.gov is already here.
We need a "report post" link that goes to .gov instead of the mods..... It should be in the new exec. orders.
This
Or maybe this.....
.gov is already here.
Every single solitary one is an honor student and completely innocent.
If two sales are the line separating sellers who need licenses from the rest of us, doesn't that pretty well eliminate the concept of private sales? Granted, it would be extremely difficult to prove aside from encountering guns manufactured after the cutoff date in hands other than the original buyer, but still, this sounds like a hell of a lot more threat than what some of you are laughing off.
Not following. There is no such proposal cited.
I remember when the seat belt law came into effect, we were told they couldn't ticket you for that alone.
This is a wedge.
Bill O'Reilly babbles about a lot of things.Good grief. No one in the Media has any idea what is going on.
Bill O"Reilly is babbling about "registration". Just wait until someone tells him that registration is against federal law.
Bill O'Reilly babbles about a lot of things.
I think his rear has been his spokesperson for quite some time now. Plus I think it's the brains of the partnership.It would help Bill O'Reilly a lot if he would start talking out the correct end for a change rather than out his rear.
I think his rear has been his spokesperson for quite some time now. Plus I think it's the brains of the partnership.
Cracks in the dam? Mainstream Media casts doubt on Obama's EAs: Obama measures wouldn't have kept guns from mass shooters
It would help Bill O'Reilly a lot if he would start talking out the correct end for a change rather than out his rear.
You could be right. At some point in time they might start to realize that closing this whole manufactured "gun show loophole" thing was a scam and they will be hungry for some real red meat.That's awful fast. Maybe we are going to see the clamor for universal background checks or a push for prohibition next week rather than next year or thereafter as I suspected this may be engineered to set up when it is proven ineffective for any of the purposes listed in the brochure.
I can see multiple ways of proving intent some realistic, some absurd....some of the absurd have probably happened.
- Seller casually mentions during the transaction: "I just bought this gun and it was such a good deal, I knew I could resell it at a profit."
- Seller buys a ledger to record gun buying and selling, writes "Gun Business" on the outside and records a sale with the bought price, selling price and notes the profit (or loss)
- Seller just tells someone: "I buy and sell guns like a business, but it's so few no one will notice" or "well, I just made my first sale for my new business."
- Seller has receipts printed up that say "Joe's Guns" and gives the buyer a filled out receipt when he sells gun #1.
- Seller posts on website how much he hates the "barriers to entry" put up by the ATF regs, states that he believes they are unconstitutional and won't follow them and elsewhere (on the same site or elsewhere) offers a gun for sale that he has only owned for 3 hours....or skip the political stuff and just offer a gun for sale at a price higher than you bought it for that you have owned for 3 hours.
- Seller attempts to deduct the costs of his "gun hobby" as a business expense, or pays taxes on the net profits as "business income" (I guarantee both have happened).
I could go on and on.
How do you prove intent? You show a jury what you did and said and if they can discern your intent "beyond a reasonable doubt" in their minds, there you go.
That's the point. They are intentionally trying to be vague that's why they declined to put a specific threshold number on sales because they said it could potentially limit their ability to prosecute. Then they turn around and say it could be as few as one or two if certain other vague criteria is present.I agree that the fed code and the atf doc referenced above would say private sales are not all illegal. However the White House reps have eluded that a lot more sales will require a ffl now than they did prior to this executive order. Maybe all talk but I don't know if I want to rely on this alone. I would like a little less vagueness on these EO's they should be very specific if they are trying to act because they don't believe congress is following the will of the people.
This may just be the move of a pawn to position a more powerful piece into play.