Gun shows and Presidential Executive Orders?

[PolarFBear]

My condolences to the family of Justice Scalia, may he rest in peace.

I have attended three gun shows in my area (NE TN) since the Presidential Executive Orders were put in place. I have yet to see ANY effect. When I read those E.O.s and the comments of others on this Forum I really could not see what impact they would impose. First hand evidence seems to verify --- words from the White House for political gain and no effect.

Any other observations from other parts of our Nation?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NY Times recently had an analysis that the executive orders accomplished nothing. You can google it.

 

[dogtown tom]

PolarFBear My condolences to the family of Justice Scalia, may he rest in peace.

I have attended three gun shows in my area (NE TN) since the Presidential Executive Orders were put in place. I have yet to see ANY effect. When I read those E.O.s and the comments of others on this Forum I really could not see what impact they would impose. First hand evidence seems to verify --- words from the White House for political gain and no effect.

Any other observations from other parts of our Nation?

1. President Obama didn't issue any "Executive Orders" regarding firearms.
2. He cannot change Federal law by himself.
3. Not one ATF regulation was changed by his speech in January.
4. Much ado about nothing.

 

[Scorch]

Mostly talk. Politicians are good at that.

In one of his last speeches, BO said he would restrict fully automatic weapons, require background checks and waiting periods, and some other vague and disturbing scrap. Only problem is that those are already laws on the books, so his verbage is just more BS from BO designed to look good in the news and give antis more fodder. Let me cry a little . . .

 

[turkeestalker]

I'm not yet convinced that the executive orders will accomplish nothing.

We aren't yet sure what is meant by the POTUS regarding "being in the business", that was not clearly defined. We believe that we know, but what if that definition is nailed down as meaning one or two sales? There are court cases where a conviction for dealing in firearms has been handed down that involved only one or two transactions.
What if private individuals were required to conduct background checks in order to close the imaginary gun show loophole?
Could that for all intensive purposes become a sort of national registry?

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protects patient rights by restricting disclosure of personal information. The POTUS executive order fails to define what is meant by the sharing of "limited demographic and other necessary information" when preventing individuals from owning firearms for mental health reasons.
How could HIPAA be compromised in the name of public safety?

It would seem and could very well be that January's executive orders are...

just more BS from BO designed to look good in the news and give antis more fodder.

...but I'm not yet convinced, though I do hope that's exactly what they are and all that they amount to being.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Stay on topic of the orders and how they work.

General political comments are not appropriate. Such deleted.

Snide comments about politicians are fun but not germane.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...We aren't yet sure what is meant by the POTUS regarding "being in the business", that was not clearly defined. We believe that we know,....

What are you talking about? We don't know what "being in the business" means any better than AFT. And indeed we discussed that subject extensively in this thread recently.

....The POTUS executive order fails to define what is meant by the sharing of "limited demographic and other necessary information" when preventing individuals from owning firearms for mental health reasons....

Exactly what Executive Order was that. Hint: there was no such Executive Order.

There have been no new Executive Orders. Executive Orders are a formal thing, and there are procedures for issuing Executive Orders. All Executive Orders are published in the Federal Register, or you can find all Executive Orders issued by Obama here. None of those Executive Orders deal with guns.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

There are court cases where a conviction for dealing in firearms has been handed down that involved only one or two transactions.

If so, then what difference would an executive action by BO change? What is there to be concerned about?
Political posturing. Possibly putting those who are blatantly breaking the law, but ATFE hasn't bothered with, on notice. There are quite a few playing the "personal collection for sale" game.

 

[turkeestalker]

My apologies Mr. Ettin, because I have not read the executive orders that were signed this January. The link to the list that you provided doesn't cover those either, but rather ends with the latest being in late 2015.
My response is based on what I have read from varying sources, many of which are on line news sources and commentaries, but the main one is the following.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Am I interpreting what I am reading in that link wrong? Maybe, but I'm not alone if I am based on what I have read elsewhere, and I'm sticking by my statement that I'm not yet convinced.

Am I confusing executive actions vs. orders? Pardon my ignorance if I am.

 

[Spats McGee]

First of all, let's get our terminology straight. An Executive Order is a specific order that the president can issue. All Executive Orders can be found at the link that Frank provided. He did not issue any Executive Orders. He took "executive actions."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...e-and-make-our

Am I interpreting what I am reading in that link wrong? Maybe, but I'm not alone if I am based on what I have read elsewhere, and I'm sticking by my statement that I'm not yet convinced.

Am I confusing executive actions vs. orders? Pardon my ignorance if I am.

turkeestalker, I think you are confusing executive actions and Executive Orders. No need to be pardoned for it, though. You're certainly neither the first, nor the last, to think that BHO issued Executive Orders on this.

If you'll carefully read the "Fact Sheet" at the link you gave, I think you'll find that it's mostly aspirational in nature. It tells us what the President wants to do. It tells us what the President (or someone or something under his direction) has proposed.

IMHO, the closest BHO came to "changing the law" with his executive actions is "clarifying the law on 'engaging in the business'" of dealing in firearms. Even there, though, the law hasn't changed.

 

[tirod]

Even if the President had issued Executive Orders, they must be based on existing law. He doesn't fabricate that on his desk. An attempt to do so would only open a door to Congress and the Courts who eagerly wait for any opportunity to limit Presidential powers by exercising theirs.

Which goes to some who post that the President could just sign an order and ban guns. It's ludicrous. He has to go thru the ATF and they get the task of parsing their own regulations and making it look legal.

The last time that happened unsuccessfully, the M855 ban was tabled. Nope, sorry, no matter what some think, the POTUS isn't a third world dictator who can write sweeping changes into law.

I would go so far as to say that the newest Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia isn't going to alter the balance of powers, either. Never forget that Congress makes the law, if the SC doesn't take the intended meaning of what was passed, Congress can certainly clarify it thru another. And has done so. While Scalia's replacement is important, it does not mean that the worse case scenario is a court that dumps the 2A into the trash can at the first opportunity. And neither can the President.

For the most part, they do it incrementally, same as turning up the heat under a pot of water filled with frogs. We've gotten used to a lot of things that we would not tolerate under King George - we pay dozens of taxes and still have our guns. We are even bringing about laws to change the NFA and remove silencers, along with having near 100% CCW and reciprocity.

There's even a gun dealer in Chicago. Who'd have thought?

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Am I interpreting what I am reading in that link wrong? Maybe, but I'm not alone if I am based on what I have read elsewhere, and I'm sticking by my statement that I'm not yet convinced.

Am I confusing executive actions vs. orders?....

I'm afraid that you are. As Spats McGee confirmed, every single Executive Order issued by Obama is at the link I provided.

All this hoopla now is about so called "executive actions." That really doesn't mean anything beyond simply actions taken by an executive. In plain English Obama having his morning coffee is an "executive action." In this context it's really a sort of made-up concept intended to give weight to to certain presidential comments.

In this particular situation, the so called executive actions we're concerned about are fairly vague statements about what Obama, as senior manager of the Executive Branch of the federal government, would like to see done in connection with guns. These vague statements were set out in this "fact sheet" published by the White House, including:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear 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....

  
  

• ...Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history....

  
  

• ....The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws....

  
  

• ...ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit....

What it all boils down to is that various Departments in the Executive Branch are being urge to pursue rule making with regard to some matters and urge to shift priorities ast to others.

 

[carguychris]

We aren't yet sure what is meant by the POTUS regarding "being in the business", that was not clearly defined. We believe that we know, but what if that definition is nailed down as meaning one or two sales?

Read this "General Discussion" thread and this new ATF informational flyer. It's fairly clear from the hypothetical examples on page numbers 7-8 of the flyer (pages 11-12 of the PDF) that private face-to-face sales are still legal under the same general circumstances that they were legal before.

Nothing in the flyer, the Whitehouse.gov fact sheet, or the POTUS's announcements clearly states that the administration is even attempting to enact a new "bright line" definition of "engaging in the business" based on number of sales.

Basically, the "executive actions" consist of:

• An informational flyer;
• Hiring a bunch of new NICS examiners (to accommodate the inevitable panic buyers );
• Vapid posturing by the AG with respect to state reporting of criminal and mental health history to NICS ("We'd really like you to report stuff. All of it. Pretty please? With sugar on top?" );
• An unfunded proposal to hire new ATF agents (which is likely to go nowhere in this election year);
• An unfunded proposal to increase mental health care (ditto the above);
• Finalization of an NFA trust rule that folks in the NFA community have seen coming for months, and that helpfully eliminates the nettlesome CLEO sign-off requirement that was prompting many such folks to execute trusts in the first place;
• A little bitty regulatory change to clarify who is responsible for reporting firearms lost in transit between FFLs.

The words "political theater" come to mind.

 

[turkeestalker]

I appreciate the education gentlemen, and do apologize again for my ignorance/confusion.

Regardless I still worry about actions outlined in the fact sheet.
In particular this line stating, "The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons." Especially with regards to possible changes on the horizon as to the definition of "people prohibited for specific mental health reasons".
But maybe I'm growing unnecessarily paranoid.

To the OP regarding any effect seen at local gun shows, I've been to three since locally as well and haven't seen any indication of anything going any differently than before.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Executive order v. executive action...

Sort of like the difference between a sexual relationship and sexual relations.

Presidents have an army of lawyers at their disposal and it shows in the way they communicate with We The People.