Obama's 'New Executive Actions' on Gun Control; Two New Measures

[grayokc]

August 29, 2013 9:17 AM



The White House just announced two new executive measures for gun control. The announcement came to reporters via email.
"FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence," the subject of the announcement reads.
"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.

Even as Congress fails to act on common-sense proposals, like expanding criminal background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime, the President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence.
Building on the 23 Executive Actions the President and Vice President Unveiled Last January
· Last December, the President asked the Vice President to develop a series of recommendations to reduce gun violence. On January 16, 2013, they released these proposals, including 23 executive actions. With the first Senate confirmation of an ATF Director on July 31, 2013, the Administration has completed or made significant progress on 22 of the 23 executive actions. The new executive actions unveiled today build on this successful effort.
Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands
· Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.
· 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.
· 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.
Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets
· 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.

 

[B. Rigsby]

"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."

Had to laugh at the stupidity in Washington when I read this. Apparently they think that felons are worried about breaking the law!!!

 

[WillR]

So can you still use a trust, just get fingerprinted? Pretty sure they were already running a background check when you sent the stuff to the ATF.

 

[MarkCh]

"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."

Had to laugh at the stupidity in Washington when I read this. Apparently they think that felons are worried about breaking the law!!!

Yeah, I can see the next gang meeting in Chicago, with them all trying to figure out how to get guns since they can't form a trust or corporation to evade background checks anymore!

 

[Matt1911]

And the uninformed are at it again.

 

[Bob Sanders]

And the uninformed are at it again.

I don't think they are uninformed. Pretty sure the Whitehouse knows exactly what high esteem we place on firearms such as the Garrand. Looks more to me an easy way to rub in our faces that law abiding gun owners mobilized and thwarted Obama's dumbass plans. All without congressional or popular approval. Can you say Tyrant?

 

[charger arms]

This drops today as I just gave a customer the form 4 for his next transfer on his trust. I am trying to figure out what we need to do going forward and if his trust is useless.

 

[scubor2]

Well he restricted importation of M-1 Garrands and M-1 carbines and loosened the pot laws. Maybe by the next election his supporters will be too stoned to remember it's election day and we won't get Hillary or weird uncle Joe as the next ruler and chief. I don't think the homies will worry about not being able to bust a cap in someone's ass with a WWII rifle, but the CMP will sure miss them. I really don't know what he thought he was restricting, but I'm sure there is a method to his madness.

 

[WillR]

Somebody up there on Capitol Hill with some "common sense" needs to introduce legislation to remove supressors as a class 3 firearm. Last time I checked they were not a firearm.

If I was there I would already have drafted this, and a bill to remove all federal excise tax on guns and ammo in response to the dems proposal to raise said tax 50%.

 

[scubor2]

A lot of the excise tax goes to help fund the states wildlife and conservation dept's. I have no problem with what they are now. Bloomberg isn't going to help fund wildlife because you kill the poor animals. The thing is if sportsmen didn't provide the taxes you would never see any wildlife. Of course if there were no more deer they wouldn't get their Mercedes dented hitting them on the roads. The hunters, boaters and shooters keep the wildlife from disappearing. The ultra rich buy up huge acres of land thinking they are doing good for the wildlife, but they have no idea what to do with it. :jester:

 

[Spiff]

Yep, those deer prancing about on the creek would dry right up if it weren't for the excise taxes keeping them alive! And darn those ultra-rich landowners!

 

[scubor2]

Dude, I apologize if you are ultra rich, didn't mean to offend the upper class. I grew up in S. Texas and was sitting by my Dad on a deer stand at 5 yrs. old and saw deer. We moved to Okla. and I hunted for years before I saw a any deer at all.
Texas hunting and Okla. hunting are two different deals. If the wildlife dept here had not had the excise tax funds, we would still see no deer. I think they do a good job. But if you have thousands of acres of land and a good foreman, life could be good.

 

[Spiff]

I grew up in OK. I've never hunted in TX. Deer have been pretty thick in SW OK, I don't really have any desire to plug one, but I usually see them when I'm looking for hogs. If the wildlife dept. does anything in Cotton County other than put on hunter safety classes, I haven't figured out what it is.

Sincerely,
A Very Middle-Class Dude

 

[dennishoddy]

FYI: This excise tax is incredibly important to hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation in general.

The Pittmanâ€"Robertson Act took over a pre-existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.[7][8] Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States.[4][8][9] The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.[2][3][6][9][10]
States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the State’s fish and game department.[3][6][8] Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.[6] Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of wildlife and/or habitat and acquisition or lease of land, among other things.[1][6][10] Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through Pâ€"R funds.[1][3][10] The 25% of the cost that the State must pay generally comes from its hunting license sales.[1] If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.[6][9]
In the 1970s, amendments created a 10% tax on handguns and their ammunition and accessories as well as an 11% tax on archery equipment.[1][2][3][8][10] It was also mandated that half of the money from each of those new taxes must be used to educate and train hunters through the creation and maintenance of hunter safety classes and shooting/target ranges.[1][2][3][10]

Results[edit source | editbeta]
This piece of legislation has provided states with funding for research and projects that would have been unaffordable otherwise.[10] According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services webpage that was updated in January 2010, over two billion dollars of federal aid has been generated through this program, which in turn means that states have kept up their 25% contributions with over 500 million dollars.[1] The habitat acquisition and improvement made possible by this money has allowed some species with large ranges such as American black bears, elk, cougars, and others, to expand those ranges beyond where they were found prior to the implementation of the act.[1] Important game populations such as white-tailed deer and several Galliformes have also had a chance to recover and expand their populations.[1][8]

Economics[edit source | editbeta]
The idea behind this act is that by creating more and better hunting experiences for people through habitat management and hunter education, more taxable items will be purchased, which would then provide more funding for management and improvement.[7][8] The habitat improvement may also stimulate the eco-tourism sector of the economy by creating jobs in areas where people tend to visit for hunting or aesthetic reasons.[1][8]
One source shows hunters spending around ten billion dollars a year on everything they need for their hunting trips.[1] A different source found that hunters spend between 2.8 and 5.2 billion dollars a year on taxable merchandise.[8] This generates between 177 and 324 million dollars a year in Pâ€"R money.[8]
Another source estimated that hunters contribute about three and a half million dollars a day to conservation by purchasing taxable items and hunting licenses.[4]
One study showed an extremely high Return on Investment for firearm manufacturers; 823% to 1588% depending on the year.[8]

 

[scubor2]

Hunter safety classes are highly over rated at keeping hunting accidents down or even accidental shootings. But you go figure.

 

[dennishoddy]

I grew up in OK. I've never hunted in TX. Deer have been pretty thick in SW OK, I don't really have any desire to plug one, but I usually see them when I'm looking for hogs. If the wildlife dept. does anything in Cotton County other than put on hunter safety classes, I haven't figured out what it is.

Sincerely,
A Very Middle-Class Dude

I'd ask you to contact the Area Biologist for Cotton county and see what they have done for the county.
Most is done behind the scenes, like stocking ponds and lakes, putting in food plots on WMA's, etc. You may be surprised.

 

[scubor2]

Well said Dennis.

 

[Spiff]

I will readily admit that I have little to no idea what the wildlife department actually does, but let's at least try to check the class warfare at the door.

I apologize if I came across as a douchebag, I just thought you were channeling our President for a second, e.g., "More taxes, because it's the rich peoples' fault!"

And I kind of take issue with the statement that nature would go extinct if it wasn't for the taxes maintaining it.

 

[poopgiggle]

I'm having trouble following the narrative here. Are the Democrats weed-smoking homeboys who are shooting all the jobs with illegally-imported M1 carbines, or are they super-rich landowners who don't know how to plant food plots?

 

[Marv Zuidema]

All the gangbangers around here are capping each other with Garands. There so easily to hide in your falling off butt crack pants. This administration is on crack....