Who would have thunk it, another executive order

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politi...rol/index.html

[KeithKSR]

I think any Executive Order that would achieve any of Obama's anti-gun goals will result in a civil suit that is likely to end in an Obama defeat, not to,mention extreme backlash at the state level.

[CitizenBBN]

I think any Executive Order that would achieve any of Obama's anti-gun goals will result in a civil suit that is likely to end in an Obama defeat, not to,mention extreme backlash at the state level.

Their best bet is to focus on the definition of "in the business" when it comes to who has to be a FFL. The Gun Control Act of 1968 says anyone "in the business" of selling firearms has to be licensed, and the line where that falls has been in flux ever since.

The thing is, the moves by ATF and past administrations to expand who has to be licensed has proven to be worse for the process than to be more lax. When the ATF pushed every small timer who may buy and sell 10 guns a year to get a license it ended up being a lot more work for ATF, it stretched their resources and in the end made for a weaker system overall.

The bureaucracy has some leeway to define such things, but if they overreach and make it for anyone selling a gun, or only for those selling at gun shows, there will be a challenge and it may succeed. It's not clear the courts will see a private sale at a gun show as "in the business" versus any other private sale.

BUt I will say they could make a good case that setting up a booth at a show is solid proof of being "in the business". I'm not for expanded checks, but I've long felt that if you look at the "in the business" clause that someone paying for a booth, setting up their guns for display, putting prices on them, etc. is all part of a pattern of behavior that shows as more of a business than simply a private person selling off some of his guns.

Right now "in the business" has been defined as buying a gun for the purpose of reselling it, but it's impossible to prove something like that state of mind. In fairness, I think that is something of a "loophole."

So I can see where they may be able to make it tougher for people to sell at gun shows without a FFL and thus a background check. Honestly I think they've got a case against some of these guys, some of them clearly are buying and selling guns for a profit and aren't adhering to the FFL requirements. They are skirting the GCA IMO.