Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Everytown pitches list of anti-gun executive actions to Obama

"(T)he group calls for more regulation on legal gun owners selling firearms from their personal collection by clarifying that a gun can only be considered part of a collection if it has been in the owner’s possession for a year. Further, it would require those who advertise guns for sale or sell more than a specified number of guns in a year to become licensed, ATF-regulated dealers."


Anonymous said...

Sounds like more executive branch legislation to me. Wait...ain't that prohibited by the constitution?

Michael Gilson said...

As to their second point about requiring people to become licensed dealers, do they really think that we've forgotten that up to 20 years ago there were a lot of people who were licensed dealers that only sold a few guns a year and as part of the Brady Act they said you could only be a dealer if you sold a lot of guns in a year and cancelled the licenses of these 'kitchen table' and 'hobby' dealers?

GaryM said...

Back then Kitchen Table dealers were bad, but now they're good. Sounds like a scene from 1984 by George Orwell. It was Un-good then, but good now. Who knew?

Anonymous said...

We should not take the bait. We should be DARING these fools to implement their "commerce" based infringements. They lost badly on the buying side (one gun a month) so now they go after sellers. Folks, killing the commerce angle is what we should be galvanizing around because that is the vehicle used for almost all of their gun control. Encouraging the most obvious and egregious infringements based upon "commerce" will only make for target rich environments for judicial remedy!! Now, some will say "you can't trust judges" and while that is true - look to even the ninth circuit and ten day waiting periods! When the substance is egregious enough, even the leftist judged relent!

Consider selling limits this way - that cannot be construed as legitimate any more than buying limits. Indeed it is even worse because it goes beyond the singular of buying into the collectivist of selling. On the complaint of selling infringements we could be forcing the court to answer the question - does the right to own require the right to buy and thus the right to sell....after all, in order to own there must be a sale, a purchase. We shouldn't be scared of this angle - we should be baiting them to do it !!!

What is the judiciary going to do when facing the real question - if government controls actual exercise itself via economic based imposition far and away outside the fabricated time place manner, then what is the purpose of enumeration of any rights at all? If all aspects of the right to keep and bear are relegated to permissions, right down to possession itself, to owned possession itself, how is that power then not the destruction of the right entirely?

Anonymous said...

Gilson, do you recall being told that we should save a tree, use plastic bags?
And now they tell us to not to use plastic bags? Butter was bad for us, we should use margarine, but now we should use butter again?

See, it matters not what they tell us to do or not do, the thing one way or the other is irrelevant. What does matter is that people blindly follow along, without questioning, just accepting that the "professionals" actually "know best" what is best.

My gawd, when did I wake up to be surrounded by a bunch of zombified idiots?
It gives me hope when I read Mike and those who comment here at his site. At least everyone in my country isn't infected.

What your comment shows, brother, is that no mater what we do or don't do, the controllers are going to tell us we must do something else.

I vote to tell the controllers to piss off.

Anonymous said...

Well Hell I guess i didnt really need that freeking FFL i got to sale less that 49 guns a year. So screw me running those laws are already on the BOOKS.

in Alabastered Al