Nick Johnson in WSJ: “A Glittery Gun-Control Distraction”

Prof. Nick Johnson has an article running in the Wall Street Journal which gives people a lot of missing background on Obama’s Executive Orders in regards to new guidance on when an FFL is required, including the previous history of overzealous prosecution, and then the later double cross with the “kitchen table dealer” actions by the Clinton Administration.

Now President Obama proposes moving the furniture around again. The ATF’s new guidance on the matter says that storefronts are irrelevant: “it does not matter if sales are conducted out of your home, at gun shows, flea markets, through the internet, or by other means.” The agency also emphasizes that “courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold.”

As someone pointed out, if you go to the application for an FFL:

FFL App 18a

So they are going to require gun show sellers to get FFLs, but they aren’t going to accept FFL applications for people who only do business at shows. One reason most machine gun possession prosecutions can no longer happen under the National Firearms Act (rather than 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)) is because it has been held by the courts that the government can’t charge someone for failure to pay a tax that the government refused to collect. This would seem to me to be a similar situation.

If the Obama Administration were to actually reverse or partly reverse Clinton-era policies meant to shut down hobbyists or part-time FFLs, he might actually accomplish something in terms of getting more people currently making marginal sales licensed again.

More on ATF 41P

Josh Prince, who is an attorney familiar with this area of law, has a summary of the 41P rule released last night. He notes that it has not yet been published in the Federal Register, so the clock is not currently ticking toward implementation. He also notes that there’s vagueness issues when it comes to “responsible persons”:

Throughout the final rule, ATF seemingly proposes several different interpretations of what constitutes a Responsible Person based on the entity type. This results in serious questions, such as whether the language is overly vague. Are now all employees who can possess a firearm of an LLC/Corp RPs? And also, whether ATF is treating different fictitious entities differently in violation of the law. Are trustees who can possess firearms of the trust RPs, but employees who possess firearms of LLC/Corps not? Moreover, what is the basis for treating non-licensees and licensees differently? The exact language for an RP can be found on page 238-239, which declares

Read the whole thing.

Final Version of 41P NFA Trust Rule Released

This is interesting. Originally 41P was going to require CLEO signoff on all NFA transfers, even if you were a person on a trust. I don’t have time to read thoroughly and comment as I need to hit-the-hay soon, but let the overnight and early-morning discussion begin:

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations ofthe Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm undertake National Firearms Act(NFA). This final rule defines the term”responsible person,”as used in reference to a trust, partnership, association, company, or corporation; requires responsible persons of such trusts or legal entities to complete a specified form and to submit photographs and fingerprints when the trust or legal entity files an application to make an NFA firearm or is listed as the transferee on an application to transfer an NFA firearm; requires that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm, and the specified form for responsible persons, as applicable, be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the applicant/transferee or responsible person is located; and eliminates the requirement for  certification signed by the CLEO. These provisions provide a public safety benefit as they ensure that responsible persons undergo background checks. In addition, this final rule adds a new section to ATF’s regulations to address the possession and transfer of firearms registered to a decedent. The new section clarifies that the executor, administrator, personal representative,or other person authorized under State law to dispose of property in an estate may possess a firearm registered to a decedent during the term of probate without such possession being treated as a ”transfer” under the NFA. It also specifies that the transfer of the firearm to any beneficiary of the estate may be made on a tax-exempt basis.

If I am to understand this correctly, much like with a Type 03 FFL application (C&R) you have to inform the CLEO, but you do not need to get his or her sign off. This does not only apply to trusts, but to individual applications as well. Did the Administration just blink?

If I’m not reading something wrong at this late hour, it would seem that malicious compliance can make a real difference.

Executive Orders: The Shoe Drops

The White House has released a press statement (which I do not yet have a link to) [UPDATE: The link can be found here.] announcing their plans. I have to say, for the most part, it’s a big nothingburger. The EO plan is far less bold and ambitious than I was expecting, but we are dealing with a semi-retired President here. Here’s some text from the press release:

 

 

 

Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:

o A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.

o Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

o There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

What is this? Just a finger wagging? There don’t seem to be any specific numbers attached to this like we were expecting. It’s a restatement of current law. I’m not sure how this changes anything. Maybe they are planning to prosecute more marginal cases they wouldn’t have taken to court previously?

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation.  The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.  But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities.  In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014.  ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

This is 41p, but it says ATF is finalizing the rule. They’ve been doing that for months now. Will they finish? What’s the timeline?

Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting.  Congress has prohibited specific categories of people from buying guns—from convicted felons to users of illegal drugs to individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.  In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress also created incentives for States to make as many relevant records as possible accessible to NICS.  Over the past three years, States have increased the number of records they make accessible by nearly 70 percent.  To further encourage this reporting, the Attorney General has written a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified for mental health reasons, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence.  The Administration will begin a new dialogue with States to ensure the background check system is as robust as possible, which is a public safety imperative.

Oooh, a new dialog. That’ll show them!

Make the background check system more efficient and effective. In 2015, NICS received more than 22.2 million background check requests, an average of more than 63,000 per day. By law, a gun dealer can complete a sale to a customer if the background check comes back clean or has taken more than three days to complete. But features of the current system, which was built in the 1990s, are outdated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will take the following steps to ensure NICS operates more efficiently and effectively to keep guns out of the wrong hands:

o FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks. This new hiring will begin immediately and increase the existing workforce by 50 percent. This will reduce the strain on the NICS system and improve its ability to identify dangerous people who are prohibited from buying a gun before the transfer of a firearm is completed.

o FBI has partnered with the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) to modernize NICS. Although NICS has been routinely upgraded since its launch in 1998, the FBI is committed to making the system more efficient and effective, so that as many background checks as possible are fully processed within the three-day period before a dealer can legally sell a gun even if a background check is not complete. The improvements envisioned by FBI and USDS include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.

Again, nothingburger. Though, there is a lot of potential for abuse here, in terms of retaining records the law says have to be destroyed. We’ve seen them do that before.

The release also notes that the President is asking for a lot more funding to hire more ATF agents, to enhance to National Integrated Ballistics Information Network, and to establish an Internet Investigations Center inside ATF to track “illegal online firearms trafficking.”

Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns.  Under current law, federal firearms dealers and other licensees must report when a gun from their inventory has been lost or stolen.  The regulations are ambiguous, however, about who has this responsibility when a gun is lost or stolen in transit.  Many lost and stolen guns end up being used in crimes.  Over the past five years, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a licensee that claimed it never received the gun even though it was never reported lost or stolen either.  Today, ATF issued a final rule clarifying that the licensee shipping a gun is responsible for notifying law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.

I don’t really have a problem with this, to be honest.

Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.  Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.  The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.  The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

We’ve known about this. It’s old news. It doesn’t even say they are finalizing a new rule, just that they will begin the rule making process.

Finally, Obama is directing federal agencies to look more into smart gun technology and increase R&D efforts, and look into smart gun procurement by federal agencies if they would meet “operational needs.”

So he’s basically just restating current efforts, and not really changing anything about “engaged in the business.” This is a lot less ambitious and bold than I was expecting.

Happy New Year

Happy 2016. Every year I think things can’t possibly get worse, and they do! It’s an election year. The silly season is upon us, and this year promises to be extra silly.

Happy New Year to Texans, who can start open carrying pistols today if you have a CHP.

Seattle Gun Violence Tax Upheld

ItsATaxLower courts in urban centers tend to be corrupt, arbitrary, and often have a lack of concern about the rule of law, so it’s not too surprising to see that a lower court upheld Seattle’s gun tax despite Washington State’s strong preemption language. We’ll see how this works out on appeal. We’ve been mooching off a lot of past activism by people who worked very hard on this issue. It’s hard to imagine the Washington Legislature offering a fix for this if it doesn’t turn out well in the courts. It’s always going to be the most important election ever, until the tide actually does turn, and we all end up drowned in it. I fear that’s starting to happen.

Other people’s political capital

From an LA Times piece, we get the following quote on why President Obama is looking into unilateral executive action on gun control:

“If this succeeds, it will save lives. If it fails legally, the cost is only political,” [Senator Christopher] Murphy [D-Conn] said. “When you’re talking about weighing lives saved versus political capital lost, it’s a no-brainer.”

What Senator Murphy says about political capital is true – the cost of this effort will be counted in political capital. What he’s not saying is that it’s not the President’s political capital that will pay; it’s the political capital of the Democratic party. The President has spent a lot of political capital over the past 7 years, but very little of it has been his own. It’s been the capital of the Democratic party. And by gambling with the Democratic political capital, he’s been able to force the Republicans to match, raise, or fold. If he wins, he gets the credit (and the capital). If he loses, well, it’s all someone else’s fault. Which is a neat trick. I’m still a little surprised that the congressional Dems are willing to let him draw on their capital to put his name on successes, but leave Congress the failures. The last few years, sticking Congress with the failures means sticking the Republicans with it, admittedly, but still.

This is another one of his Heads I win, tails You lose gambits. He’s going to try, and if it doesn’t work, then it’s the work of The Enemy, who wants Dead Babies.Which makes sense for his future aspirations (global talking head), but is yet another drip of corrosive in the mechanism of politics. Après moi le déluge, indeed.

Gun Control by Fiat?

Based on statements coming out of the White House, I think Obama’s executive orders on guns might end up being a barrage of ridiculous things completely unsupported by law. Sure, they’ll lose in court, but they’ll force us to take them to court, and that’s going to cost time and money heading into the elections. I’m thinking the strategy might be to throw as much as they can at the wall and see what sticks.

Certainly Obama has numerous ways he could screw us that are completely within his authority. A near handgun import ban would be among them, by ditching the point system and adopting something draconian. I don’t see how Obama has any executive power under the law to close any “gun show loophole” or to otherwise affect private transfers.

But that doesn’t mean he won’t force us to waste time and treasure fighting even clearly illegal moves. There’s no penalty for overreach. With guns there’s not much clearly established precedent to support civil rights suits. So what does he have to lose?

Most Pro-Gun Provisions Stripped from Spending Bill

As Glenn Reynolds notes, “Harry Reid seems to accomplish a lot, considering he’s in the minority.” Certainly seems so, but I’ve long argued the big reason the Democrats can generally get what they want is that they are very good at using government and using process to get their preferred outcomes. Republican politicians, meanwhile, aren’t always the sharpest tacks in the box, and they are more interested in getting along and keeping the perks of office than they are about really challenging the left and learning how to play the game effectively. So here are the provisions that came out in the Senate:

  • House proposal to make permanent the one-year provision restricting the federal government from prohibiting imports of curios and relics.

  • House proposal to make permanent the one-year provision restricting the federal government from requiring licenses for Canada gun exports less than $500.

  • House proposal to make permanent the one-year provision restricting the federal government from denying shotgun imports on the grounds they are not suitable for “sporting purposes,” if such imports have not previously been denied.

  • House proposal to make permanent the one-year provision restricting the federal government from facilitating the transfer of a firearm to a known or suspected agent of a drug cartel (“Fast and Furious” provision).

  • House provision preventing the Department of Justice from requiring federal firearms licensees to report on the sale of multiple long guns to the same person.

  • House provision restricting the federal government from treating ammunition as “armor piercing,” except for handgun ammunition.

  • House provision allowing funding to process applications for individual relief from firearms disabilities, a reversal of a funding prohibition that has been in place since 1993.

  • Democratic proposal to block firearms sales to individuals on terror watch lists.

That’s quite a disappointment, but as long as the filibuster rule is what it is, neither side really is in the minority. The Dems still have the ability to block bills, and the Republicans know they’ll get blamed by the media for any shutdown that happens. Personally, I think they should go back to the rule that requires filibustering Senators to hold the floor. They can read Dostoyevski if they want, but they have to hold the floor.

Clayton Cramer Raising Funds for History Film

Clayton Cramer is trying to raise money via Kickstarter to do a film on The Oberlin-Wellington Rescue. With 13 days left to go there’s only $51 dollars, and I’m $50 of that. The Oberlin-Wellington rescue is an example of Americans using their right to keep and bear arms to resist a government intent on keeping people enslaved and treated as property:

As soon as residents heard of the marshal’s actions, a group of men rushed to Wellington. They joined like-minded residents of Wellington and attempted to free Price, but the marshal and his deputies took refuge in a local hotel.

After peaceful negotiations failed, the rescuers stormed the hotel and found Price in the attic. The group immediately returned Price to Oberlin, where they hid him in the home of James Harris Fairchild, a future president of Oberlin College. A short time later, they took Price to Canada. Under British rule, Canada had no slavery and Price did not have to worry about US authorities there.

I think it’s important these stories are told, especially when it comes to convincing people who don’t fit into the OFWG demographic that RKBA is important. This was not a right made up by the Supreme Court. Armed resistance to tyranny is woven throughout our history.