Hillary Clinton Supports Closing "Gun Show Loophole" By Executive Order

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As part of the continuing series of revelations from Wikileaks, we learn that Hillary somehow believes the ability to conduct private sales without a background check can be closed by executive order: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ecutive-order/

Normally, I'd be inclined to dismiss that as Hillary lying to her supporters; but it seems other Democrats are saying the same thing: http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/1...ndment-rights/

I'm skeptical the current President would have left that stone unturned if there is even a stretched, weak argument to be made that the executive has that power. If nothing else though, we should be clear on what the Democratic party is telling the gun grabbers in closed sessions.

[Reloader54]

I've seen both of these articles. But what Hillary Clinton and the other gun grabbers just don't seem to understand is that they cannot take away a not only Constitutional Right but also a G-D GIVEN RIGHT. Plus they keep forgetting to read the 2A. Because it says that the People's right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ON. Yet just because they hate guns so much that they seem to think that they can pass gun laws and it will fix the problem. Well it's been proven that gun laws don't work the way that the anti-gunners think. For a really good example just look at Chicago. They have the strictest Gun laws in the country. And yet they also have the highest murder and Gun violence rates in the country as well. And it's because the only thing that gun laws do is to keep law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. And doesn't do anything to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Yet they just don't seem to understand that bad guys will always have guns no matter what or how many Gun laws are passed.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[TXAZ]

Then let's hope she doesn't get the chance.

Even if she does get the chance and tries, I don't expect success.

[Old Bill Dibble]

If the tide in congress turns there may not be any way to stop her. Obama had to deal with a hostile congress for six years. This made getting things (even by executive order) done difficult.

[marines6433]

I truly worry about the Senate. I think the House will stay Republican, but not so sure about the Senate, or the White House.

[44 AMP]

Here is the key point about using the power of Congress to block executive order gun control, don't make it a gun control issue, make it an abuse of power issue.

The Executive has certain powers, as does Congress and the Supreme Court. Executive Orders are for the operation of the Executive Branch. Ones that extend beyond that have a dubious force of law (some would say none) and are usurping the authority of Congress.

A politician may be on either side of the fence or ambivalent on gun control, but they are almost ALL very concerned about their power and doing an "end run" around Congress's rightful authority is something they take more seriously than mere gun control...

IF there ARE to be gun control laws, it is Congress's job to pass them. Congress, and ONLY Congress. No matter how noble the ideals, any and everything else is a violation of procedure, and that, is a serious matter to them.

[shootniron]

We face a larger problem than just Hillary Clinton...and she is bad enough.

Guys, not to be doom and gloom here...but, do y'all realize that unless something drastically changes in the populous of the country, quickly...within 20yrs, gun ownership in this country could be a thing of the past.

As liberal as this country has gone, there is going to be nothing to stop the rulings of the courts and the legislative process from doing this.

Presently, about 25% of the population of this country owns guns and I don't see that percentage growing as baby boomers (highest percentage of gun owners) are dying off at a pretty fast rate. Even if 75% of gun owners vote in every election(and I doubt that)...that will not be enough to fend off this rapidly burgeoning liberal mob. I probably will not be around to see this happen, but all of y'all young guys, will.

This is not here yet...but it most certainly IS on the horizon.

[barnbwt]

Can UBCs even withstand review with proper passage by congress, let alone mere fiat? The reason for the 'loophole' is even the tortured Commerce Clause interpretations couldn't plausibly be applied to intra-state gun sales by private citizens of the same state when the GCA and NICS were set up. For all the desire for federal (not state) UBCs, it's a rather basic question that hasn't seemed to be answered. State UBCs maybe, but not federally.

Yeah, yeah, rule of law is dead and all that

TCB

[shootniron]

Can UBCs even withstand review with proper passage by congress, let alone mere fiat?

When the courts are stacked...sure they can.

[44 AMP]

even the tortured Commerce Clause interpretations couldn't plausibly be applied to intra-state gun sales by private citizens of the same state when the GCA and NICS were set up.

This is the reason neither Hillary, nor any one else can "close the loophole", no matter what they claim, and brag to their supporters and would be supporters.

one man's "loophole" is another man's compliance with the law!

Federal law about gun sales applies ONLY to sales through Federally licensed dealers!!!

Federal law does NOT apply to sales that do not go through an FFL dealer!

State laws (if any) apply to sales by private citizens. Federal law does not, unless they use an FFL. Hillary (or whomever) could ONLY close the "loophole" by getting each of the 50 states to pass laws regulating private person to person sales. SOME states already do this. Many do not have laws that go beyond current norms, such as not selling to children, or known criminals, etc.

The Presidency simply does NOT have the LEGAL authority to do this. Hillary, who I hear is a lawyer, must know this, but is choosing to ignore it, in order to pander to a certain segment of the people for political support.

Mohammad Al Ibn Killem all Akbahr is let into the country to do as he pleases, because he claims to be a refugee, and Joe the middle aged farmer is locked up because he loaned a shotgun to his neighbor of 40 years without taking himself, the gun, and the neighbor to an FFL dealer and paying the feet to have a background check run.

If that isn't what the politicians want, WHY are they DOING IT??????

[P5 Guy]

Gun show loop hole feh try doing something worthy. Close the back alley loop hole.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Something like 71% of the district court judges are Obama appointees. I wouldn't be placing a great deal of faith in the courts to be righting any wrongs of the Clinton Administration.

[dakota.potts]

The president cannot institute a system of background checks by executive order. That would take an act of Congress. What the president can do is redirect the attention and policies of federal agencies. She could, theoretically, redefine who needs an FFL to sell guns at a gun show to an unreasonably strict standard and prosecute people for dealing in firearms without a license (although that charge would be up to the court to uphold). There are other smaller things that she could do. One that immediately comes to mind is the reclassification of any firearm with a Sig brace or similar attachment as a short barreled rifle, as well as the classification of many semi automatic shotguns as "destructive devices".

[johnwilliamson062]

IF there ARE to be gun control laws, it is Congress's job to pass them. Congress, and ONLY Congress. No matter how noble the ideals, any and everything else is a violation of procedure, and that, is a serious matter to them.

It is way easier to get re-elected if you delegate your powers to the executive branch and say you didn't support whatever non-sense it pushes.

but, do y'all realize that unless something drastically changes in the populous of the country, quickly...within 20yrs, gun ownership in this country could be a thing of the past.

The latino's I know, a voting block who are quickly pushing Caucasians into the minority, seem quite fond of firearms. Unfortunately, it seems many pro-gun activists would like to 'send them home.'

Just make sure everyone you know votes in Senate and House races. Whether that means "splitting the ticket" or just not voting in the presidential race.

[thallub]

Hillary Clinton is pandering to her anti-gun base.

Something like 71% of the district court judges are Obama appointees.

Not quite. Me thinks there are about 663 district court judges. CA alone has sixty.

Under Obama 262 district court judges have been confirmed to date. Under Bush II 263 district court judges were confirmed.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge...istrict-courts

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge...ents-president

[kilimanjaro]

If EO's are not of concern, just consider a stacked Supreme Court, which will occur by the end of 2017, with one replacement appointee and one or two retirements. Ginsberg is just marking time.

When that happens, you can forget what the Constitution says, what the law says, what the precedents say. You've all read the drivel that constituted the Dissents in Heller and MacDonald. That is exactly the dialectic that will be shoveled out during 2018 and the 2nd Amendment will be gutted. These people are on a crusade and nothing will stop them.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Thanks for the correction, thallub. Now I have to figure out how the false data got in the old grey matter fo begin with.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I said from the getgo that Heller was flawed with the reasonable restriction blather. I recall some onetime visitor to TFL arguing that Scalia was a wily old bird who planned to use it to expand gun rights in later decision. Guy was a moron as we see by results. Lower courts used it to uphold bans and the full court wouldn't take a case as Scalia and Thomas sputtered in rage.

Chelsea has said that with Scalia gone, the 2nd can be redone.

So is the risk an overturning or increased local bans as demographics change in previously progun state? I think the second risk is for sure. The first - maybe as the election probably isn't going for the self-destructive (you get it).

PS - I note that I was intemperate in my characterization of someone. It was an ad hom. comment, and as I moderator - I should know better. My apologies to all.

[Colorado Redneck]

If Ms. Clinton is elected, is their a possibility that Chief Judge Garland would finally be confirmed? He may be light years more centerist than later nominees.

[kilimanjaro]

Garland is not centrist about gun rights, don't be fooled. He was nominated by the most leftist president we have ever had.

Scalia was a huge loss for Constitutionalism.

[johnwilliamson062]

Heller was flawed with the reasonable restriction blather.

Haven't there been similar decision placing pretty much the same "reasonable restrictions" limit on all of the rights? "Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre," permits for assembly, etc.

[44 AMP]

The problem with "reasonable restrictions" is what is considered "reasonable", and, by whom...

The "reasonable" restriction of not yelling fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire!) is generally agreed upon by most of us. Inciting a riot or panic is felt to be a bad thing.

Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose. Again, agreed to by nearly everyone. Reasonable.

These, and the "reasonable" restrictions on all our other rights, rely on the idea of someone being harmed as a result of unrestricted actions, even though they are a right, harm to others makes the restriction "reasonable"

BUT NOT WITH GUNS!!!!!

FIREARMS are the only enumerated or non enumerated right, where we are restricted NOT because of actual harm to others, but because of what ever political line in the sand the anti gun rights crowd draws TODAY. Tommorow, if they get what they want today, the line will be moved to another, more restrictive place.

NOT DUE TO ACTUAL HARM, DUE TO THEIR FEAR OF HARM.

Note how NONE of the gun control laws cover ANYTHING other than what allows one to legally own a gun. NONE of them cover USING a gun to cause harm, other laws cover that. SO, since other laws cover doing harm to people (with, or without using a gun to do it) WHAT DO GUN CONTROL LAWS DO???

NOTHING, except regulate who can own what, where, and when.

Reduced to basics, as I see it, OWNING ANY GUN harms NO ONE. Shooting someone does, but if you aren't doing that, WHAT is the moral, and ethical justification for not allowing something that doesn't hurt anyone???

Their argument is, literally, "because you could hurt someone, if you wanted to".

They are nothing but bullies, forcing their will on everyone, and no justification they have ever given has proven true. Other than "because we feel its a good idea", which has been the justification of every tyrant, everywhere, throughout time.

[NateKirk]

AMP, you cannot compare using a fist to do harm to using a firearm. Firearms are regulated due to their potential lethality upon irresponsible use. We try to regulate who can own a gun because we cannot prevent them from using it once they have it, the same way no one can prevent a random stranger from punching you on the street if he liked. All laws are made to solve a problem. In this case, the problem is lethal violence caused by emotionally disturbed, malicious, or irresponsible people who have access to firearms. Using analogies about other equally dangerous but less regulated potential weapons (knives, cars, bludgeons,) to support an argument that firearms should not be regulated is flawed, as firearms laws concern problems surrounding firearms, and just because one problem isn't addressed doesn't mean another can't be.

Increased vetting of a person before purchasing a firearm is a good thing. Not only does it keep the public safer, but it makes makes our community seem more reasonable to the general public. Requiring that a background check be done on every firearm transfer is not going to hurt anyone that should be allowed to posses a firearm. We should focus our efforts more on ineffective measures to counter the problem, such as registries, waiting periods, and assault weapon bans, rather than just automatically going against anything our political opposites say or propose.

The shooting community is hanging itself by setting itself up to be painted as uncompromising, extreme, uniform in membership, and deaf. We're making ourselves open to attack when our current allies are no longer in power, and I've a feeling we'll be regretting the rhetoric we've put out, and actions we've taken, within the next decade or two.

The old die and younger voters replace them everyday. What will they see when they head to the polls? Will they see a constitutional right, worthy of preserving, and a hobby they may want to take part in? Or will they see extremists and "gun nuts", a closed community, a community which being a part of would render them labeled an extremist and outcast as well?

[Armorer-at-Law]

Requiring that a background check be done on every firearm transfer is not going to hurt anyone that should be allowed to posses a firearm.

This is satire, right? There are many false positives in NICS that prevent someone who has a right to purchase a self defense tool from doing so for at least many months, or years.

Anti-liberty advocates say "If it saves just one life . . ." But what if it costs a life? How many lives are they willing for their gun control law to cost?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

The shooting community is hanging itself by setting itself up to be painted as uncompromising, extreme, uniform in membership, and deaf.

In the context of compromise, when the anti-gun types get restriction(s) on guns and/or ammunition, what do the pro-gun types get?