# Obama's Gun Control EO's



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

If the following is what is to come today, then there is more good news or reminding of what is already law, especially concerning NFA items than anything. The following is some content from an email from GOC.



> •	Remind everyone that if you are "engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms" that you need to have a Federal Firearms License... which is... already the law. No new definition is proposed and no new details are provided.
> •	Implement a new set of regulations from ATF on National Firearm Act firearms & accessories, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and other NFA firearms. *One positive step: the requirement to obtain the certification of your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer has been removed. This is a big win for gun owners.
> *•	Provide additional funding for FBI examiners for the NIC background check process and ATF agents
> •	Directs federal prosecutors to focus on prosecution of firearms crimes
> •	Require the federal government to further explore "smart gun" technology and foster industry research in this area.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

That doesn't sound so bad. I was worried that they were going to merge medical records with the NIC process. I'd never buy a smart gun, but it might be a good idea for a cop's duty weapon if they perfect it.


----------



## Yeti-2015 (Dec 15, 2015)

I guess not as bad as it sounds, but what is a "smart gun"? Does it have a gps chip or other computer chip in it? I wouldnt want one, I guess I'll take a "dumb guns".


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Yeti-2015 said:


> I guess not as bad as it sounds, but what is a "smart gun"? Does it have a gps chip or other computer chip in it? I wouldnt want one, I guess I'll take a "dumb guns".


One of the designs of a 'smart gun' has a chip in the grip that would read the proximity of a ring or pendant, and refuse to fire unless it were close. The rationale is that you would not be able to take an officers firearm and use it against him.

Proximity fuzes are rugged enough that they can be fired in artillery shells. The battery may be a problem. These guns are probably only a few years from production.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

These are simple enough on the face of it but once again he went around congress with his pen and these are the first of what is sure to be more. These rules will do nothing to curb violence or keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. For the most part it's as simple as laying the ground work for more controls down the line. The end game is always to confiscate the guns.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> One of the designs of a 'smart gun' has a chip in the grip that would read the proximity of a ring or pendant, and refuse to fire unless it were close. The rationale is that you would not be able to take an officers firearm and use it against him.
> 
> Proximity fuzes are rugged enough that they can be fired in artillery shells. The battery may be a problem. These guns are probably only a few years from production.


Some would say that Smart Gun Technology is available now, but I would not be one given what I have heard. Not reliable, too pricey, what does one do if a person other than the approved user needs to use the gun (wife of husband) and it can be a gateway to making it mandatory that all future guns be smart guns and not dumb guns. Never mind what happens if the electronics break, loose the ring, EMP, etc...?


----------



## whoppo (Nov 9, 2012)

Sorry... I will never trust my life to a firearm that requires a battery to fire, nor do I know any LEO's that would.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Prepared One said:


> These are simple enough on the face of it but once again he went around congress with his pen and these are the first of what is sure to be more. These rules will do nothing to curb violence or keep guns from falling into the wrong hands for the most part it's as simple as laying the ground work for more controls down the line. The end game is always to confiscate the guns.


I agree 100%.


----------



## whoppo (Nov 9, 2012)

RedLion said:


> Some would say that Smart Gun Technology is available now, but I would not be one given what I have heard. Not reliable, too pricey, what does one do if a person other than the approved user needs to use the gun (wife of husband) and it can be a gateway to making it mandatory that all future guns be smart guns and not dumb guns. Never mind what happens if the electronics break, loose the ring, EMP, etc...?


... of a proximity "kill switch" in the hands of those who may wish to disarm a smart gun owner.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The news blurb last night stated that the changes amount to reinforcing the current FFL background check necessity(duh), providing funding for mental health programs(positive), and adding additional FBI employees to process background checks(positive).
I didn't hear anything about the NFA requirement change or any mention of smart guns, but it was a very early press release that may not have been complete.

On the topic of smart guns, the intent is admirable, but the application is moronic.
I want a gun that goes bang when the trigger is pulled. 
The gun needs to work, regardless of which family member is accessing it to defend their life.
The gun needs to work if I need to use a downed officers sidearm to defend his life and mine.
The gun needs to work in all environments, regardless of humidity, wetness, dirt, heat, or cold.
The gun NEEDS TO WORK when I NEED IT TO WORK. Anything that inhibits this WILL fail at the worst time.
I'll keep my dumb gun, thank you.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

whoppo said:


> ... of a proximity "kill switch" in the hands of those who may wish to disarm a smart gun owner.


There is of course that as well.


----------



## shootbrownelk (Jul 9, 2014)

There is also some mention of involving Social Security to identify people who are deemed mentally unstable....anyone else see a problem with that? SS is already a mess, they can't do anything right and O'Bummer wants to give them more tasks that can take away one's 2 amendment rights? Also, they want to change and modify "Trusts" to make them harder to qualify for....full auto...suppressors?


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

So I guess we'll have to wait to read it when it all comes out. Sounds familiar.

Since we don't know until it's published there is speculation. Anything is bad though.. All of it.

The government is going to loosely define a dealer even if it's 1 gun sold. They are trying to get to the level that you wouldn't be able to sell or transfer a gun to you family member without having a license. 

Speculation as well that they will waive HIPPA privacy so that your doctor could report you to the FBI so you would be denied gun ownership. Yeah.. There's a process full of good stuff. So would that mean that anyone on an antidepressant would be suspect (rhetorical). 

Speculation that they will also pull from the SSA and disability rosters. So if you have a disability, assuming mental, you would be denied.. How are they going to define a disability that would preclude gun ownership? What is the hard and fast criteria? (Rhetorical). Are there specific conditions and diseases that will preclude ownership. Etc, etc. There area laws on the books that already address much of this. Of course they are rarely enforced. So connecting those dots, what should this tell you? The progressives are long term and long term they will disarm you. 

What you will definitely hear today from his lips (so you know he's lying) are BS statistics put together by Bloomberg and his cronies. Statistics lie and liars statistic.... And he's done it well.

Elections have consequences.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Bottom line is more government oversight will only end up badly for the private law abiding citizen. Any erroneous report by any doctor or social security clerk anywhere and your banned from owning a firearm. The government can't run their own house or administer the programs they have in place now correctly and honestly, yet people are satisfied with giving them more control of our lives.........makes no sense to me.

This will just embolden them further.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

You mean I bought another case of m80 ball for no reason?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

I agree with Paul Ryan, who calls Obama's plan 'executive overreach'. His statement read in part:

"While we don't yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected. No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally. The American people deserve a president who will respect their constitutional rights - all of them. This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it."

Obama executive actions on guns coming Tuesday


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> I agree with Paul Ryan, who calls Obama's plan 'executive overreach'. His statement read in part:
> 
> "While we don't yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected. No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally. The American people deserve a president who will respect their constitutional rights - all of them. This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it."
> 
> Obama executive actions on guns coming Tuesday


The maggot already spoke live @ 11:40 am today


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

So, obozo said that we now need an FFL to sell guns. Well, there is a lot of trading and selling WILL be going on in my camp. Me and my 3 kids are planning on trading each others gun and we will be selling each other our guns. Therefore, to abide by THE LAW made by obozo a few minutes ago, my kids and I are all going to apply for an FFL license so we all can legally trade with each other. 

This will also give us the ability to buy guns anywhere in the 50 states...


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

Let's keep in mind that sometimes the power in words is what is left unsaid as opposed to what is spelled out and placed before you...especially when what is left unsaid is left up to the interpretation of lawyers and government agencies. Pardon me for sounding skeptical...but I'm skeptical.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Im kind of curious, what rules is there if you as a "nonproffesional" sells a gun to a buyer in another country, and sends it by regular mail? I assume that is illegal, but Im not sure.


----------



## Yeti-2015 (Dec 15, 2015)

To me I dont like the idea of the smart guns. What if I'm not home and my wife needs it? From the sound of it I would have to take out another mortgage to get one. I cant afford that.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Yeti-2015 said:


> To me I dont like the idea of the smart guns. What if I'm not home and my wife needs it? From the sound of it I would have to take out another mortgage to get one. I cant afford that.


Also anything with electronic components is going to fail. "Excuse me evil doer, give me a second while I reboot my smart gun." No thanks.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Anything with a chip can be tracked or shut off with the correct signal and override the bracelet. That would not be difficult to make a GOD GIVEN RIGHT A PEROGATIVE OF GOVERNMENT WHIMS. Oops. Capitol button stuck. I have no use for said technology and am suspicious until I read everything.


----------

