Biden Executive Order Meaning??

[Nathan]

I read this article. New Executive Order

I read this article and there are many parts to this order. The main piece seems to be ordering the Attorney General to enforce background checks….specifically to make sure FFL’s are doing background checks to the highest possible level.

What does this mean? Will the attorney general try to stop the ccw background checks?

There was something about supporting the fired case database thing, but that is a state program. Without law being passed, what are their limits?

I’m seriously interested in the meaning of this. Many times we love to argue or blow up at these things, but I think before that we need the brains of this operation to help us understand what they are doing here.

Thank you in advance.

[Aguila Blanca]

Some discussion here: https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=68185.0

[44 AMP]

First thing is to toss about half the claims made by reporters and then look closely at the rest, and you'll see most of them are false or misleading, as well.

"Biden signs new gun bill!" "expanded checks for firearms purchasers" things like that are all over the net news. And, they're BS....

First, an Executive Order is NOT a bill. It's NOT a LAW. And, an Executive order cannot go further than existing law.

A careful reading, digging through enough of the crap reveals that the "new bill" about "enhanced background checks" applies to FFL dealers, not the public. The order "enhances" (what ever the hell that means) the checks run on people seeking FFL licenses. It has nothing to do with the check mandated by law when you or I purchase a gun from an FFL dealer.

Biden's order applies to FED law enforcement (primarily ATF) and how they do business regarding enforcement of laws with FFL dealers. This is entirely withing the authority of the President as head of the Executive branch.

It also provides funds for promoting other things, such as "safe storage" but it does not, and cannot require such things by private citizens. That requires an actual LAW, passed by Congress. An Executive order doesn't do it.

The "fired case database" is just another red herring. Those states (and, even CANADA) which did have it all gave it up eventually as a waste of money and resources.

I won't say it was a standard practice, but one firearms maker's employees I spoke with told me that when they packaged a gun for sale, they grabbed a couple cases from the test range fired case bin and put them in the box with the gun. They were complying with the law.

And no, I'm not going to name who told me that,

[zukiphile]

While an exec order (or agency regulation) does not properly expand or alter legislation, that doesn't mean that every exec order is scrupulously obedient on this point. An unscrupulous exec is free to disregard limits and wait for them to be struck down on challenge. The bump stock regulation looks a lot like a reg at odds with law, but a reg can do a lot of damage before the issue is resolved.

It isn't clear that the "clarification" regs he calls for in the EO will only apply to licensees.

Originally Posted by 3.14.23 EO

Sec. 3. Additional Agency Actions to Reduce Gun Violence. (a) The Attorney General shall develop and implement a plan to:

(i) clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms...

That's not required for the regulation of existing FFLs. Where the regulatory process has been used to add to the list of NFA items without congressional action, it isn't unrealistic to foresee infringement of individual rights of non-licensees under a pretext that "engaged in the business of dealing" has been mutilated by regulatory clarification.

Originally Posted by Nathan

I’m seriously interested in the meaning of this.

The meaning I draw from this is that the White House has issued a signal to voters who don't like people buying and selling guns that it will continue to misuse regulatory power to dissuade commerce.

[44 AMP]

The meaning I draw from this is that the White House has issued a signal to voters that it will once again issue noises the press can misreport informing the undereducated they are doing something they are not, but getting "credit" with their supporters for "doing something".

The phrase "engaged in the business of dealing in firearms" has been in statute law since the 1968 GCA, and we have numerous court cases defining what that means, on record. All of them that I'm aware of involve the concept of doing it for a profit. Not making a profit on any individual sale, but on doing it as an overall means of making a profit, and usually involving the term "significant part of their income" in determining that.

AMOUNT of firearms also matters, and is a significant part of what determines "engaged in the business".

The custom rifle builder, who hand crafts perhaps half a dozen rifles a year or so, as their hobby, has traditionally been exempt from "firearms manufacturer" requirements. They often hold an FFL for their convenience, but not for "making" firearms.

Compare this to the AR builder who might be producing 6 rifles a week, and selling them. That person, without the proper Fed licenses is in violation of existing law.

Yes, it is absolutely possibly Executive orders and agency interpretations can exceed existing law, and yes, they do remain inforce until/unless struck down by a court with the authority to do so.

What I see, at this time, is Biden ordering the ATF "do their job better" and suggesting ways he believes will do this, and the press reporting how he's "doing something" about gun violence, which, all the reported changes, won't have any impact on.

Smoke & mirrors, people, smoke and mirrors...