written so some judge can say ‘oh that means any gun seller needs a Fed license’.

Limerick on January 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM

I agree. Obama has always relied on Leftists minions to fill in the blanks.

INC on January 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM

IDontCair on January 5, 2016 at 12:59 PM

I’m laying $50 on Gabby Giffords being at this little ceremony.

D-fusit on January 5, 2016 at 11:05 AM

‘We cannot accept this carnage as the price of freedom,’ Obama said, as he stood before gun control activists, including former representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot point blank five years ago this week and survived.

Called it!

Who wouldn’t have seen that coming a mile away.

D-fusit on January 5, 2016 at 1:00 PM

Who wouldn’t have seen that coming a mile away.

D-fusit on January 5, 2016 at 1:00 PM

Ray Charles could have seen that coming.

CurtZHP on January 5, 2016 at 1:02 PM

Ray Charles could have seen that coming.

CurtZHP on January 5, 2016 at 1:02 PM

Heh!

bernzright777 on January 5, 2016 at 1:03 PM

The first two of these bullet points qualify for the “what took you so long” category. Those aren’t exercises in executive power; they’re admissions of incompetent governance. It took seven years for Obama to realize the FBI background-check department is understaffed?

lmao.

“CUT EVIL GOVERNMENT SPENDING!! NOT ONE PENNY MORE!!!!”

“I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDERFUNDED THIS GOVERNMENT PROGRAM YOU INCOMPETENT BOOBS!!!”

bunch of clowns.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM

Remember when Obama released 6,000 convicts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/us/us-to-release-6000-inmates-under-new-sentencing-guidelines.html?_r=0

Ronald E. Teachman, who was the police chief in South Bend, Ind., until last Wednesday, said inmates were not always convicted of all the crimes they had committed.

He also said that prisoners who were released after receiving job skills and other assimilation training often succeeded. But that rarely occurs, he said — even in the federal system.

“People come out of prison hardened and angry and more likely to offend,” said Mr. Teachman, now an executive with ShotSpotter, a company that promotes a system for detecting gunfire.

PappyD61 on January 5, 2016 at 1:05 PM

‘We cannot accept this carnage as the price of freedom,’ Obama said.

Is he a dictator, enabled and fully funded by the republicans in Congress?

mmmmm.

Tyranny is here America.

PappyD61 on January 5, 2016 at 1:08 PM

Cuffy [email protected] 11m11 minutes ago
Remember when Obama was lauded as a calm, collected Mr. Spock? Now he’s an emotional trainwreck.

d1carter on January 5, 2016 at 1:11 PM

I know they are higher caliber men and women than we see on HA.

antisense on January 5, 2016 at 11:08 AM

Would you like to bet against my assumption that the commentariat here is disproportionately composed of veterans?

Immolate on January 5, 2016 at 1:11 PM

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM

I know math is hard and all for you but the US government budget has been the largest EVER (and keeps growing) for all 8 years of Obama’s Presidency.

He just got the largest budget passed ever that HE signed and applauded… And less than amp th later he’s whining there’s no enough money to staff a basic government position that HE claims is causing the untold deaths of hundreds and children.

Lmao – yeah you are a clown.

Skywise on January 5, 2016 at 1:12 PM

I’m struck by the number of bald-faced lies and BS statistics Obama spewed in that pathetic display.

For example, the claim that convicted felons can freely buy guns on the internet is a blatant lie.

What are the odds anyone in the MSM will address any of his lies?

novaculus on January 5, 2016 at 1:15 PM

Anyone seen hawkdriver posting recently? He’d drop-kick this Democrat Turd’s getalife into low Earth orbit…

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2016 at 12:21 PM

I actually know young people who served. Most of the armchair patriots here haven’t seen action since the Spanish American War.

antisense on January 5, 2016 at 12:26 PM

LOL! You’re almost as bad of a liar as Tlaloc. Almost.

Some Inconvenient Truths for you about gun ownership in the US. Stats are from a 2014 survey by the Far-Left folks at PEW.

1. 58% of US gun owners are under the age of 50, which demolishes the Left’s Lie that “all” gun owners are old fogies.

2. Nearly as many American woman own guns as do men. 38% of men do, 31% of women do. This demolishes the Left’s Lie that “all” gun owners are males.

3. 39% of America’s Non-Whites (Black and Hispanic, mainly) are gun owners. This demolishes the Left’s Lie that “all” gun owners are White; in fact only 41% of Whites are gun owners.

4. The majority of gun owners (61%) live in either urban or suburban areas; this demolishes the Left’s Lie that “all” gun owners are rural hicks, who make up just 51% of US gun owners.

5. 49% of Republicans own guns. But 59% of the combination of Democrats and Independents own guns, so more of them as a group own guns than the Republicans.

This demolishes the Left’s Lie that “all” gun owners are Republicans; it also demolishes the Left’s Lie that “all” gun owners are “uneducated”, as it was the Republican Party that won the educated vote in 2012.

6. PEW Survey link.

7. F-

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2016 at 1:17 PM

About the extra FBI dudes to process background checks, assuming that a purchase can’t be made until the background check is completed, is Obama’s concern that it’s taking to long for gun purchasers to be vetted and approved? If that’s not the case, why do we need more FBI dudes? Rat smelt.

Immolate on January 5, 2016 at 1:17 PM

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM

everyditzy… you try so hard.

It didn’t occur to you that money could be shifted to pay for the increase in personnel to do background checks?

Neitherleftorright on January 5, 2016 at 1:18 PM

bunch of clowns.

lester on January 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM

No, that would be your very own Montreal Canadiens, who have lost 7 out of their last 10 games.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2016 at 1:19 PM

For example, the claim that convicted felons can freely buy guns on the internet is a blatant lie.

What are the odds anyone in the MSM the trolls will address any of his lies?

novaculus on January 5, 2016 at 1:15 PM

They’re cool with his bald-faced lies.

CurtZHP on January 5, 2016 at 1:22 PM

One of my take aways, the way he was gushing over Gabby Gifford, was that a bullet in the head makes for a great friendship.

I’m betting Obama didn’t even know who she was. But add several grams of lead strategically placed and now they’re besties!

Moral of the story: shoot someone in the head and you’ll be BFF’s for life!

Oxymoron on January 5, 2016 at 1:24 PM

Fake Tears from O’bama, cynically using dead kids for political gain:

President Barack Obama wept openly Tuesday as he delivered a forceful defense of new executive actions on gun violence, a set of modest proposals to tighten loopholes that likely face quick legal challenges and could be vulnerable to reversal by a Republican White House.

The president ran through a list of mass shootings that have happened during his time in office, and teared up as he recalled the schoolchildren gunned down in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.

“First graders in Newtown. First graders,” Obama said, pausing to collect himself. “Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.”

What O’bama didn’t mention was his own Democrat Party’s central role in helping the ACLU shut down state mental hospitals in the 1970s and 1980s-one of which was the Fairfield Hills Hospital, located in…Newtown, Connecticut.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM

Instead, 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.

Actually, someone who makes a living selling guns sounds like an FFL type gun dealer anyway. And I’m as pro-2A as they come. Selling/trading your used guns or handing them down from father to son (or to daughter) most certainly does not constitute dealing in firearms. Even doing some part-time buying and selling/trading firearms is not being a dealer. That’s more like a hobby if you’re not making a living doing it. I buy and sell guitars all the time but that doesn’t make me a Guitar Center.

Big John on January 5, 2016 at 1:42 PM

Big John on January 5, 2016 at 1:42 PM

Depends on how you define Making a living If you sell one or two guns a month to supplement your social security and afford your meds that’s “making a living”.

What if you sell one a month as a dependent and that’s your only source of income. Must make you a dreaded dealer who needs…

Heck some show dealers may sell 4 or 5 a month but the income might be more than their actual minimum wage job… Again… Is that making a living? Is that being an official gun business even though you’re basically just selling at a garage sale and you need government monitoring of your activities?

Or shall we just throw out the notion of a free society altogether now in the name of good intentions…

Devil is always in the details.

Skywise on January 5, 2016 at 1:49 PM

Lester, you’re truly pathetic.

CWforFreedom on January 5, 2016 at 1:50 PM

“WE REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS OR MENTAL ILLNESS SUPPORT EVEN THOUGH WE AGREE WITH THEM!!!”

…Obama signs EO expanding funding and staffing for background checks and mental health support…

“TYRANT!!!….I mean INNEFFECTIVE WEAK SAUCE!!!…..I mean TYRANT!!!”

clowns.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:01 PM

Or shall we just throw out the notion of a free society altogether now in the name of good intentions…

Devil is always in the details.

Skywise on January 5, 2016 at 1:49 PM

I think I may have worded that poorly. I just meant it sounded like a regular FFL dealer who earns his entire income from gun sales. With the point being there are already laws governing that and we don’t need more laws or phones and pens. Supplementing ones income with the occasional sale, even semi-regularly doesn’t strike me as making a living from it. The gubmint ought to try and enforce the laws on the books and crack down on the illegal users (see Chicago) of firearms and quit harassing law abiding gun owning citizens.

Big John on January 5, 2016 at 2:09 PM

“CUT EVIL GOVERNMENT SPENDING!! NOT ONE PENNY MORE!!!!”

“I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDERFUNDED THIS GOVERNMENT PROGRAM YOU INCOMPETENT BOOBS!!!”

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM

I gather you have the presence of mind to understand the concept of spending properly. Surely you don’t believe we cannot fund FBI enforcement unless we have a four trillion dollar budget.

“WE REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS OR MENTAL ILLNESS SUPPORT EVEN THOUGH WE AGREE WITH THEM!!!”

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:01 PM

The current system of background checks is effectively universal as it is. In every high profile shooting in which you’ve seen fit to erupt all over a corresponding thread, the shooter either passed a federal background check, or failed a check and stole their weapons from one of their first victims.

Please explain how the proposed measures from the left are appropriate responses to the actual incidents that occurred. Since you are reasonable and we are not, you have an opportunity to enlighten us.

And while you’re at it, you can add trigger locks to that explanation, since that was the legislation proposed in the wake of Columbine. I want to hear how Harris and Klebold would have been thwarted if those pesky triggers had been locked first.

The Schaef on January 5, 2016 at 2:11 PM

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:01 PM

Everdiso and Obama in 2007 – “executive orders are evil and distort the separation of powers in the government and Bush is trying to rule as a tyrant”

Everdiso ans Obama today – “whoohoo ruling by fiat is great because I should do whatever I feel like honey boo boo”

Yeah, everdiso… You are a clown.

Skywise on January 5, 2016 at 2:12 PM

“TYRANT!!!….I mean INNEFFECTIVE WEAK SAUCE!!!…..I mean TYRANT!!!”

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:01 PM

Also, I don’t see how you can view these as conflicting concepts. Not only is it possible to be someone who subverts our legal system and rules through diktat – while issuing orders that do not achieve the desired end – but this administration has demonstrated it rather ably.

The Schaef on January 5, 2016 at 2:19 PM

“Our politics unite us together when we are taking on other epidemics, so why not gun violence?”

“Unite us together”? Nice to know that Valerie Jarrett, the mastermind behind the Vacationer-in-Chief, has such a playful sense of redundancy.

Cicero43 on January 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM

“WE REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS OR MENTAL ILLNESS SUPPORT EVEN THOUGH WE AGREE WITH THEM!!!”

…Obama signs EO expanding funding and staffing for background checks and mental health support…

“TYRANT!!!….I mean INNEFFECTIVE WEAK SAUCE!!!…..I mean TYRANT!!!”

clowns.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:01 PM

^ Any doubts who this is?

but according to y’all, a handgun is just as deadly and fearsome. virginia tech, see?

clowns.

sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM

except lyin’ ryan himself and the entire hotair commentariat.

clowns.

sesquipedalian on January 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM

erika’s favorite turtle is now reduced to filibustering himself.

clowns.

sesquipedalian on December 6, 2012 at 4:12 PM

i bet they do!

Rep. Upton pushed for loan to now-bankrupt solar company

clowns.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM

a parade of clowns.

sesquipedalian on December 20, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Poor widdle thing. You’re still as mentally deranged as you were under your banned username.

HumpBot Salvation on January 5, 2016 at 2:33 PM

Obama is most certainly a tyrant.

yep. the fewest EOs of any 2 term potus is clear proof of that.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Now what is he going to do to stop the making of pressure cooker bombs, and the sale of knives?

\Those Jihadis and other terrorist groups are going to be soooo scared!

kirkill on January 5, 2016 at 2:37 PM

yes, Humpbot. I am lester. I am sesquepedian. I am tlaloc. I am everyone.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:37 PM

yes, Humpbot. I am lester. I am sesquepedian. I am tlaloc. I am everyone.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:37 PM

Poor widdle coward. Can’t even man up to who you are.

You should learn to mix up your insults.

HumpBot Salvation on January 5, 2016 at 2:43 PM

yep. the fewest EOs of any 2 term potus is clear proof of that.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Yes, because it’s the numbers that determines that.

HumpBot Salvation on January 5, 2016 at 2:44 PM

so you’ve finally made up your mind this time?

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:44 PM

Yes, because it’s the numbers that determines that.

HumpBot Salvation on January 5, 2016 at 2:44 PM

as Ed just detailed, these EOs are quite modest.

So very few, and very modest EOs = tyranny?

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM

yep. the fewest EOs of any 2 term potus is clear proof of that.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM

You know how I said in the other thread you ain’t smart? Yeah, case in point. And you’re also wrong.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Spot the two termers with fewer.

NotCoach on January 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM

solid point, coach.

I will rephrase – fewest EOs of any 2 term potus in the last 165 years.

my bad.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:52 PM

solid point, coach.

I will rephrase – fewest EOs of any 2 term potus in the last 165 years.

my bad.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:52 PM

Still wrong.

NotCoach on January 5, 2016 at 2:56 PM

so you’ve finally made up your mind this time?

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:44 PM

As cowardly as you are ignorant.

HumpBot Salvation on January 5, 2016 at 2:59 PM

Wow, Obama lied again. He was going to do something to help stop the San Bernadina attack. Then as normal only did things that would take peoples guns and did nothing that would have stopped the San Bernadina killings. But then those killings were do to his State Department not doing their do diligence.

pwb on January 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM

That will make gun owners waiting for the background check to complete more secure, because they will have the gun in their hands sooner.

Seems exactly the opposite of what Mr. Obama wants.

unclesmrgol on January 5, 2016 at 12:44 PM

Putting more government bureaucrats into a process NEVER makes it go faster.

dentarthurdent on January 5, 2016 at 3:02 PM

“TYRANT!!!….I mean INNEFFECTIVE WEAK SAUCE!!!…..I mean TYRANT!!!”

clowns.

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 2:01 PM

LMAO! These clowns are pathetic. I log on sometimes just to laugh at them.

proverbs427 on January 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM

Wow, poor lester did even worse in this thread than his Montreal Canadiens’ did in their last 7 games (3-10)…

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM

This lack of objective definition matters a great deal to those on the cusp of enforcement. It costs a lot of money to become a federally licensed firearm dealer, and the penalties for operating as such without the license are severe. If the line cannot be drawn clearly, the impact of this prosecutorial discretion — and this is exactly what Obama’s proposal is — will be to drive some hobbyists out of the market. That might help larger dealers in the long run, but probably won’t have any impact on gun sales.

I think the ambiguities are the whole point of the action. If you’re selling guns at all, can you be sure BATF won’t decide you’re “in the business” of selling guns and retroactively prosecute you as a lawbreaker. The only safe thing to do would be to get out of the gun business entirely. Otherwise, you would have to be extremely cautious because you could never be sure where you crossed the hidden line.

In the computer business, this was called FUD — Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Imply strongly to customers that using a competitor’s product was taking a big chance, and businesses tended to go with the safest option.

And as always, FUD works to the advantage of the large and established players, and keeps the smaller competitors at a distance.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 5, 2016 at 4:49 PM

only now has Obama gotten around to requesting more money in the budget to deal with [mental health]

And, when did that become the purview of the federal gov’t? At what point was that responsibility added to the Constitution?

GWB on January 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

I was wondering how exactly the president gets to make such decisions, when only Congress has the power to allocate funding. If the president is allowed to shift the money wherever he deems appropriate, then Congress no longer has the power of the purse.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 5, 2016 at 5:03 PM

Dude, even if you had weapons, you couldn’t do much of anything from your mobility scooter.

antisense on January 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM

You willing to bet your life on that, princess?

Solaratov on January 5, 2016 at 10:17 PM

I know they are higher caliber men and women than we see on HA.

antisense on January 5, 2016 at 11:08 AM

And why do I get the feeling that you have never bothered to serve your country, senseless?

Could it be that you’re a coward…just like you lie about knowing any vets?
No honorably discharged vet would have anything to do with uneducated, dirt-common, leftist trash like you.

Solaratov on January 5, 2016 at 10:26 PM

I’ve look at this bad unconstitutional ruling. As a retired police detective I understand what they are doing and disagree. From my blog

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2016/01/05/atf-blm-the-hammonds-and-the-rest-of-us-how-the-squeeze-of-uncertainty-becomes-oppressive/

Excerpts from the blog-

“…So how does selective prosecution and federal employees using personal interpretations of the law to harass someone create the uncertainty?

First of all, when people realize they can’t figure out if they are
breaking the law or not, they tend not to do anything.

That again, is illegal. Law has to be certain. If it says the speed limit is 35mph and if you go faster you get a ticket, then you know if you are doing sixty- expect that ticket. You know the law, you chose to violate it and risk the punishment. That is what D’Souza’s criminal companions accept about their world. Do the crime, do the time. But what if the government tells you the law for speeding is what they think it should be depending on who is standing there with the radar gun and ticket book? That maybe today it is 35mph, but tomorrow or because it is YOU
in particular, it could be 10mph. How do you drive? Do you drive down that road at all? Worse, as you stumble around trying to figure out what to do (uncertainty), you notice the politically protected guy down the street doing a hundred and the guy with the radar is waving hi as he goes by. …”

This causing confusion and anger, but also forces a change in behavior. So how does this adapt to the ATF plan? Uncertainty “seizes and freezes” not only land but behavior and rights.

“….As I understand it, the ATF can arbitrarily decide, on their own,
without due process or legally passed laws by Congress, decide who is a
felon and who isn’t. Anyone betting if Loretta Lynch sold, or gave a
gun to a friend she’d be fine, but if someone like a Hammond family
member (or you) did the same, he’d (and you) would be in jail?

Let’s say as a parent you decide to buy your son a shotgun. He has
declared he’s a duck hunter, so you buy him a nice Bennelli from
Cabelas, using a credit card in your name. Then you keep the shotgun in
the original box and wrap it. You give it to him, without a background
check on your son or you being a license holder. You have just
committed a FEDERAL felony! Maybe? Or not? Depending on which ATF agent
gets your case or which prosecutor, who may very well be nuts, reviews
it? Sure, you can beat the charge (maybe, depending on the judge), but
that’s twenty-five thousand dollars later! And you still have a federal
arrest record! So what are you going to do?

Not buy your son a gun.

The end result is the federal government just “seized” your second
amendment right to own firearms without interference, and “froze” your future ability to act on that right. …”

Worse, by involving the Social Security by having some unknown clerk decide who is on a list or not, because of some unknown criteria, you have managed to bury the right under a bureaucratic blanket nobody can penetrate.

But here’s a question no one is asking. How is it a disease- like Alzheimer- disqualify a person from exercising their Constitutional right? Are they going to be prevented from voting? Owning land? Due Process? illegal search and seizure protections?

Nightmarish. And the fact all those progressive stood behind the President and nodded their heads just shows how bad they all are.

archer52 on January 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM