Obama Administration restricts guns with new Executive Orders

Originally posted by AlienScience
Then if Corporations are people, then they need to have a background check. And who is the Corporation if not the people involved in it?

But the bill requires "individuals associated with trusts or corporations" that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, so obviously it would be the individual within the organization who aquires the weapon.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with Corporations getting weapons more easily than real individuals, but if the government wants them to be able to choose our representatives with their money by declaring them individuals, then they have to accept the whole package, not just what's convenient for them.

Also, let's start having Corporations pay income taxes on their profits on top of their corporate taxes....after all...Corporations are people.

Or at least take away their corporate loopholes. Let them pay like an individual if they want to be declared individuals.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Prince Law NFA Trust FAQ

Wood Atter & Wolf Trusts

No felon can lawfully take possession of a firearm or other Title II device and no trust can change that.

The administration is fighting phantoms.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Thats more like it

Maybe you would like to quote the parts that are relevant to your claims so everyone can read it in this thread.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

Prince Law NFA Trust FAQ

Wood Atter & Wolf Trusts

No felon can lawfully take possession of a firearm or other Title II device and no trust can change that.

The administration is fighting phantoms.

Now, when has an anti freedom statist ever let facts get in their way. The claims of the administration as justification for their actions are laughable.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

No felon can lawfully take possession of a firearm or other Title II device and no trust can change that.

From what ive read from the source article you linked to i would agree no felon can "lawfully" take possession of a firearm or other Title II device.

But looking at what you linked to :

Who may use the firearm if it is owned by the Gun Trust?

NFA items owned by trusts are legal possessions of the Trustee (or Trustees if more than one Trustee is serving). Each Trustee may use the firearm as well as any beneficiary in the presence or under the authority of the Trustee. Be sure to not cause an “accidental felony” by naming a beneficiary who is legally not allowed to use, possess or own a firearm.

the new law is trying to :

. 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.

So from what i can tell a felon could illegally get to use a firearm that is owed by a Gun trust with ease because at the moment beneficiaries dont have to undergo background checks as if they were the actual owners of the weapons and that is the loophole this new law is trying to close.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


You're right.

Anyone with a gun can in reality hand that gun to anyone else felon or not.

Just like anyone can drive a car. License or not.

If I set up a trust and add you as a trustee and you turn out to be a felon the moment you touch that NFA item we've committed federal offenses.

If I am of the type to do such a thing would I be dissuaded by you not passing a check? If the whole point is to circumvent the law why would I spend thousands of dollars and wait a year or more to establish a trust just to hand a felon a gun?

Lord knows there are far cheaper and far easier ways to go about it.

So we just have to enact these orders to combat what occurs maybe once a year?

As it stands at least one person affiliated with the trust has to pass a check for the item to be transferred to the trust so what this loophole boils down to is "straw" buying. Very inefficient and extremely expensive straw buying.

It's also worth noting that NFA items are federally registered. So not only would it be extremely expensive and inefficient it would also be a guaranteed capture and imprisonment.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Lord knows there are far cheaper and far easier ways to go about it.

So we just have to enact these orders to combat what occurs maybe once a year?

As far as i can tell the new law wont really affect any law abiding citizen and will tighten a very obscure loophole. As you say at great expense and effort.

Seeing as just about any extra laws concerning gun control are quite unpopular in the US even if they do make things a tiny bit safer have you considered that Obama might have been under pressure to come up with some new laws after the last mass school killing and this was one of the few that were chosen because it doesn't really make much of a change? Seems to me its just 'filler' to make it look like hes taking action.

Personally i think its just timed with the Snowden and Manning affairs to make everyone forget about those scandals. If theres one thing that makes American forget about anything else going on in their country its gun control laws.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


The biggest problem is forcing people to get the sheriff sign off. That's why most people use the trusts to being with.

Even if you pass the check an anti-gun or anti-you sheriff can play judge, jury and executioner by refusing to sign off on your paperwork.

This happens all the time in states like CT and CA.

Go ahead and make every trustee pass a check. That's no problem. Making them get that sheriff sign off is the problem.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I understand what you are saying about the sheriff problem.

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by matafuchs

 

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.

The thing that bugs me is that he is saying that its ok for terrorists, to have guns that we cannot. Then he is going so far as to say that we cannot even import them back in.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
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!

)

Obviously you're guilty of something...where's your border Wrabbit?

Oh yeah... the topic. I'll have to find out where the opposition to selling surplus firearms directly to the public originated before I can make a call on this one.

reply to post by Bone75


It's actually getting to be funny. On something so many insist doesn't matter and say they don't pay attention to, so many have noticed my poor little border withering away, I've been amazed.

Now, who said ATS people don't have Eagle eyes?

To be totally honest... Times are tough and it's hard being a starving college student. My carrot harvest sucked and even Elmer Fudd doesn't supply the business he used to.

I had to pawn my gold border to make the mortgage. (sigh) You've finally broken me to admit it. Now I'll have to throw myself on the mercy of the staff for selling valuable property for my own benefit.

Just remember the needy kids... I have at least 6 or 10 of them. Fuzzy little bunnies that need me. I had no choice! I swear!

The main reason why I think anyone would transfer guns to a trust is not to have loopholes, but to preserve those guns. Most people set up trusts for financial and material reasons, kind of like a living will, when that person dies, the trust decides what to do with the money/estate/material goods given to the trust. I think Obama is really trying to keep people from passing on their firearms to their children when they die. I believe there has already been some talk from the Obama administration about making it illegal to simply pass your guns onto your children.

I think the end game of all this is simply to make sure there are no sources within the united states which could protect the united states from its own already internally coup'd government.

reply to post by buni11687


The CMP will always find more somewhere.

I really have a hard time getting serious about banning these dangerous weapons.

The civilian population of the US has over 700 million weapons, and growing. Civilians are the largest "standing army" in the World.

I hardly think this is any threat.

I'm more worried about the people with tanks, drones, attack helicopters, spy satellites and nukes who apparently have no qualms about rearranging our Constitution and amending it so corruption may go on indefinitely and unchallenged, up to even using local police forces as a privatized army to uphold it's farce. Handguns and AR's only good against others using the same level of technology.

The ridiculous thing about gun control is that the only people it is gonna hurt are the responsible gun owners/collectors . People who commit violent crimes are still going to do so as it isn't difficult to get a gun on the streets

We as the people "in charge" should be able to own the same armaments as our military and law enforcement, how can a person defend his family from a tyrannical government if they do not possess the same armaments......I believe we have already lost the second amendment do to laws like conceal carry....We have a right to bear firearms not the right to fill out an application form and show your proficiency at a gun range. It is our right to carry that firearm anyway we need to , to protect our family, friends, and country.. how can we protect them if it is locked in a safe unloaded.

If all the guns were to one day disappear do you know what it would be called???
Answer: The Dark Ages
If anything the ability the firearm has given man is civility.......Look at UK the gun deaths have decreased but the main cause of murders (or weapon of choice ) is bludgeoning to death with a blunt object......Yeah would much rather a bullet. The point is that if someone wants to kill another human being it is gonna happen......You cannot legislate safety, that is left to individuals. We are responsible for our own safety and taking guns away or restricting them takes away our ability to provide that safety.