Will Obama's new gun laws impact our ability to "transfer" to each other?

We are not required to complete any paperwork when a gun is transferred/sold to another individual as long as long as both parties are from the same state. I "think" that is federal law, but I know it's the case here in MO.

Does anybody know how Osama's (sorry, I mean our presidents) new laws will impact that?

BTW, this is not being mentioned in most of the news outlets. But Obama is requesting (if not ordering) that over 230 FBI agents be hired to perform the additional checks and over 200 ATF agents be hired to enforce the laws.

Ah, dosent that make you feel safer? I know it does the terrorists who are watching our president strip our Constitutional rights, slowly, with the end goal being a unarmed population. Next on the president's agenda, global warming, then back to more sticker gun laws; why? Because these new laws don't go far enough, and people are still being killled. Sorry, I kind of went on a rant

I did not consider it a rant.

And you may wish to search the site regarding needing to sell w/i your own state ~ the law may have changed on that point.

Its your property...IMO, you can do what you want with it.

I think the intent was to make it more difficult for the people who "trade" firearms for personal gain either online or at gun shows posing as private sellers. I personally probably sell one or two guns a year online but it's not to make a profit. It's because I want something else and I can get near retail by selling online (and sell SUPER fast too) than trading it in at a gun shop (or pawning it or something).
However, there are some who frequent gun shows and/or sell firearms online as "private sellers" but they're really kind of "dealing" for personal gain. I believe this is who they're targeting.

If you're just a regular Joe that occasionally sells one or two firearms then I don't think you need worry.

gutshot said:

You are extremely naive!!! The purpose is to make it just a little more difficult for some people to buy a gun. Then the next restriction will make it a little more difficult for some other people to buy a gun. Nobody cares as long as it it isn't you who is effected. One of these days it will be you. How would you like to go to federal court and prove that you didn't make any money selling those guns and that the buyers were all completely qualified to buy. Will they come to your trial and testify? Will you bankrupt yourself trying to prove that you did nothing wrong? Will you lose you job tying to stay out of prison? This is pure intimidation. We are being threatened with the use of our own government to make us surrender our rights. This administration will use the force of the entire federal government to make an example of some poor guy for selling one gun and losing money on it, just to prove that we had better get in line. They see you as a bigger danger than ISIS and would gladly ruin your life any way they could. You had better recognize it.

I used to know a guy who was famous for saying, "What, me worry?". Well, we had all better get worried.

Click to expand...

+1.

It wasn't all that long ago that gun grabber Bill Clinton directed the BATFE to clamp down on the casual buyers and sellers who had obtained dealer licenses. He claimed it was too costly to administer a bunch of guys who mostly just wanted to buy guns for wholesale prices. So, the BATFE jacked fees, imposed additional inspection requirements, and managed to cut the number of licensed dealers by about one-half.

Now we've got B. Hussein Obama threatening to prosecute guys who might do a little casual gun trading for not having the licenses that his gun grabbing predecessor made much more difficult to get.

Progressives have a goal to disarm the populace. It is hard to impose progressives' goals on a population that doesn't want them and is armed. The jack hat Bundy idiots are making all kinds of mistakes in what they are doing. But they are demonstrating that a small number of armed citizens can create a real problem for the government. Typical police response won't be overwhelming force and might result in serious loss and losses for the government agency. Military response such as Waco with the Davidians makes a lot of otherwise unsympathetic folks start to wonder if maybe the tinfoil hat crowd wasn't right after all.

So the progressives work to make it difficult (costly) for private citizens to own guns. They make it difficult (legally dangerous) to buy and sell guns on the private market, outside the ability of government to register, track, and regulate.

I expect qednick will be fine buying and selling a couple of guns a year, not with any expectation of profiting....right up to the moment he is very much not fine. But by then, who will be left to assist him? Some scribblings by Pastor Martin Niemöller come to mind.

Charles

qednick said:

I think the intent was to make it more difficult for the people who "trade" firearms for personal gain either online or at gun shows posing as private sellers.

Click to expand...

I think it was made pretty clear that before any of these actions were taken, Obama instructed his staff to research any ways they could further restrict firearms. I think you're reading intent into the outcome, not the the intent that drove these actions to begin with.

I personally probably sell one or two guns a year online but it's not to make a profit. It's because I want something else and I can get near retail by selling online (and sell SUPER fast too) than trading it in at a gun shop (or pawning it or something).
However, there are some who frequent gun shows and/or sell firearms online as "private sellers" but they're really kind of "dealing" for personal gain. I believe this is who they're targeting.

qednick said:

If you're just a regular Joe that occasionally sells one or two firearms then I don't think you need worry.

Click to expand...

If your read the white house talking points, they make it very clear that quantity of firearms could be used to show that you need an FFL, but they also make very clear that someone can need even an FFL even if they only sell one or two firearms. Basically they've laid out a bunch of data points and if you match anyone of them, or slightly appear to, I do think you need to worry. For instance, what if you have a model that becomes very popular and you decide to sell it to buy something else. If it's become collectible and you actually make a profit, the way they've worded things is very murky and could likely at least justify your arrest until a court rules one way or another on it (after a lot of legal fees) to help us all define their vague language.

President's can't create laws. Only sign or veto one placed on a desk.

Executive order "law" bypassing congress? Pffftttttt.... Good luck with that.

Good points, and well taken.

Got my answer and it's Not Good

jrwpmw said:

We are not required to complete any paperwork when a gun is transferred/sold to another individual as long as long as both parties are from the same state. I "think" that is federal law, but I know it's the case here in MO.

Does anybody know how Osama's (sorry, I mean our presidents) new laws will impact that?

BTW, this is not being mentioned in most of the news outlets. But Obama is requesting (if not ordering) that over 230 FBI agents be hired to perform the additional checks and over 200 ATF agents be hired to enforce the laws.

Ah, dosent that make you feel safer? I know it does the terrorists who are watching our president strip our Constitutional rights, slowly, with the end goal being a unarmed population. Next on the president's agenda, global warming, then back to more sticker gun laws; why? Because these new laws don't go far enough, and people are still being killled. Sorry, I kind of went on a rant

Click to expand...

Transcript from last night. He answered my question by not giving a direct clear awnser. This should worry you all. Not to mention the red tape and beruaracy that he states is to be expected.

"COOPER: But there's a lot of people who believe that's not specific enough. Because there's a lot of, you know, fathers and sons who sell guns every now and then at gun shows. Are they going to have to now start doing background checks? Are they going to start to have to register?

OBAMA: Look, what the Justice Department has done is provided a whole range of very specific examples. And what we ultimately need, I believe, is for Congress to set up a system that is efficient, that doesn't inconvenience the lawful gun seller, or purchaser, but, that makes sure that we're doing the best background check possible. And, the fact, Anderson, the system may not catch every single person, or there may be a circumstance where somebody doesn't think that they have to register, or do, and that may cause some red tape, and bureaucracy for them -- which -- or inconvenience, has to be weighed against the fact that we may be able to save a whole bunch of families from the grief that some of the people in this audience have had to go through...."

Sir Diealotz said:

President's can't create laws. Only sign or veto one placed on a desk.

Executive order "law" bypassing congress? Pffftttttt.... Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

EOs seem to be causing chaos in VA...

ipse

jrwpmw said:

Transcript from last night. He answered my question by not giving a direct clear awnser. This should worry you all. Not to mention the red tape and beruaracy that he states is to be expected.

"COOPER: But there's a lot of people who believe that's not specific enough. Because there's a lot of, you know, fathers and sons who sell guns every now and then at gun shows. Are they going to have to now start doing background checks? Are they going to start to have to register?

OBAMA: Look, what the Justice Department has done is provided a whole range of very specific examples. And what we ultimately need, I believe, is for Congress to set up a system that is efficient, that doesn't inconvenience the lawful gun seller, or purchaser, but, that makes sure that we're doing the best background check possible. And, the fact, Anderson, the system may not catch every single person, or there may be a circumstance where somebody doesn't think that they have to register, or do, and that may cause some red tape, and bureaucracy for them -- which -- or inconvenience, has to be weighed against the fact that we may be able to save a whole bunch of families from the grief that some of the people in this audience have had to go through...."

Click to expand...

all I read through the bolded was a reaffirmation of the underlined that yes it is not specific enough, yes it will make it difficult for the average joe seller and buyer, but i'm going to use extensive sentences and fancy word play to make it sound like I said something completely different. then i'm going to tag on a illogical emotional reactionary by saying it will save families, evne though there is no FACTUAL EVIDENCE proving it will, in fact there is FACTUAL EVIDENCE to the contrary.

my mother did the same word play crap, makes it easier to see through the ******** now.

qednick said:

I think the intent was to make it more difficult for the people
If you're just a regular Joe that occasionally sells one or two firearms then I don't think you need worry.

Click to expand...

Nightmare said:

Step right up folks! Come one, come all, see Obama's slippery slope..

Click to expand...

gutshot said:

You are extremely naive!!! The purpose is to make it just a little more difficult for some people to buy a gun. You had better recognize it.



Well, we had all better get worried.

Click to expand...

Gutshots last line is Truth!

This is all part and parcel of this despicable regime's intention to try to intimidate ...stifle gun trading...and if feasible ..even harass a few gun owners.

I have no doubt some ATF agents will come knocking on a few doors here and there. No law requires you to answer your door bell. Don't answer the door....and don't talk to them if you do happen to answer the door bell.

If I decide that I want to sell a gun during the next 12 months....Obama and Lynch will not factor into my decision to do so. My primary concern will be that I WILL NOT sell one of my guns to any criminal...and I'm perfectly capable of ensuring that that does not happen...and I don't need Obama, Lynch....or any of their "gophers" looking over my shoulder.

rushcreek2 said:

This is all part and parcel of this despicable regime's intention to try to intimidate ...stifle gun trading...and if feasible ..even harass a few gun owners.

I have no doubt some ATF agents will come knocking on a few doors here and there. No law requires you to answer your door bell. Don't answer the door....and don't talk to them if you do happen to answer the door bell.

If I decide that I want to sell a gun during the next 12 months....Obama and Lynch will not factor into my decision to do so. My primary concern will be that I WILL NOT sell one of my guns to any criminal...and I'm perfectly capable of ensuring that that does not happen...and I don't need Obama, Lynch....or any of their "gophers" looking over my shoulder.

Click to expand...

my personal advice for this is you do happen to be unfortunate enough to answer the door.. ask for a warrant, if they fail to provide, then tell them to get off your lawn, they are trespassing, if they fail to do so, contact your lawyer and begin filming them for documentation reasons. I would say call your local PD, but I would make sure your friends with the deputies and sheriff in your town first, otherwise your just inviting a lot more trouble.

Sir Diealotz said:

President's can't create laws. Only sign or veto one placed on a desk.

Executive order "law" bypassing congress? Pffftttttt.... Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

Even if he does and Congress lets him get away with it, We the People will not. How effective do you think Obama's tyrannical edicts will be if all civil, military, and law enforcement officers simply hold firm to their oaths of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic?" All naturalized citizens take the same oath, and at least half of America holds to it, as well. I guarantee you that any un-Constitutional edict from on high most certainly will be contested in the courts, and if Heller and McDonald are any bellwether, it won't pass muster.

Even if the courts side with Obama, however, We the People will side with the Constitution and go about replacing un-Constitutional judges.