Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Administration restricts guns with new Executive Orders

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Link

Will these measures really reduce gun violence or is it another move to make sure that Americans cannot have access to certain types of firearms?



Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities. These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan and the President unveiled on January 16, 2013," reads the White House's announcement.


Since putting in a new ATF director the administration is moving forward on more of the 23 introduced changes that were first discussed in February.

Closing the loophole mentioned may keep certain firearms out of the hands of criminals but once that is defined the government if then one step away from banning those types if weapons to everyone.




Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole. The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually. By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.


The other is a move to keep military weapons off of the streets. Off of the streets or out of the hands of anyone? Why can I now have an M-4 or a 246? Or an AK-74? It is one more step for them to take them away.




When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.

· Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.


Fear of guns? No, I fear criminals and the government.



+10 more 
posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Can we throw this Obama guy in Guantanamo Bay already?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Obama speaks for the silent majority who is sick and tired of all the M1 garands and carbines being used in crimes. They are also fed up with the street criminals using their high priced lawyers to help them take advantage of corporate loopholes.

This is the top 10 of his stupidest plans so far.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by matafuchs
 


In regards to the re-import ban:

From what I see in the above, it doesn't apply to importers like Century Arms, Arsenal, ect... It seems guns like Mosin Nagants, semi-auto AK's, ect.... are still safe.

Im a bit worried over CMP guns though. Once their stock of WW2 surplus M1 Garands has dried up, is that it? Don't they re-import stuff we gave out back in WW2?

ETA - Im also wondering, does Obama have the power to outright ban the importing of any types of firearms? Also, I would watch out and see if this new ATF guy tries to redefine what "sporting" purposes mean.
edit on 29-8-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I honestly don't see an issue with either of these. Both are common sense and bot are well within his legal limit.

One deals with US military weapons and the re-importation of them for public sale. This is more of a contract stipulation and the President does have the ability to approve/disapprove items being imported into this country...especially when it is our own Military equipment coming back to us. If nothing else, it can come under National Security.

The other is just a stupid side effect of Citizens United where a CORPORATION can register a gun. Now, that is just dumb. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect Corporations rights to bear arms. This is an enforcement issue of current law, which is exactly what the executive branch is supposed to do.

Good job on Obama, and two logical orders to close some loopholes.

Does anyone actually disagree with these orders on their merit?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 



One deals with US military weapons and the re-importation of them for public sale.


If Obama means stuff like full-auto M16s that we lend out to other countries, then yes, I understand this. But if he's also talking about the WW2 milsurp M1 Garands, Springfields, ect... then that's where I have a problem with this.

*Im with you on the corporation/trust thing. From what I see, it basically makes you go through the same background check as you would if you buy as an individual from an FFL. If a corporation buys guns for their employees, I would expect that corporation to run a background check on that individual before giving them a gun. (and I think citizens united needs to be shut out)
edit on 29-8-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I thought corporations were considered people now???

I don't see a issue with cracking down on purchasing a firearm thru a trust, but what happens to all of the military equipment if its not brought back? Is it destroyed? Or sold to highest bidder? Then what happens with the money from the sales? Does that just get used to fund more covert ops? Or are the extremist just getting low on firearms and this is a way to keep the battle going? Sort of a no enemy left behind initiative?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by AlienScience
 



One deals with US military weapons and the re-importation of them for public sale.


If Obama means stuff like full-auto M16s that we lend out to other countries, then yes, I understand this. But if he's also talking about the WW2 milsurp M1 Garands, Springfields, ect... then that's where I have a problem with this.


I haven't been able to find the exact text of the executive orders, I don't even think they have been signed yet, just announced.

But from what I've read so far, weapons can still be re-imported for re-sale, but it needs approval first. This would allow certain items to be re-imported and other items not.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DIRTYDONKEY
 





what happens to all of the military equipment if its not brought back?


I wonder how many countries we've sent arms to over the years. Haven't we sent arms to some less than trustworthy entities? For example, look at all the places that use the M16.

en.wikipedia.org...


Currently, the M16 is in use by 15 NATO countries and more than 80 countries world wide.


So if the rifles cant be sent back, what are the odds they will be sold on the black market? I mean, doesn't this eliminate one route of making sure these rifles don't fall into the wrong hands?

edit on 29-8-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by AlienScience
 



One deals with US military weapons and the re-importation of them for public sale.


If Obama means stuff like full-auto M16s that we lend out to other countries, then yes, I understand this. But if he's also talking about the WW2 milsurp M1 Garands, Springfields, ect... then that's where I have a problem with this.


That is exactly what they are talking about banning. It was just a couple of years ago that his administration blocked the re-importation of M1 Carbines and M1s from South Korea. Their reason was that they might fall in to the wrong hands and be used for crime.

The trust thing isn't a go around. It is a way that people set up for getting NFA equipment to insure that their offspring can inherit the item without going through a year long permitting process and risking a future chief of police from denying the offspring the right to inherit the equipment. This wasn't something that felons were using to get around gun laws.

Both are pointless measures meant to push ideological bull than to help people. According to the UN the top two reasons for violent homicide with firearms is organized crime and political violence. We would do much better to look at curbing organized gang violence in large cities. Instead people blame objects.
edit on 29-8-2013 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
This is an interesting response. Within a moment or two of my first thread on this? 2 more pop almost overlapping.

I think this makes a fair statement to the depth of reaction and emotion. Obama is both tone deaf and a fool. It might also be nice if he took just a fwe precious moments out of his daily grind against his OWN people to tend to the matter of what may kill thousands of SYRIAN people inside the next few days.

You know...mass murder of other nationals is always a nasty thing. It's ...far worse...when the guy doing it seems far too busy in the days leading to it to give more than scheduled 15 minute blocks of time to it.

Of course tho...there may be 1 gun out of the 300 million known to be in the US at the moment that is somehow wrong. So, we MUST go hit every single gun owner...all 100 million of those...to address that one.

What happened to the basic concept of it being better for 10 guilty to walk free than 1 innocent to be sanctioned? I guess that's 100% opposite now.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Wow. He wants to support, with the american military, the free Syrian army and its struggle, but would restrict americans ability to arm itself likewise.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

What happened to the basic concept of it being better for 10 guilty to walk free than 1 innocent to be sanctioned? I guess that's 100% opposite now.


Nobody is considered innocent anymore. You are a criminal that either hasn't been caught or just hasn't acted yet.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Isn't that the truth. In fact, I think your words are so accurate, I don't even need to know what crime I've committed. I'm assured from many directions that I DO break some every day, every time I leave my home just by leading my daily life.

So, in the worst way? I think you're right. We are all criminals. Some just haven't been caught for their dastardly deeds yet. (A Jaywalker is out there somewhere, this very moment! OH The Humanity!
)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
REPLY to buni11687

Bingo on the question. Whenever a law is passed it sets a precedent that can be used for other laws. Will 'Sporting guns' soon require a new license? If you are a hunter will you need to 'register' all of your sporting weapons.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
There is no way for anyone who cannot lawfully posses a firearm (pass a background check) to get a firearm via trusts.

He's pushing a lie.
edit on 29-8-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
They're trying to slowly remove your ability to own weapons so that if you ever had to fight,

you'll just forget what it means to fight altogether.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
My main issue is, historically, the US has tried to disarm its citizens in all sorts of ways by slowly chipping away at laws on the premise that it is to protect myself.

In all of the mass shootings that have occurred since 1999, not once was a military spec weapon used. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It may look like one but it is not fully automatic. If you can convert one by using a video found on the Internet, then guess what, that is what is next to be banned. This logic is based on past laws that were introduced or passed.

Link

Once they can show that one weapon should be banned then there is greater case for all of them. So, there is no threat to us as citizens with these weapons. However, there is a threat to TPTB.



Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.


No more they say. Next, they will say that NO guns may be imported. They will argue that this law helped curb crime and the idiots in Washington will simply nod their heads and pad their pockets.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation. At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run. ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.


Seems like a good idea


Unless you want these criminals to be able to use a loophole to get military grade weapons.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Except for that it's a lie.

There is no way for someone who couldnt pass a NICS check to use a trust to get a firearm.

Is banning flesh-eating trolls a good idea? Sure it is. Too bad there is no such thing.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join