White House, DOJ Gun Control Proposal Includes Universal Background Checks

Meanwhile Beto O'Rourke is the gift that keeps on giving. He continues to double down on his confiscation talk. (He's trying to say now that he wouldn't take all guns, just the "nasty" ones -- the very ones that people want

Click to expand...

In the old days, one would have said “all hat, no cowboy”. Now I think the term is “liberal”.

Any Liberal worth being elected knows you have to say one thing, THEN do another, after being elected. Unfortunately the same goes for (R) people too, current POTUS included. To actually say what you intend to do before hand is a gross breach of etiquette, as a politician.

And everyone says they are not a politician, until they are one. When you have one that says they are not what they are, you should start asking questions, at least to yourself.

LiveLife said:

Senator John Kennedy on potential for gun reform deal

Click to expand...

So you're telling me there's no Bigfoot ?

I saw that live and it's great to see a politician tell it like it is.

22-rimfire said:

The proof will be in the bills that are introduced in the House and Senate. I think that Republicans and the President are very far apart relative to the reported Democratic view on the issue. Once the bills are introduced, I doubt it will make the Senate floor unless Trump favors the bill as written.

Click to expand...

There are some 77 gun control bills introduced in the House and Senate with 300 cosponsors.

SharpDog said:

So you're telling me there's no Bigfoot ?

I saw that live and it's great to see a politician tell it like it is.

Click to expand...

I’ll go one step further that what they are wanting to do.

I think every gun owner should have access to NICS, for the children. They are talking about commercial or advertised sales.

What if we, common folk, could check out who we sell to on our own?

I bet we would even use that ability in other areas of life, like who we have watch our children or maybe even who we elect.

Ah, that may be a deal breaker in getting that passed into law...

jmorris said:

I’ll go one step further that what they are wanting to do.

I think every gun owner should have access to NICS, for the children. They are talking about commercial or advertised sales.

What if we, common folk, could check out who we sell to on our own?

I bet we would even use that ability in other areas of life, like who we have watch our children or maybe even who we elect.

Ah, that may be a deal breaker in getting that passed into law...

Click to expand...

Actually that's great. It makes it much simpler for the government to control you by controlling what they feed into NICS. Saves all of that messy campaigning, advertising and the expense of illegal investigations and special prosecutors.

I think China is going full bore with that with their social credit system.

As long as they are included, I am all for it.

No one seemed to notice that the “leaders” of our Country were exempt from the laws they passed for “us” last time.

These are folks that are doing things for the “People” right?

''When what is wrongly turning into the ruling class is exempting themselves form laws of the land, we have a serious issue. ...'' ^^^

Yes, yes, and yes again

Let's try ALL their bill on themselves, 1ST.

No ''special'' exceptions for health care.
Special ''super duper'' retirement programs
Other laws
You can no longer be ''in the know'' on legislation, then adjust your $$porfolio ahead of the change(s)
Yes , under MANY circumstances, YOU Mr/Mrs/It congress *** can be sued for YOUR laws


YES, YOU , YOURN, and YOUR security teams can go back to revolvers. I WILL BUY YOUR COWBOY BOOTS



And .....nope, I didn't forget (LoL)....ADD A SUNSET CLAUSE TO ANY AND ALL NEW GUN BILLS....

Pleas call your congress***** , today

''All typing and no calling'' , NOT

All I have seen from Rep Crist, and Senators Rubio and Scott is that they will go for more gun control. I have posted some of their replies here.

DoubleMag said:

''When what is wrongly turning into the ruling class is exempting themselves form laws of the land, we have a serious issue. ...'' ^^^

Yes, yes, and yes again

Let's try ALL their bill on themselves, 1ST.

No ''special'' exceptions for health care.
Special ''super duper'' retirement programs
Other laws
You can no longer be ''in the know'' on legislation, then adjust your $$porfolio ahead of the change(s)
Yes , under MANY circumstances, YOU Mr/Mrs/It congress *** can be sued for YOUR laws


YES, YOU , YOURN, and YOUR security teams can go back to revolvers. I WILL BUY YOUR COWBOY BOOTS



And .....nope, I didn't forget (LoL)....ADD A SUNSET CLAUSE TO ANY AND ALL NEW GUN BILLS....

Pleas call your congress***** , today

''All typing and no calling'' , NOT

Click to expand...

Congress critters are in the same health care and retirement systems as all other Federal Employees. Now ask yourself why someone elected by the voters of a state, and representing them is a Federal employee? Why are they not a State employee?

jmorris said:

In the old days, one would have said “all hat, no cowboy”. Now I think the term is “liberal”.

Any Liberal worth being elected knows you have to say one thing, THEN do another, after being elected. Unfortunately the same goes for (R) people too, current POTUS included. To actually say what you intend to do before hand is a gross breach of etiquette, as a politician.

Click to expand...

Just depends on what the "another" is which is why I look at the "man or women" in terms of their character, history, preferences, and what they have accomplished. The say one thing and do another has certainly been the approach by the Dems for at least the last half dozen presidential elections. I honestly can't say that about Trump. He generally says exactly what he means when he can.

SharpDog said:

There are some 77 gun control bills introduced in the House and Senate with 300 cosponsors.

Click to expand...

Except they are more posturing than anything else until the President agrees and that included Obama prior to Trump. It takes a super majority in both houses to pass things over the heads of the President.

Texas10mm said:

Now ask yourself why someone elected by the voters of a state, and representing them is a Federal employee? Why are they not a State employee?

Click to expand...

Simple. Because under the Constitution, they are paid by the federal government.

P5 Guy said:

All I have seen from Rep Crist, and Senators Rubio and Scott is that they will go for more gun control. I have posted some of their replies here.

Click to expand...

Crist is a weathervane and today he is a Democrat that has repudiated most of his former Republican positions that he used to ride to fame but Rubio and Scott have to deal with the aftermath of that Florida school shooting and the likely push in FL for that new gun control popular initiative that is far worse than the fed's proposal. Florida is a purple state and you will get that sort of behavior from senators that way.

For my part, the major effect of this proposal will be on the folks that trade/sell firearms to strangers or acquaintances via things like Craigslist/Armslists, etc. It would be interesting to hear their perspectives on this proposal (note that it does not appear to affect folks with a C&R licence as you are a limited FFL with all that it entails).

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/20/senate-guns-legislation-trump-1505552

The short of the story is that no one knows what Trump really has in mind. He blundered in background checks given his tendency to speak without understand the depth of the issue. He is probably enjoying having partisans on both sides coming to him and trying to curry favor. He's turned the tables on Wayne. During Bumpgate, Wayne and the NRA bragged how they turned him around and stopped a total AWB. Send a check!

Now, with the NRA is trouble, Wayne needs Trump to give him a victory and convince the rebels that Wayne is still the man. Thus, instead of telling Trump off, WLP has to be a supplicant for Donald's grace. Given, even if a UBC bill passes, the Trump base will support him for other reasons, Trump is really free to do whatever pleases him. That will be determined by what PR value he thinks he will get.

It's pretty clear he is not wedded strongly to the strong RKBA worldview. His proclamations on being the strongest advocate are worth the same as his statements he would be a strong advocate for LGBT issues (which turned out not to be true). It's all what he thinks at the moment will benefit him.

I'd bet he stalls and stalls and nothing gets done legislatively. The Democrats will complain but it has minimal effect on the election. The pro and anti folks already know how they will vote on gun issues. This proposal will go nowhere.

GEM said:

Now, with the NRA is trouble, Wayne needs Trump to give him a victory and convince the rebels that Wayne is still the man. Thus, instead of telling Trump off, WLP has to be a supplicant for Donald's grace.

I'd bet he stalls and stalls and nothing gets done legislatively. The Democrats will complain but it has minimal effect on the election. The pro and anti folks already know how they will vote on gun issues. This proposal will go nowhere.

Click to expand...

You might be right. NRA looks to be pressuring Trump - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nra-trump-administration-background-check-proposal-non-starter/

• The NRA on Wednesday called the the Trump administration’s proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers a “non-starter.”

• “This missive is a non-starter with the NRA and our 5 million members because it burdens law-abiding gun owners while ignoring what actually matters: fixing the broken mental health system and the prosecution of violent criminals,” - executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, Jason Ouimet

• President Trump has not yet personally endorsed any new gun-control plan

For grins - NRA members polled on background checks and who knows the real numbers:

https://www.politifact.com/ohio/sta...parkland-shooting-ohio-congressman-said-70-8/

On Trump and the NRA:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/trump-lunch-nra-lapierre-cox/index.html

"Don't worry about the NRA, they're on our side," Trump said. "Half of you are so afraid of the NRA. There's nothing to be afraid of. ... And you know what, if they're not with you, we have to fight them every once in a while, that's OK. Sometimes we're going to have to be very tough and we're going to have to fight 'em."

Click to expand...

Anyway, the UBC legislation will disappear into what might have been. Along with the HPA, reciprocity and the SAGA act. This summarizes the players:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Click to expand...

Tomorrow and tomorrow, there will be an outrage, there will be sound and fury. The polarization of the country will lead to accomplishing nothing (if we could have decide what accomplished something would actually be).

I think this underlines the reality for the Senate.

The Senate surrenders gun legislating to Trump - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/20/senate-guns-legislation-trump-1505552

"The Senate is essentially outsourcing its legislative duties to ... the whims of President Donald Trump, as it makes its first sustained attempt at overhauling gun laws in years ... But the new reality ... how cautious the Republican-controlled Senate is under Trump, particularly as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looks to defend his majority and a presidential election approaches. It also reflects the slim odds that any major gun proposals ultimately will be enacted."

And we got this recent update/affirmation from Trump

Trump questioned on whether he'll stand up to NRA, vows gun reform will not hurt Second Amendment - https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-second-amendment-nra-guns

Trump was asked if he would stand up to the NRA and the president said he would, so long as constitutional gun rights are not infringed upon.

'I am if it's not going to hurt a good, solid great American citizen from keeping his weapon because they want that ... And they are entitled to that. We have a Second Amendment, I don't want to have crazy people have guns. I don't want to have bad people have guns. But, we're going to DO NOTHING to hurt the Second Amendment. And what we want to do is see if we can come up with a compromise, and that's what we're working on.

... Part of the problem that we have is because of Beto O'Rourke's statement about taking away guns ... A lot of the Republicans and some Democrats now, are afraid to do anything to go down that slippery slope. A lot of people think this is just a way of taking away guns. And that's not good. Because we're NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT.

Look, I'm a very strong believer in the Second Amendment ... We're going to protect our Second Amendment. We have plenty of ideas.'"

And we'll see what the "compromise and plenty of ideas" turn out to be.

And there's more.

Trump ‘is scared to death to lose his virginity’ on gun control - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...to-death-to-lose-his-virginity-on-gun-control

"Trump called for stronger background checks and to end certain loopholes in the aftermath of the mass shooting at an El Paso-area Walmart last month. He WALKED BACK the comments days later ... He seems to be scared to death to lose his virginity on this question of: 'I’m not for any gun control.' ... I think he’s afraid of any gun control, because then those people applauding him in these pictures, at these rallies, won’t like him anymore."

LiveLife said:

And we'll see what the "compromise and plenty of ideas" turn out to be.

Click to expand...

Hopefully the same thing as "meaningful" gun legislation meant six months ago.

LiveLife said:

And there's more.

Trump ‘is scared to death to lose his virginity’ on gun control -

Click to expand...

Silly fake news. Trump doesn't strike me as a person who is scared of anything he decides to do or believe. His whole presidency has been a tale of extremely bold behavior. Like when he shoved that dude out his way at the U.N.

This 1980 interview (Trump was 34) shows his thoughts on how things should be and what he wanted to see done for this country. While I disagree he is "scared" to upset his supporters, I do believe that's not what he wants/intents to do.

I do hope he surprise us on gun rights/2A in a good way to keep his promise to his supporters because there are so many, including some in RNC who want to take our gun rights/2A away from us. And he may be our last real hope to secure the judicial future of guns rights/2A for not only us, but for our children and our grandchildren.

BTW, here's a long list of campaign promises Trump has kept (How many politicians can claim his list of promises kept?) - https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/rulings/promise-kept/



A peak into why Trump does what he does (Apparently, it's been a lifelong pursuit)

AlexanderA said:

The "commercial seller" terminology is unfortunate, and confusing. What they are trying to do is cover some private sales, but not all. They are focusing on the advertising aspect to make the distinction. This really has nothing to do with "engaging in the business." This is about casual sales.

Regarding gun shows, it's clear that they want to include sellers that have tables. (Renting a table is a form of advertising?) What happens to simple attendees at gun shows who walk around with "for sale" signs taped to their guns? Are they covered by this requirement? Suppose the sale takes place in the parking lot rather than within the gun show itself? That remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

They want to close the imaginary "gun show loophole". What I read into the proposal was that since gun shows advertise and promote gun sales, any sales that occur at the event would require a background check by either FFL or the newly created entity. I could be wrong. The authors may not know what they mean either.

This is what happens when people that don't know (or care to know) current law try to create the laws of the future.

One question that has not been answered is who will want to be a “Licensed Transfer Agent?”

It sounds like a FFL Lite since they will not have a firearm inventory. However it is only logical that the LTA will have to keep a written record of background checks.

Then where will the LTA work from? Home? Do you really want strangers coming into your residence?

Business? Makes sense for a small business owner.

Only at Gunshows? Probably need to rent a table so there goes a piece of the profits.

Next question is how much of a fee to charge for doing the check?

Then there is the need for being shielded from lawsuits in case the person should not have been approved. Can’t sue the Federal Government but the LTA can be.

So taken into account location, record keeping requirement, fee and risk of being sued will it really be worth the trouble?