GOP Compromise Creates Universal Background Checks
- Thread starter specops56
- Start date
- Replies 65
- Views 2,008
All the more reason to first ignore them, and second remind them why they don’t went to try to force the issue.
you summed it up about succinctly as possible. if they were interested in protecting people they would guarantee no one would have added cost of ffl fee, would not require ffl records connecting a buyer to a gun, and generate a database of non identifiable records of "eligible" buyers not tied to a specific individual - the individual would only reference the id at point of sale ensuring anonymity.
but they arent interested in doing that. they want to control who gets what, what they can own and track every bit of it. because registration always leads to confiscation.
12151791
GUNS AND COFFEE
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Mathieu18
Needs More Yeller
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
New Member
Can anyone provide examples of registration leading to confiscation? They haven’t taken my Tundra yet and you know those green nuts would love to have trucks off the road.
(Note, I’m not in favor of registration).
(Note, I’m not in favor of registration).
OP
It's not "clickbait" it's hard truth that republican fudds don't want to hear. The GOP sold us down the river. Again. They supported a dem bill that enabled Biden to do what he's doing with this Executive order. Do you get a background check when you buy from private sale? You will now. And it will go straight into the ATF registry of guns.
Terry
I don't comply....THE END! I go up...they go to you know....the bad place with fire and screaming....I can't lose
I've had folks argue that it didn't happen, but he's got some good sources about the Nazis.
Nazi Repression of Firearms Owners | Stephen P. Halbrook
New research on the Nazi confiscation of registered guns--and execution of gun owners--provides a poignant lesson on why Americans have always opposed the registration of peaceable firearms owners. President Bill Clinton has come out in favor of the registration of all law-abiding American...
More currently the Taliban rounded up Gov issued/allowed arms when they took over. They knew where to look because of their registration.
Go back to Lexington and Concord where the British were headed for the militia's magazine to secure the arms.
Then there is a litany of times where guns have been deemed illegal and those caught with them were executed in Europe by the Nazis, China, Cuba, and Cambodia. Registration does not always lead to confiscation. But in the presence of tyrants registration makes confiscation easier and makes resistance more difficult.
Why even care? We’ve let the the whole damn country slip into a corrupt freak fest. Trans men in women championships, president son milking millions and handing it to dad, corrupt DOJ, FBI corrupt and targeting parents at school board meeting, censorship in social media, burning cities in the name of social equity, hunting of cops like deer, justice system with no prison time, on and on and on. Not even a blip for red congressmen and definitely not a concern for the average citizen not on CFF.
The long game is our subjugation, the powerful can't do it with peasants having guns.
OP
OP
You just answered your own question. It happened because not enough of us cared.
Terry
Find tne other thread where this yas been discussed without the hyperbole of this u-tuber, and read what @Me. posted above, I’m too lazy to spell it out for you.
Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Venezuela, Germany, California and the red flag laws that allow confiscation because they know what you own. It is the human way for one group to attempt to control another. It is in our nature and I despise the trait.
The claims in the GOA article are not true. This is more of GOA's usual gross exaggeration of events to beg for more money.
GOA uses fiery rhetoric to agitate people and then depends on readers being too excited to realize where or how GOA exaggerates - or sometimes outright lies.
Last edited:
If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Can't blame them for using a winning tactic, can only blame those that fall for it.
OP
06/25/2022 Became Public Law No: 117-159
“This act makes various changes to federal firearms laws, including to expand background check requirements, broaden the scope of existing restrictions, and establish new criminal offenses.
TITLE II--FIREARMS
(Sec. 12002) This section revises the definition of engaged in the business as applicable to a firearms dealer who is required to be federally licensed. Specifically, it provides that a person who sells firearms to predominantly earn a profit (currently, who sells firearms with the principal objective of livelihood and profit) is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and is therefore required to be federally licensed.
(Sec. 12003) This section allows grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program to be used to implement state crisis intervention programs or initiatives, including mental health courts, drug courts, veterans' courts, and extreme risk protection order programs (i.e., red flag laws).
This GOP backed law is what Biden is using as the basis of his executive order. It will expand RFLs, require UBCs by changing the definition of a dealer. Ever made a profit on a gun you sold? You're now a dealer. Requiring BCs on every private sale will add more guns / owners to the already established ATF gun registration database that has a billion records already.
Go ahead and ignore it. It's just clickbait after all.
Terry
“This act makes various changes to federal firearms laws, including to expand background check requirements, broaden the scope of existing restrictions, and establish new criminal offenses.
TITLE II--FIREARMS
(Sec. 12002) This section revises the definition of engaged in the business as applicable to a firearms dealer who is required to be federally licensed. Specifically, it provides that a person who sells firearms to predominantly earn a profit (currently, who sells firearms with the principal objective of livelihood and profit) is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and is therefore required to be federally licensed.
(Sec. 12003) This section allows grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program to be used to implement state crisis intervention programs or initiatives, including mental health courts, drug courts, veterans' courts, and extreme risk protection order programs (i.e., red flag laws).
This GOP backed law is what Biden is using as the basis of his executive order. It will expand RFLs, require UBCs by changing the definition of a dealer. Ever made a profit on a gun you sold? You're now a dealer. Requiring BCs on every private sale will add more guns / owners to the already established ATF gun registration database that has a billion records already.
Go ahead and ignore it. It's just clickbait after all.
Terry
So, this has been in effect since June of last year? Has anyone done a BC on a private sale?
Last edited:
You are freaking out and its causing you to reach incorrect conclusion. What is true is that the R’s failed to protect gun rights when they passed this legislation, but that doesn’t mean that the worst possible things will come to pass. Here is a summary from the Congressional Research Service that addresses some of your questions and concerns. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47310
“Section 12002 amends definitions in the GCA that underlie the requirement that persons buying and selling firearms as a business at the wholesale or retail level must be federally licensed as FFLs. Specifically, it amends the definition of “engaged in the business,” striking the phrase “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” and replacing it with “to predominantly earn a profit.”47 Section 12002 defines this latter term as well, excepting firearms transfers made to improve or liquidate a personal firearms collection from this licensure requirement.
These measures require persons who buy and resell firearms repetitively for profit to be licensed federally as gun dealers. In so doing, this measure could make some, but not all, intrastate, private firearm transfers subject to GCA recordkeeping and background check requirements, if those transfers are made by profit-oriented, repetitive firearms buyers and sellers. Arguably, such transfers were not covered under previous law if the firearms transfers in question were not also made as a “principal objective” of one’s “livelihood”
Only by a second or two, you’d have beat me if I’d bothered to quote the actual statute as you did. The most important point is that it didn’t take 5 minutes for either of us to investigate/debunk this.
I encourage everyone to spend a few minutes investigating what they are outraged about. Investigating does not mean more u-tube or other social media. We can’t fight the real threats if we’re jumping at shadows.
The claims about dealer licensing are simply not true.
The cited law is explained below by the Congressional Research Service, with references to the specific provisions of the law.
People with a side gig of trading guns for profit are the target of the change in the law and arguably should have been licensed all along.
More to the point, "engaged in the business" remains the underlying law and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of legal precedents surrounding that phrase.
ADDED: That will teach me to be slow and meticulous and let @Me. and @GymB beat my response.
Last edited:
And those that are “engaged in the business” without an FFL shouldn’t be bragging about it on the internet either.
I don’t have an FFL and have no interest at this time, but from when I did look into it several years ago, I seem to recall there being some sort of minimum number of transactions that you have to engage in to maintain it. If so, that would be a pretty good definition of “engaged in the business”.
Will you guys quit calling this a ‘law’ or an ‘act’? This is a decree. I don’t think Congress or the Senate voted on anything. Proceed accordingly.
I'm outraged about a doddering old pedophile making any executive order; that count?
Does the order claim anyone selling firearms is a dealer? No. Is it another step in the march towards making civilian firearm ownership more inconvenient? Yes. Is it a step towards any meaningful change in crime involving firearms (ie, prosecuting the minority thugs that are the lion's share of violent crime in this country)? No. Will it be used to demonize and persecute normal, conservative folks this administration wants so badly to paint with the brush of "domestic terrorism"? Possibly, and eventually.
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Yep. now find me where they ever said a number.
As I recall, it was a 'we'll know it when we see it - and then we'll hit you with felony charges" sort of thing
and that's what biden directed them to expand???
Title II of Public Law 117-159 changed some of the definitions in Title 18 United States Code § 921(a) paragraphs (21)(c) and (22). GOA and others have exaggerated and misrepresented the changes in that law, which are the basis for Biden's Executive Order (below) to reexamine the requirements for an FFL.
Although 18 USC 921(a) was amended by Congress in June of 2022, the regulations derived from the law, in Title 27 Code of Federal Regulations § 478.11 have not yet been updated. Biden has now instructed the Attorney General to update the regulations to coincide with the change in the law.
Last edited:
Patriots go by the rights the constitution gives them. Loyalist are the ones attacking said constitution.