Featured Executive Order - Expanded Background Checks

I predict this illegal executive order will change hardly anything at all and will just be widely ignored. Closing "loopholes" that aren't there in the first place just won't work.

 

See post #18. It better defines the threshold.

It's an EO. They are designed to be somewhat vague so that, much like the foolish legislation passed by Congress, it will allow things that aren't explicitly stated.

You think it's flawed. The lady in the Attorney General's office and her team don't think so. It won't be clarified in court. Honestly if yall put the same pen to every EO that GWB enacted no one would be saying a thing. But the only real reason this is being talked about is because fear mongerers want folks to think the President is coming to take your guns.

If some are as uptight and prone to want to get violent as they display on this board, maybe somebody needs to take guns out of their hands?

I don't think too much could have stopped San Bernardino other than taking up and destroying every gun in America.

I see it helping considerably in keeping guns from being bought by people who may have a mental condition. As I mentioned before , the military won't allow soldiers with PTSD to have a firearm on base. So wouldn't it stand to reason that background checks should be available that reveal that type info?

Yes. I don't think it's safe for them or others for them to have access to firearms if they are suffering from a mental condition. We can come up with all sorts of scenarios. But there are just some folks who don't need to posses firearms.

It may be Don. I just heard lots of folks mentioning that they believe that if the government is gonna require these background checks that they should allow everyone trying to sell a gun access to such a database.

 

I thought that the current law, before the EO, did not require that an individual private seller be licensed and do a background check. It seems that the EO makes this a new requirement based upon who is determined to be a "dealer".

It's talked about as the "gunshow loophole" but it seems to be using that term to highlight a type of seller and not necessarily where they are selling their guns.

The gun shows just mentioned because private sellers might go to them from time to time and can sell from their "collection" without being licensed because they don't consider it a business but more of a hobby.

 

Neither does the EO.

 

Do you really believe they are destroying those records? Ever?

 

CTB,
Please conflate two totally unrelated topics into an incoherent strawman argument again.

 

Let's put your argument into perspective shall we?

The NDAA. Authority (sic) congress granted the executive to imprison and/or execute American citizens on a secret data base without due process.

So your argument is a government that is already claiming it has the authority to kill American citizens it has on a secret list without due process "is only trying to make the whole process more efficient. No big deal."

Gee that doesn't sound so bad.

 

Then I guess the GOP talking heads should stop talking about it then. I get the impression that many in the GOP aren't too concerned about illegal guns either.

Well you know when people don't worry about due process when prosecutors are obfuscating it and not prosecuting rogue cops who murder unarmed people, it just doesn't seem to be that big of a stretch that they would bypass due process in other areas.

If one isn't a big deal, why is this?

 

Now CTB. You've taken to meddling and stepping on folks' toes. Biggrin

 

Why are you asking me this, haven't I brought enough insults and condemnation down on myself here by saying we have a police problem to suit you?

Maybe you'd be happier with me if I claimed all the police shootings were caused by "white privilege"?

What else do you have in your bag of false and divisive democrat talking points that you would have me repeat to stay in your good graces?

 

It wasn't a dig. It was intended to point out that the government(federal, local and state) didn't just start bypassing due process or a whole lot of other rights.

What's false and divisive about what I said? Are you now gonna tell me that prosecutors aren't bypassing due process? What I said would only be divisive to the folks who think that due process is only for them.

And you know that I don't need folks in my good graces.

 

You don't really expect an answer , do you?