Obama to announce new executive action on guns

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

May the next President strike down every EO since Eisenhower and start over.

Why only start there?

The very first presidential executive order was a proclamation signed by George Washington on April 22, 1793, giving instruction to federal officers to prosecute any citizens interfering with the war between England and France.

people.howstuffworks.com...

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Destined to strike fear into gun toting citizens.
I personally agree with any new legislation that curbs deaths.
Background checks as a pre-requisite are so ridiculously logical and NEEDED.
I find it hard for anyone to disagree with such actions.
Any thoughts?

President Barack Obama is expected to announce in the coming days a new executive action with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales, people familiar with White House planning said. Described as "imminent," the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.

edition.cnn.com...

About 20,000 die per day in the U.S. from all causes. Want to reduce deaths? Ban cars....

a reply to: nwtrucker

You equate background checks with banning guns?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Background checks on guns are more like automotive safety regulations and driver's licenses - without them carnage would skyrocket.

a reply to: butcherguy

Perhaps it's the biggest one, a science meant to heal gets politicized and ignites a civil war.
TOLJA my humor was dark.
IT'S nothing to worry over they can only kill you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: nwtrucker

You equate background checks with banning guns?

Incrementally, yes.

I will cede a level of distrust in Obama's agenda. The sheer number of guns in this nation is mind boggling. The misuse is miniscule in comparison.

Obama raises a stink over these events and at the same time arms Isis and Syrian rebels. You trust him? Yet you don't trust the rest of us...

Might as well argue for background checks for the first amendment, as well. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword....

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: nwtrucker

Background checks on guns are more like automotive safety regulations and driver's licenses - without them carnage would skyrocket.

Really? Then they'd have "sky-rocketed" 100 years ago...or even longer. The was no background checks.

Besides automotive safety regulations and driver's licenses aren't breaking Constitutional Rights...in case you've forgotten.

a reply to: Phage

Only when they want permanent records and can redefine who is legal at the drop of a hat.
theunboundedspirit.com...

The current checks applied across the board.
I would suggest, again training children how to shoot, to de mystify guns in general, but I know the outcry would be epic.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I'm kinda confused about it because I'm a gun owner and had to go through a background check. How long exactly does it take to see that someone doesn't have a criminal record?

Probably less than a minute. There are so many online databases for past criminal records, outstanding warrants,fugitive status, that even a cop car can run numberplates and names automatically.

I doubt it amounts to much. If he could, he'd have done it years ago. He may try to set a limit on the number of private sales..probably 50-100... before a person needs to be a licensed dealer, but given that the law makes specific exclusions for private sales, including an entire collection, I'm not sure how even that will stand to a legal challenge. For the record, I actually agree that if a person is selling that many firearms every year, they should have a dealer license. This isn't the right way to do it, though.

At this point, he's mostly just pandering to his base and stomping his feet because he can't get his way for once.

www.youtube.com...
Law allows family members to obtain “gun violence restraining order” against someone if they can convince judge person “poses immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself..."

originally posted by: madenusa
www.youtube.com...
Law allows family members to obtain “gun violence restraining order” against someone if they can convince judge person “poses immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself..."

California Begins Gun Confiscation January 1st

a reply to: madenusa

California Begins Gun Confiscation January 1st

How will this be implemented?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: madenusa

California Begins Gun Confiscation January 1st

How will this be implemented?

you have a fight with your wife over the butter knife and you have anger issues you'll have to have a counselor evaluation

Over 250,000 fully automatic weapons in the hands of the gang bangers in the LA basin alone.
No one will be touching their weapons.
Only law abiding citizens are victims of this insanity.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: madenusa

California Begins Gun Confiscation January 1st

How will this be implemented?

How does this work?
A “friend” or “family member” (read that as angry neighbor or deranged and embittered ex) notifies the cops. The cops then ask a judge for a 21-day “temporary restraining order.” This is important. The people who make the allegation never have to appear in court. They only need to convince the police to go to a judge who is, no way possible, going to refuse the restraining order. At the end of that time, the restraining order can be extended for a year after a hearing. That one year can be repeated indefinitely. Can you give your weapons to a friend or family member for safe keeping? No. The police must hold the weapons for the duration of the restraining order. Oh, yeah, they serve you with a search warrant at the same time so they can “look for firearms.”

a reply to: madenusa

Ah. So everyone will be complicit in this confiscation. Everyone will file complaints against everyone else in the interest of gun confiscation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: madenusa

Ah. So everyone will be complicit in this confiscation. Everyone will file complaints against everyone else in the interest of gun confiscation.

Yeah...pretty flat joke.
We know it's because they CAN.
Who will stop them?
Anyone who tries gets "treatment" next once this kind of regime begins.

a reply to: madenusa

But it seems that this has been on the books for a while now.
smartgunlaws.org...

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: madenusa

Ah. So everyone will be complicit in this confiscation. Everyone will file complaints against everyone else in the interest of gun confiscation.

Yeah...pretty flat joke.
We know it's because they CAN.
Who will stop them?
Anyone who tries gets "treatment" next once this kind of regime begins.

Practically, this means once you are his with the restraining order you will never own a firearm again for the rest of your life and the ones the police take from you will never be returned.
Is any California judge going to lift the restraining order and take the risk that at some later point you may be involved in a shooting of some kind? No.......