Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Obama closes 'loophole' re ATF and trusts...?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266

    Exclamation Obama closes 'loophole' re ATF and trusts...?

    http://seattletimes.com/html/nationw...sobamaxml.html

    "The Obama administration said Thursday it has closed a loophole in the gun laws that allowed the acquisition of machine guns and similar weapons and has banned U.S. military-style firearms that were sent overseas from returning to this country."

    Further along in the article the ATF involvement is mentioned :

    "In the past, individuals seeking to avoid personal background checks for machine guns and short-barreled shotguns have claimed they were “trusts or corporations.” But a new ATF regulation will close that loophole and require them to pass background checks."

    How does this correlate with the requirements of the Form 1?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Because we all know that gangsters and criminals all keep their guns in trusts.

    So voter ID is bad, because it impedes lawful voters disproportionately based on the amount of voter fraud...BUT impeding lawful gun ownership disproportionately is fine...go figure.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Black_water View Post
    Because we all know that gangsters and criminals all keep their guns in trusts.

    So voter ID is bad, because it impedes lawful voters disproportionately based on the amount of voter fraud...BUT impeding lawful gun ownership disproportionately is fine...go figure.
    <begin sarcasm>

    Because we all know that voting for a living is a fundamental right, but being able to defend yourself isn't, and that the constitution is exactly backwards on this issue. Therefore it can be ignored.

    <end sarcasm>
    Last edited by SteveInCO; 09-05-2013 at 07:00 AM.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Well, it's not exactly the first time the fedgov has gotten one thing right, and then turned around and gotten another wrong.

    Frankly, though, I fail to see what this has to do with voter IDs.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    This has nothing whatsoever to do with voter ID, but nevertheless is really flippin annoying.

    Too many old collectible guns -- many Stevens come to mind -- fall between the cracks of the NFA.

    What are we supposed to do with these weapons -- many of which are now passing from the 1940s "collecto-maniacs" generation to the next -- if the trust option is not available.

    Burying grandpa with them is not an option: they don't make caskets that big.

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Not only this but they are about to make it where a CLEO will have to sign off on ALL NFA purchases, which will pretty much eliminate the majority of people from being able to purchase NFA items. If we don't stand up and fight this nonsense every NFA item we own will be worthless within several years because they will no longer be transferable if this keeps up.

    Instead of eliminating this unconstitutional madness they are strengthening its value to the gun-grabbers! This is serious if you truly care about the Second Amendment, and we need to let those in Congress know what we think about this overreach of the Administration!
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Charleston, wv
    Posts
    54
    God.

    Did I ever say I can't wait for this dude to leave?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    For the record, I put NFA items in the same category as CWPs: not related to the second amendment. While it's undoubtedly a right to own whatever sort of personal firearms you wish, going through the NFA process is self-evidently privilege.

    Frankly, I don't give a damn about NFA trusts. I'd care if repealing the NFA outright was on the table. The second amendment is infringed so long as the NFA is on the books, and whether or not you can get permission from the beneficent state using a trust simply has nothing to do with that.

    I'm sure y'all are proud supporters of your "right" to get CWPs, amirite?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Well, it's not exactly the first time the fedgov has gotten one thing right, and then turned around and gotten another wrong.

    Frankly, though, I fail to see what this has to do with voter IDs.
    Voting and gun ownership are rights. IMO, rights are all the same, regardless of what emotional variables people would like to put on them. Back in the day people made emotional pleas to impose poll taxes etc, much the same way people are making pleas today to restrict gun rights. Contrary to what some believe, voting can kill people, but I digress.

    Voter ID is being fought for many reasons, one of which is voter fraud is such an insignificant problem that putting up hurdles to lawful voters due to an almost non existent (I disagree with this assessment) voter fraud problem, makes presenting the ID a disproportionate response to said problem.

    How it ties in with the trust deal is this: If there are felons cloaking their gun purchases through trusts, it is such an insignificant problem that is does not merit erecting a hurdle to lawful gun owners.

    These two things are exactly the same and the comparison is valid.
    Last edited by Black_water; 09-07-2013 at 10:15 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Charleston, wv
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    For the record, I put NFA items in the same category as CWPs: not related to the second amendment. While it's undoubtedly a right to own whatever sort of personal firearms you wish, going through the NFA process is self-evidently privilege.

    Frankly, I don't give a damn about NFA trusts. I'd care if repealing the NFA outright was on the table. The second amendment is infringed so long as the NFA is on the books, and whether or not you can get permission from the beneficent state using a trust simply has nothing to do with that.

    I'm sure y'all are proud supporters of your "right" to get CWPs, amirite?
    I may not necessarily agree 100% with that statement at the time, but I do like your logic.

    Your statement may make me rethink my position.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Black_water View Post
    Voting and gun ownership are rights. IMO, rights are all the same, regardless of what emotional variables people would like to put on them. Back in the day people made emotional pleas to impose poll taxes etc, much the same way people are making pleas today to restrict gun rights. Contrary to what some believe, voting can kill people, but I digress.

    Voter ID is being fought for many reasons, one of which is voter fraud is such an insignificant problem that putting up hurdles to lawful voters due to an almost non existent (I disagree with this assessment) voter fraud problem, makes presenting the ID a disproportionate response to said problem.

    How it ties in with the trust deal is this: If there are felons cloaking their gun purchases through trusts, it is such an insignificant problem that is does not merit erecting a hurdle to lawful gun owners.

    These two things are exactly the same and the comparison is valid.
    Now I understand . . . and agree that the comparison is apt.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I would say voting is a privilege one of the very few.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Obama closes 'loophole' re ATF and trusts...?

    Voting is a privilege and not a right. We are not a democracy. We are a Republic (or, at least, we are supposed to be). While it is important that systems are in place to ensure the People are in charge, voting being a right is not necessary to this end.

    It is a privilege, one that it is not unreasonable to require that someone prove he has it and is exercising it only once.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Insignificant" voter fraud threw the Franken election into question. There is enough known fraud as to outweigh the margin of victory. If he were elected due to that fraud (we can never know), then voter fraud gave us obamacare.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    You must have not seen the reports in many areas (like here) where there are more votes cast than registered voters.
    I'd be interested if anybody could cite this ever actually happening according to a reputable source.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I'd be interested if anybody could cite this ever actually happening according to a reputable source.
    Voter "impersonation" fraud at the polls is so rare that after an extremely intense high level 50 state survey, the Bush administration could only identify nine instances of it over a ten year period. Those who deal in facts but are pushing to impose greater restrictions on the franchise have effectively abandoned the idea that such fraud justifies their proposals for more purges/voter ID/restrictions on early voting/etc. Instead, they talk about an abstraction: "the integrity of the vote."

    "Integrity" not only embraces concerns about actual fraud, but people's "feelings" about whether or not an election is fair -- ie the errant, evidence-less crap about "Obamacare" being "shoved down our throats" by Acorn who allegedly stole the election. These arguments amount to justifications about why governments should disenfranchise actual people to make other irrational people "feel" that their government was legitimately selected.

    I call BS on that.

    The vote is not a privilege -- it is a fundamental right that like the Second Amendment -- is preservative of all other rights. It is what the patriots fought for in our revolution. First and foremost, we need to be assuring that qualified people have reasonable opportunities to exercise the franchise without undue restriction, and that the votes of all qualified voters are counted. We need not sacrifice tens of thousands of legitimate votes to ward off some obsessive-compulsive's irrational fears that a single fraudulent vote may get counted.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I have mixed feelings on that one.

    In one sense, voting is definitionally a "privilege", as one does not have an innate ability to vote without a government first being formed for him to vote in.

    In another sense... Individuals have an absolute right to consent (or not) to government. With this in mind, it seems difficult to argue that individuals do not have a right to exercise the modicum of influence afforded to them on/by a government which is otherwise imposed on them without their consent.

    If I have a right not to be robbed, then surely it is not a mere "privilege" afforded to me by the robber to entreat him to at least leave me with my shoes. Clearly, this is my right, and were he to then take my shoes he would be violating me yet again.

    Chew on that for awhile.
    Last edited by marshaul; 09-08-2013 at 04:30 PM.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I have mixed feelings on that one.

    In one sense, voting is definitionally a "privilege", as one does not have an innate ability to vote without a government first being formed for him to vote in.

    In another sense... Individuals have an absolute right to consent (or not) to government. With this in mind, it seems difficult to argue that individuals do not have a right to exercise the modicum of influence afforded to them on/by a government which is otherwise imposed on them without their consent.

    If I have a right not to be robbed, then surely it is not a mere "privilege" afforded to me by the robber to entreat him to at least leave me with my shoes. Clearly, this is my right, and were he to then take my shoes he would be violating me yet again.

    Chew on that for awhile.
    Hobbes claims that in a natural state, there is the war of all against all.

    So I suppose, without government, the robber would have as much "right" to your shoes as you would, provided he is able to take them.

    But Donkeys do not like the taste of your shoes, and would prefer not to chew on them.


  19. #19
    Regular Member osmanobma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Black_water View Post
    Voting and gun ownership are rights. IMO, rights are all the same, regardless of what emotional variables people would like to put on them. Back in the day people made emotional pleas to impose poll taxes etc, much the same way people are making pleas today to restrict gun rights. Contrary to what some believe, voting can kill people, but I digress.

    Voter ID is being fought for many reasons, one of which is voter fraud is such an insignificant problem that putting up hurdles to lawful voters due to an almost non existent (I disagree with this assessment) voter fraud problem, makes presenting the ID a disproportionate response to said problem.

    How it ties in with the trust deal is this: If there are felons cloaking their gun purchases through trusts, it is such an insignificant problem that is does not merit erecting a hurdle to lawful gun owners.

    These two things are exactly the same and the comparison is valid.

    Saying there is no wide scale voter fraud is like saying there is no stealing in a store where nobody does inventory,
    nobody keeps track of the profits and nobody is watching any of the customers. Since when people vote, we don't really
    keep track of how many votes are expected to be cast, nobody see's if it's the same people voting, and nobody ever gets
    notification that they voted.


    Its almost impossible to prove voting fraud, unless someone is caught in the act. There's no database keeping track of who voted,
    and the sending some confirmation to you saying you voted or not. I, or anyone else can literally show up to the polls,
    claim to be someone else and vote, no questions asked. No tell me you honestly dont think voter fraud is an issue.


    When you have districts that have more people voting than registered voters, you have felons, illegals and deceased people
    on the voting rolls (democrats favorite voting block), organizations like the now defunct ACORN that have been proven over
    and over to register voters fraudulently, and even encourage people to vote twice. And situations like Al Fraken, who miraculously
    found a bunch of missing ballots that just so happened to be all for him! How can you even doubt that voting fraud is a hige issue.


    Someone has to be INCREDIBLY stupid to be caught committing voter fraud.
    Double or Triple voting is easy, because there is no national voter list. Only state voter lists... and nobody is looking for them.
    Nobody is checking voting records vs people who are in the hospital or out of town.
    Nobody gets confirmation of their voting, so people who didn't vote, don't know that someone else voted for them.
    I don't think people even do much checking on if people live where they say... (or really exist if you do it the right way.)


    Really the only way's to catch voter fraud is if somebody very obviously gives themselves away, or if there are more
    registered votes than voters. Saying there aren't many cases of people committing voter fraud isn't really a valid argument,
    because there really aren't tools to catch many people of voter fraud.


    Voter ID is just common sense.
    I mean... I think we should put as much stringency on helping to decide the fate of the country as we do opening a bank account,
    cashing a check or getting a library card. Honestly, it's a miracle anyone can function in todays society WITHOUT a photo ID.
    Considering you need one for basically every single legitimate way of getting money outside of somebody with a photo ID giving it to you.
    You basically need an ID if you want to exist in society. You need a photo ID or Birth certificate to do pretty much anything in this country.
    If you don't have a government issued photo ID, you can't have a bank account.
    And you can't cash checks... without ID.
    Last edited by osmanobma; 09-08-2013 at 05:01 PM. Reason: formatting, to make it more readable
    its supposed to be osamanobama! dreaded typo's
    Semper Fi

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by osmanobma View Post

    Saying there is no wide scale voter fraud is like saying there is no stealing in a store where nobody does inventory,
    nobody keeps track of the profits and nobody is watching any of the customers. Since when people vote, we don't really
    keep track of how many votes are expected to be cast, nobody see's if it's the same people voting, and nobody ever gets
    notification that they voted.


    Its almost impossible to prove voting fraud, unless someone is caught in the act. There's no database keeping track of who voted,
    and the sending some confirmation to you saying you voted or not. I, or anyone else can literally show up to the polls,
    claim to be someone else and vote, no questions asked. No tell me you honestly dont think voter fraud is an issue.


    When you have districts that have more people voting than registered voters, you have felons, illegals and deceased people
    on the voting rolls (democrats favorite voting block), organizations like the now defunct ACORN that have been proven over
    and over to register voters fraudulently, and even encourage people to vote twice. And situations like Al Fraken, who miraculously
    found a bunch of missing ballots that just so happened to be all for him! How can you even doubt that voting fraud is a hige issue.


    Someone has to be INCREDIBLY stupid to be caught committing voter fraud.
    Double or Triple voting is easy, because there is no national voter list. Only state voter lists... and nobody is looking for them.
    Nobody is checking voting records vs people who are in the hospital or out of town.
    Nobody gets confirmation of their voting, so people who didn't vote, don't know that someone else voted for them.
    I don't think people even do much checking on if people live where they say... (or really exist if you do it the right way.)


    Really the only way's to catch voter fraud is if somebody very obviously gives themselves away, or if there are more
    registered votes than voters. Saying there aren't many cases of people committing voter fraud isn't really a valid argument,
    because there really aren't tools to catch many people of voter fraud.


    Voter ID is just common sense.
    I mean... I think we should put as much stringency on helping to decide the fate of the country as we do opening a bank account,
    cashing a check or getting a library card. Honestly, it's a miracle anyone can function in todays society WITHOUT a photo ID.
    Considering you need one for basically every single legitimate way of getting money outside of somebody with a photo ID giving it to you.
    You basically need an ID if you want to exist in society. You need a photo ID or Birth certificate to do pretty much anything in this country.
    If you don't have a government issued photo ID, you can't have a bank account.
    And you can't cash checks... without ID.
    When you go to vote at your precinct, your name is checked off the rolls.

    If somebody else claiming to be the same person shows up twice, there's gonna be some 'splainin' to do.

    Next year in Virginia, thanks to Republican Party legislators, the state is going to start requiring picture ID to vote, and not accepting non-photo forms of ID such as concealed carry permits, social security cards, voter precinct ID cards, bank statements, and utility bills.

    While I suppose it is conceivable for someone to forge someone else's social security card so they can vote twice, the difficulty of pulling this off is so significant and penalties for getting caught so severe that no-one bothers: for the trouble, it is far easier to convince another legitimate voter to show up at the polls. That is why there is no significant evidence of voter fraud -- not because we democrats are so clever about "getting away with it."

    So in 2014 a whole lot of non-driver grandmas are going to get a rude surprise when they find that their social security and precinct ID cards are insufficient to permit them to vote. I am going to have a good time telling the grandmas that the Republicans are responsible for this: when these pissed off grandmas return to the polls with their IDs in 2015 and 2016, guess which party they are going to be voting against?

    As for Acorn, they paid poor people for each registration they brought in, and did not do adequate quality control: so eventually -- inevitably -- people were trying to register Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck as voters and being paid for it. But Mssrs. Duck and Mouse did not try to vote: they never left Disney World. Bottom line: it was poor management on Acorn's part, not an effort to commit voter fraud, and not one fraudulent vote was cast because of it.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    So I suppose, without government, the robber would have as much "right" to your shoes as you would, provided he is able to take them.
    The robber was a metaphor for government. And, no, government does not create rights.

    Oh, and Hobbes was a *******. His reputation as an intellectual is quite undeserved.
    Last edited by marshaul; 09-08-2013 at 07:23 PM.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by osmanobma View Post
    When you have districts that have more people voting than registered voters...
    Again, I challenge anyone to cite a credible source that this has ever happened.

  23. #23
    Regular Member osmanobma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Again, I challenge anyone to cite a credible source that this has ever happened.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ent-in-madison
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...gible-to-vote/
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/cou...people-felons/
    its supposed to be osamanobama! dreaded typo's
    Semper Fi

  24. #24
    Regular Member osmanobma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    52
    im pissed. the internet or this forum ate my post. I had a wonderfully detailed and well thought out response crafted. Now its gone!!!

    im too angry to repost. so i will just summarize it.: I'm right; you're wrong. Deal with it. lol
    its supposed to be osamanobama! dreaded typo's
    Semper Fi

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    You must have missed my inclusion of the word "credible".

    But even ignoring the credibility of the source, none of those cases withstands a bit of scrutiny. In the Madison case, there never was over 100% turnout. That number was a projection, and of course it was wrong.

    And where there are "more registered voters than are actually eligible to vote", it's not because people are registering the dead in order to vote under their name. It's because dying doesn't automatically get your name stricken from the rolls. Also, when people move they are frequently kept on the rolls. So, it's not at all unsurprising that more people are registered than are actually eligible. This is an uninteresting observation. This is not the same thing as all those ineligible-yet-registered voters actually passing a ballot.

    It happened to me: I moved to another state and my name remained on the rolls for at least a couple years. Not my intent; but simply getting a new DL doesn't strike you from the rolls. You have to take special action. Most people don't. And guess what? I never voted twice. Heck, I didn't even know I was still registered until some time later.

    Again, I challenge you to cite a credible source reporting turnout (and after the fact, not before) above 100% of eligible voters.
    Last edited by marshaul; 09-08-2013 at 08:05 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •