GOP Compromise Unintentionally Creates Universal Firearm Background Checks

[jwamplerusa]

This list seems familiar.

Blunt
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Ernst
Graham
McConnell
Murkowski
Portman
Romney
Tillis
Toomey
Young

Everyone a s*** stain up their oath of office. All nothing more than subversives working to undermine the Constitution along with their communist (AKA Democrat) partners in the uni-party.

Want to know why this Nation will die? Look above at the worthless pieces of s*** that "our side" keeps re-electing. Not a Constitutionalist in sight.

 

[jwamplerusa]

You can't blame them really.
They have an agenda.
They understand the intent of the 2nd amendment.
They know history, unlike many that are graduating high schools across the state and country.
Can you blame them for wanting to make their jobs easier, going forward?

YES, I can blame them, and also hold a strong desire to hold them accountable.

 

[blain]

YES, I can blame them, and also hold a strong desire to hold them accountable.

They're holding office now, and will probably not be impeached.
But they can be held accountable during the next election cycle.
I wonder what the new shiny object will be, come election time.

 

[Ziggidy]

This list seems familiar.

Blunt
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Ernst
Graham
McConnell
Murkowski
Portman
Romney
Tillis
Toomey
Young

That group never does things unintentionally; they’re slime.
.

 

[blain]

"Todd Young Lays Into Janet Yellen..."​

​

Man, he's one tough 2A loving Marine!​

Oh, wait, is he the same "Young" that's on the GOA list? ​

 

[chipbennett]

That bill was horrible (and RINOs like Young must be held accountable for voting for it), but IIRC, it did not redefine "in the business". So, this EO is still extra-legal, if it is implemented such as to interpret selling of a single firearm as "in the business."

 

[blain]

We rage against the swamp creatures.
An election comes up.
The swamp creatures convince enough voters that they're better off with "the devils you know".
The swamp creatures promise to do better, going forward.

Rinse & repeat.
It's the circle of governed life.

T.J. July 4, 1776
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In a letter written in 1787, he also said something about a tree and some manure.

 

[KellyinAvon]

That bill was horrible (and RINOs like Young must be held accountable for voting for it), but IIRC, it did not redefine "in the business". So, this EO is still extra-legal, if it is implemented such as to interpret selling of a single firearm as "in the business."

I think it did Chip. As well as screwing the 18-20 year olds and adding terrorist language.

 

[chipbennett]

I think it did Chip. As well as screwing the 18-20 year olds and adding terrorist language.

I believe it lowered (or more explicitly defined) the threshold. That threshold, though, is still well above "one".

 

[chipbennett]

I think it did Chip. As well as screwing the 18-20 year olds and adding terrorist language.

Here's the precise change:

SEC. 12002. DEFINING ``ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS''.

Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ``with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit'' and inserting ``to
predominantly earn a profit'';

So, "to predominantly earn a profit" is a lower threshold than "with the principle objective of livelihood and profit", but still clearly implies something beyond a mere, private transfer of a firearm.

Someone, say, selling off the firearms in an estate, might suddenly be considered "in the business". But not a single sale.

The full text of the statute (as amended):

(21) The term “engaged in the business” means—

(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

Private, personal sales are still explicitly excluded.