ATF whistleblowers sound alarm on Biden admin proposal that effectively bans private gun sales: repo

How did Obama’s DOJ “establish” that? That sounds like the Executive Branch legislating, the purview of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. Has that been tested in court? It also strikes me as being a self defeating move. It’s adding the “poison pill” to private citizen sales background checks.

 

The Obama administration done a lot on executive orders against guns, so did Trump and now Biden. We have allowed the executive so much powers that are not constitutional it’s a crying shame.

 

you didn't read what I wrote. the Obama DOJ concluded that it COULD NOT ENFORCE PRIVATE SALES BACKGROUND CHECKS UNLESS and ONLY IF, almost all private firearms currently owned were to be REGISTERED

 

Ah okay. Do you think that is a valid reason? Why or why not?

 

yeah I think that you cannot ENFORCE private sales background checks WITHOUT REGISTRATION which is unconstitutional

the reason why every gun banning group wants universal background checks is because they will then claim such checks cannot be enforced without registration

example, the democrats pass universal background checks at a federal level-effective say 6/1/24

I sell you one of my father's bolt action 30-06 rifles that he bought in 1967 On July 1, 2024

a nosy neighbor of yours tells the police that he thinks you have a new rifle

Unless you admit to buying it after the deadline, how does the ATF prove it. they cannot

now if the rifle was registered to me (I doubt it can be traced anyway) then we both could be prosecuted

 

bottom line-the main reason why gun banners want universal background checks (other than to pander to the people who want SOMETHING DONE-like the Sandy Hook grifters that think a background check would have stopped Adam Lanza) is to create a demand for registration

Registration is the holy grail of the gun confiscation movement

 

Totally agree, there is absolutely no other reason for it.

 

That's interesting. It's making me think.

Now supposing private sales had to have a background check, but registration was not required. Seth Bullock puts a gun up for sale, and Turtledude decides he'll buy it, but Turtledude tells Seth he doesn't want a background check done. And let's say that Seth breaks the law and agrees. Seth walks away from the deal with some cash in his pocket, but he also walks away with something else - the knowledge that he broke the law. He walks away knowing that someday Turtledude may be questioned by LE about how he got the gun because maybe Turtledude committed some kind of crime with it. And maybe Turtledude wants lenient treatment for his crime, so he tells LE that Seth Bullock sold it to him. So besides the cash, Seth Bullock now gets to live the rest of his life having to hope that Turtledude will keep our secret and hoping that someday there isn't that knock on the door.

I can assure you that Seth doesn't want to live like that. And therefore, if the law of the land is that private sales must go through an FFL, Seth is going to do it that way.

So what I'm getting at is that, even without mandatory registration, there would be a lot of voluntary compliance coming from people who would want the peace of mind of knowing that the transfer was lawful, that it can be proven to have been lawful, and that it wasn't made to the next insane mass shooter we hear about in the news.

Now it's true that gang members and other chronic criminals wouldn't care about any of this, and they would continue to obtain their guns through theft and street contacts. But we do know that they also try to buy them from dealers. 300,000 applications from FFL's were denied in 2020. 42% of those were felons. The other 58% were other prohibited individuals. And so I have to believe that they also buy them from private parties. We just don't have any way to accurately track that. But I'm sure that if private-to-private gun sales were required to be transacted by an FFL with a background check, because of voluntary compliance, it would reduce the availability of sources for criminals. In my state, Oregon, private-to-private gun transfers have to go through an FFL with a background check, with the exception of transfers to the immediate family. There is no requirement for registration in Oregon. I received my father and my father-in-law's guns legally that way, and I have also legally given my son his grampa's firearm to keep as a momento. I cannot know how much non-compliance with this law there is, but I do know that it has created no interference with my 2A right to "keep and bear" my firearms.

So the short answer I'm giving is that if private-to-private transfers required a background check but no registration, the lack of registration would make it difficult for the ATF to enforce the rule. But because of voluntary compliance, to some extent, the rule would have the desired effect without infringing on the 2A right of peaceful, law-abiding people and without creating a registry that we don't want.

What do you think about that, Counselor?

 

well I will only sell or transfer guns to
1) close friends I have known for years
2) those with CCW permits
3) those I have seen buy guns from FFLs and pass background checks
4) Former DOJ colleagues of mine
Do you think people who knowingly use firearms to commit violent crime are going to worry about the stuff you did? DO you think they will go to an FFL when neither one of them can pass a background check?

Here is my problem with private sales background checks

1) the federal government does not have the proper power to impose them
2) those pushing for them see them as an incremental way of banning guns-hoping to turn those who ignore them into felons as well
3) those who use guns illegally will not engage in them
4) those who push them will tell low wattage voters that something has been accomplished

BTW How many felons do you think get guns from legitimate private sellers in face to face transactions

 

I don't know. To my knowledge, there is no way to know.

Hey it's been an interesting conversation. I'm ready to leave it at this point now. Cheers!

 

It’s funny we were literally just discussing this and here is the argument just barely made by the federal government on the bump stock ban.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-divided-over-federal-ban-bump-stock-gun-accessory

The government takes the stance that the bumpstock is a machine gun because the trigger pull automatically reloads with a single function of the trigger. That’s any semi auto. If you think they won’t use this to ban the guns they want to ban I would say you’re looking at this through a cloud of fog.

 

see my post yesterday from another thread

 

You'll never get him to admit that Reagan made a mistake on guns.
Any grabbing done by pubs he'll excuse, loudly, and in a condescending manner.

 

Yes you did make the same conclusion as I did. However I was saying this as far back as the day Trump made this ban and warning gun owners of the door this opened. Everyone with the exception of very few people (none on this forum) would always respond it’s just a piece of plastic and why defend it. This is why I always defended it. People always wanted to veer off and argue functionality when that was never my argument. This was about that progressive ladder to ultimate gun control and the very reason I will never vote for the guy that opened that door.

 

the underlying cancer is the 1934 NFA. clearly unconstitutional

 

These judges, not one of them, even seemed to question that reality.

 

well that wasn't an issue presented to them to be fair. the issue involves the ATF's disgusting change of position

 

Let me tell you the real issue that was presented to them over the last four years. The fact no one cared and buried the topic behind the idea that it’s just that or just this. That was the issue. Mark my words the ban will stand

 

curious. what was your reason for buying a bump stock?

 

To increase the rate of fire. The first time I seen one it was on the TV series “American Guns”. In fact here is the clip.



when I researched it and found it was legal I wanted one! Looks like fun. Who wouldn’t want one?


But again… you’re asking questions that have zero to do with the fact that it was legal and did not change the mechanics of the gun at all. It simply changed the way the trigger was pulled. It was legal no matter your reason. The reason I wanted one has zero to do with the fact it was bought and owned legally until Trump unilaterally decided the government could destroy them or confiscate them.

 

you don't think most democrats wanted to do that too?

 

But they didn’t. They do however defend his actions just as Biden is doing right now in court. The fact remains Trump, the guy that said under him the war on guns would be over, was the guy that done it. He also was okay with more gun control measures. He’s no friend of the 2nd in my opinion.

 

well we will see how the supremes split on this but I will bet that every democrat will uphold the ban

 

I would bet that as well but being there isn’t a public outcry of foul I believe it’s going to stay.

 

I guess we will see. the bureaucratic shenanigans should justify striking it down no matter what