It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I don't get it - Executive Action

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Reading the news this morning it looks like we're getting a glimpse of this executive action obama is seeking to put into action.

But there's something I don't understand. The plan seems to be targeting "gunshows, websites and flea markets". How is it that websites skirt background checks?

As it stands right now, if a person wants to buy a gun from a private seller online, that gun has to be shipped to an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder who will not release it to the buyer until a background check is completed. So what is going to be different with this executive order? What could be different?

I guess I understand the gunshow and flea market piece. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But the online component doesn't compute.

On a side note; most online sales involve shipping, and if I'm not mistaken no firearm can be shipped to anyone but an FFL, dealer or not...so how is this new imperial action going to change anything?

Does anyone know?

Here is one story for reference...

www.foxnews.com...

edit on 1/5/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
*Sigh*
It's not an 'order', It's an 'action'. There is a huge difference.
Google executive order vs. action and educate yourself.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It is only the beginning. I think they know they can't take guns away in one go. I think they will slowly chip away at the 2nd Amendment over consecutive administrations.

Here in the UK they do that when they want to take something away; stealth tactics. If you have a twenty year window and plan with the power of continuum (which they do have as political parties all do as they are told by the hidden forces).

Sorry to be a pessimist, but experience has made me incredibly suspicious of political motives.

The erosion of rights in the 21st Century West generally is only too obvious. Where an excuse is needed to take rights away an excuse is found or manufactured even.


edit on 5-1-2016 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
It is another push to do "something" the fact it is wildly unenforceable doesnt matter to the left wing nut crowd... they just want something...anything done so they feel safe, reality need not apply.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Okay, executive action...my mistake.

I will correct.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
*Sigh*
It's not an 'order', It's an 'action'. There is a huge difference.
Google executive order vs. action and educate yourself.


Whether order or action the OP has a point. It is a major move and is biting into the 2nd Amendment. It requires scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

I would submit that you may want to study the 2nd amendment then, rather than a cursory glance.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
The Libs should have been calling this the "garage sale" loop hole from the beginning.

Gun shows require background checks.
Online sales require shipment to an FFL dealer.

Parking lots at gun shows however have individual sales. This is where the supposed "loop hole" takes place.
Just like garage sales, flea markets, black markets, or any or place with individual person-to-person sales.

The .gov has the potential to lose track of the weapon and that gets under their skin.

Background checks aren't really there to only ensure the person buying a weapon is legitimate. It allows a database of weapon locations to be created. By location, type, caliber, and model. Person to person sales throws that out of whack.

Online sites that allow people to arrange these types of transactions would also be of limits with the new EO.

Just as giving away weapons, selling to friends/family, or inheriting (without background checks).

It's all about that national database.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

that's right, the first time it's challenged in court, and then gets appealed by one side or the other and works it's way to the Supreme Court it will be thrown out.


here is just a quick source that says what most other do.


Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress. The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress. A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted.
Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders



edit on 5-1-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


+12 more 
posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

How about a response to the question in the OP then, (rather than attempting to denigrate people with your superior intellect).



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Exactly!



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

How about a response to the question in the OP then, (rather than attempting to denigrate people with your superior intellect).





I made a civilian 'Action' to inform you that I believe you made an error with the distinction between 'Order' and 'Action'. That's all I felt like communicating so far.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Reading the news this morning it looks like we're getting a glimpse of this executive action obama is seeking to put into action.

But there's something I don't understand. The plan seems to be targeting "gunshows, websites and flea markets". How is it that websites skirt background checks?

As it stands right now, if a person wants to buy a gun from a private seller online, that gun has to be shipped to an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder who will not release it to the buyer until a background check is completed. So what is going to be different with this executive order? What could be different?

I guess I understand the gunshow and flea market piece. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But the online component doesn't compute.

On a side note; most online sales involve shipping, and if I'm not mistaken no firearm can be shipped to anyone but an FFL, dealer or not...so how is this new imperial action going to change anything?

Does anyone know?

Here is one story for reference...

www.foxnews.com...






Should have sent you pm...changed my mind
edit on 5-1-2016 by conspiracytheoristIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

Thank you. All of the online transactions I was aware of involved inter-state transactions where an FFL was involved/required. I was not aware of more local ones like you describe, so this is helpful.

My observation (prior) had been that most newspapers and online trading sites like craigslist, etc. prohibit listing firearms (and I thought it was for this reason). I guess there are exceptions.




edit on 1/5/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I think the president should do an executive "action".... on several other things.

How about photo id's for all voters at the polls.
how about registering people entering the country.
How about not finding stupid ways to punish the citizens of the country.
Nothing he is proposing will hinder gun violence in our big cities.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

And I appreciate the clarification. I changed it.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Executive order or executive action... whatever.

In fact, when one person can issue such, the closest is imperial edict. That's not what this nation was founded into producing... where one person can issue such commands upon whim.

Unfortunately, this power plug will likely never be disconnected, regardless who becomes president from whatever party.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Totally agree on your other proposed actions. I was just trying to get some visibility onto the question of what, if anything, this action accomplishes which isn't already in place. It sounds like little.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Sorry about that rant...lol..
And I agree with you. It will accomplish nothing towards it'd intended goal.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

As far as the 'online' component is concerned, I'm guessing they're going after private individuals who buy and sell used firearms locally through online classified ads. Otherwise, I agree, it doesn't make sense because if its shipped, it has to go through an FFL and already requires a background check.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join