Holder starting to impliment obamalama's "exective ideas?"

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/279345-holder-begins-gun-control-push

The new rules would change that, allowing officials to perform a background check on people who receive those weapons to ensure that they are permitted to own a gun.




So, they can continue to check, check, check a gun owner infinity times?

I think you are misreading the article. Currently, when the government seizes a firearm and then returns it to its owner, it does not perform a NICS check to see if the owner would still be able to purchase one. They just give it back. Under the EO, Holder wants to institute those checks--which are no better nor worse than the checks performed now. I don't like it, but I'd rather die on the hill of eliminating NICS altogether than to eliminate one tiny subset of those checks.

I mention this separately only for clarity; the point above was best made talking about only one instance where new background checks are to be instituted. When a firearm is seized and then NOT returned to the person from whom it was seized, but transferred or sold to another person, NICS checks are not done under the current situation. Holder is proposing that the receivers of those firearms also be NICSed.

The real tragedy is NICS, not the arrangement of these particular deck chairs on it.

eye95 said:

I think you are misreading the article. Currently, when the government seizes a firearm and then returns it to its owner, it does not perform a NICS check to see if the owner would still be able to purchase one. They just give it back. Under the EO, Holder wants to institute those checks--which are no better nor worse than the checks performed now. I don't like it, but I'd rather die on the hill of eliminating NICS altogether than to eliminate one tiny subset of those checks.

I mention this separately only for clarity; the point above was best made talking about only one instance where new background checks are to be instituted. When a firearm is seized and then NOT returned to the person from whom it was seized, but transferred or sold to another person, NICS checks are not done under the current situation. Holder is proposing that the receivers of those firearms also be NICSed.

The real tragedy is NICS, not the arrangement of these particular deck chairs on it.

Click to expand...

When I had a city PD take my handguns from me, it took them a month to do the 'back ground check' before they would give them back. I was about to get a court order for the immediate return of them but they got wind of the hearing and returned them before the hearing. The cops involved in the return were very rude and one kept he hand on his gun the whole time.

Freedom1Man said:

The cops involved in the return were very rude and one kept he hand on his gun the whole time.

Click to expand...

You mean he was brandishing his firearm at you? This behavior is a good way to get yourself shot...

davidmcbeth said:

You mean he was brandishing his firearm at you? This behavior is a good way to get yourself shot...

Click to expand...

It was holstered but he would not take his hand off of it while I was making sure that they had not damaged my guns while they had them.

eye95 said:

Currently, when the government seizes a firearm and then returns it to its owner, it does not perform a NICS check to see if the owner would still be able to purchase one. They just give it back.

Click to expand...

All 3 times I've had to retrieve guns stolen from me by a PD they (at least claimed they) did a background check.
- Once they returned my property when the DA decided he couldn't charge me with anything.
- Once (a different PD) I had to get a court order (which took 4 months & 2 court hearings, then several trips to various police offices).
- And the last time (same PD as time #2), once the jury found me not guilty & left the room, the judge turned to the ADA & basically said "you ARE giving her back ALL her property RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?"
. . . . . And the ADA squirmed a little when he explained that he'd have to do some paperwork & get a court order for the return. But 2 days later I picked up the paperwork from my lawyer's office, & made the required 2 trips to the property room to get all my property back. (So far, they refuse to return a firearm & ammunition at the same time.)

Freedom1Man said:

When I had a city PD take my handguns from me, it took them a month to do the 'back ground check' before they would give them back.

Click to expand...

The first time I had to get a gun back from a PD & went to pick it up (after they'd had it for a couple weeks already), they claimed they needed another week to run the BG check. When I listened to the radio traffic from the initial problem where they stole the gun from me, it took the dispatcher less than 5 minutes to do it.
One more example of lying & delaying. Not the way to get the public on their side.

MKEgal said:

- And the last time (same PD as time #2), once the jury found me not guilty & left the room, the judge turned to the ADA & basically said "you ARE giving her back ALL her property RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?"

Click to expand...

I believe that is Judge talk for telling the ADA "your a freaking moron" (the ADA that is not you)

MKEgal said:

The first time I had to get a gun back from a PD & went to pick it up (after they'd had it for a couple weeks already), they claimed they needed another week to run the BG check. \

Click to expand...

See that's BS ... you were just in court ... if they had cause to hold your guns 1 minute past the "not guilty" verdict they should have produced such EVIDENCE.

Thats why I do not support any further laws regarding BR checks .. like they have to prove you are OK to own.

And that's why I do not keep all my guns in one location or state..so if they take away a gun where I am and this situation occurs then I still have the option of still being able to protect myself.

Freedom1Man said:

It was holstered but he would not take his hand off of it while I was making sure that they had not damaged my guns while they had them.

Click to expand...

I do believe I would have had to look him in the eye, stomp my foot and say BOO a couple of times just to see if there were any brown stains in his pants when I left :lol:

F350 said:

I do believe I would have had to look him in the eye, stomp my foot and say BOO a couple of times just to see if there were any brown stains in his pants when I left :lol:

Click to expand...

I was showing him that he could not scare me.

Freedom1Man said:

I was showing him that he could not scare me.

Click to expand...

Yes you stood up to him, but I would have had to see if he wasn't just a little jack booted Chihuahua that would shat and run at a foot stomp and BOO!

MKEgal said:

(So far, they refuse to return a firearm & ammunition at the same time.)

Click to expand...

When I go to pick up my guns, I'd consider carrying a box of ammo with me. (Doesn't even have to have ammo in it.) Far as I know, it ain't against the law to carry a box of ammo around.

Freedom1Man said:

It was holstered but he would not take his hand off of it while I was making sure that they had not damaged my guns while they had them.

Click to expand...

If a civilian did that in front of police in any of the states where OC is legal the cops would charge them with brandishing in a hot second. So yes, he was brandishing his firearm, and in light of the fact you posed no immediate harm, that was an illegal act. One for which a police officer would never be prosecuted, as is the case with all the illegal acts that most police officers commit on a regular basis.

arentol said:

If a civilian did that in front of police in any of the states where OC is legal the cops would charge them with brandishing in a hot second. So yes, he was brandishing his firearm, and in light of the fact you posed no immediate harm, that was an illegal act. One for which a police officer would never be prosecuted, as is the case with all the illegal acts that most police officers commit on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

Not going to argue that. You're right.

Kirkland is so-so, Redmond can be hell for dealing with the police and guns.