How do background checks, a license to sell guns and expanding mental health care go against the 2nd Amendment?

maybe need to read it,and ask yourself WHO would make the decisions as to who would be allowed to exercise the Right and who would not!
A Conditional Right is a mere Privilege,but the 2nd is part of the Bill Of Rights,not some Bill of Privileges!

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of
the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to
infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and
independent of the lawmaking power.

Texas Court Decision
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Major Loophole closed!


"The number of "gun trust" applications grew
from fewer than 900 in 2000 to more than
90,000 in 2014, the White House said.


Kudos to Obama!

Let's get two things straight, OBAMA.

1. Banning guns does not reduce crime. Crime goes UP when the law abiding citizen is disarmed.

2. The Second amendment is not about hunting and it's not about target shooting. It's about giving the government good reason to leave the citizen alone.

Regardless, gun grabs are coming if the clown in office has his way.

Obama is the biggest threat to the American way of life...Obama hates Americans, the Constitution, and free market capitalism. He destroyed our economy with measures like the ACA and immigration amnesty. The “Affordable” Care Act has been nothing short of a disaster.
The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. Every person should have the right to bear arms. Leave your hands off my guns!

There was no Loophole!
Let us know where it was then!
why do you perpetuate that same Falsehood,and post it about once per Page?
The only Loophole is in Barry's Mind,and,Boy,it's a Whopper!

Gezzus, you keep yodeling about it...
I don't think they're targeting you way up there in the swiss mountain tops

come and get them then!

Nobody is banning guns.

"" Does a Gun Trust Eliminate the Need for
a Background Check?
No. When the trustee visits the dealer, the
trustee provides the dealer with his or her
driver’s license, and optionally, his or her
concealed handgun license (CHL), and
completes an ATF Form 4473, which is the
same ATF form a person would fill out if he
or she were buying any non-NFA firearm
from a dealer.""
http://www.quraishilaw.com/frequently-asked-questions-nfa-gun-trust/

Facts are a gun grabbers killer.....

yeah,right!

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and
Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would
have!"
- Diane Feinstein

not yet, anyway... what obarry is saying makes sense, i don't disagree, but:

1. it's a law problem, not a presidential problem...presidents don't make or interpret laws...

2. he lies about everything, there is hidden agenda behind this... maybe something else added into the "laws" he's making thats being hidden behind this...

3. sets bad precedences...makes it easier to ban guns altogether for future use, and makes it easier for future presidents to do whatever they want by easing these types of illegal and unwanted EO's to the public by softening the public to these types of bills...

all he's doing is a Legacy-Circle-Jerk!

That doesn't mean that guns are banned.

he's the centerpiece...

No it doesnt...it just shows the end all game that the gun control crowd actually wants.

i'll be happy to give up my guns when they do...

and he gets the protection for life...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_volokh

New ATF guidance on gun sales is legally meaningless (or else it would be unlawful)

By Jonathan H. Adler January 5 at 11:43 AM

Today the White House announced a series of executive branch actions (not executive orders) that are supposed to reduce the threat of gun violence. Chief among these measures is a new guidance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) concerning when those who sell guns are required to obtain a federal license and perform background checks of prospective gun purchasers. The ATF is also finalizing a regulation that would prevent prospective gun purchasers from avoiding background checks by acquiring guns through a trust or corporation, but this is a separate measure.

According to the White House, the new ATF guidance is intended “to ensure that anyone who is ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers.” The ATF is achieving this not by issuing new regulations (re)defining what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling guns under federal law. Instead, the ATF issued a guidance document that simply explicates what this legal requirement means, providing examples of the sorts of things that would indicate that a given individual is in the gun business, rather than conducting the occasional personal sale as a hobbyist or as part of an estate liquidation, or something of that sort. According to both the White House release and the ATF guidance, the various indicia identified in the guidance are, in turn, based upon what federal courts have found in relevant cases. (The relevant court decisions are not cited or otherwise identified in the document, and I have asked both ATF and the White House for more information on this point.)

Taken at face value, the new ATF guidance is thus nothing more than a restatement of existing legal requirements. Put another way, it merely identifies those who are already subject to the relevant federal requirements and does not in any way expand the universe of those gun sellers who are required to obtain a license and perform background checks. In other words, it is — as the document says — a guidance, and not a substantive rule. It has no legal effect.

If the ATF guidelines are nothing more than a guidance — an indication of the sorts of things that might trigger a federal investigation or prosecution, but not a tightening of the relevant legal standard — why would the administration do this? There are several potential answers. First, guidance documents are often useful insofar as they explicate relevant legal standards and (as the name implies) provide guidance to the regulated community. Such documents can help people know when they are subject to specific legal requirements. Further, if there are a significant number of people who should have federal gun licenses but have neglected to obtain them, the guidance document might encourage greater compliance with federal law.

A second potential reason for issuing a guidance document of this sort, as Eugene Kontorovich suggests, could be that the administration hopes to “chill” marginal gun sales. Although a guidance document does not change the relevant legal standard, the issuance of such a document can affect behavior. Individuals who learn they are closer to the relevant legal line than they had realized might be encouraged to comply with the relevant legal requirements, or they may opt to stop selling guns. In this way, a guidance document may help to discourage behavior the government wishes to control but which may lie beyond the government’s legal reach.

A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant. (And insofar as Republicans complain and caterwaul about the administration’s actions, this purpose is more fully achieved.)

A fourth potential reason for issuing a guidance instead of issuing a new regulation (re)defining what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is that issuing a guidance is relatively quick and easy. Issuing a new regulation, on the other hand, can be arduous and time-consuming, as it requires going through a lengthy notice-and-comment rulemaking process. If the administration began the rulemaking process today, it’s not clear it could finish the job before the administration leaves office. In addition, challenging guidance documents in court is also difficult to do, while finalizing a new regulation creates a ready target for legal challenges.

A consequence of choosing to issue a guidance document instead of a new regulation, however, is that the guidance document cannot have legal force. That’s what it means to be a guidance — and is one reason that such documents do not have to go through the rulemaking process. To be sure, sometimes agencies do one thing while saying they are doing another — issuing a new substantive regulation that changes the relevant legal requirements but calling it a guidance. Yet when agencies do this, they make themselves legally vulnerable. Courts reviewing agency actions are more concerned with the substance of what an agency does than what the agency calls it. So if one were to conclude that the new ATF guidance is really an expansion of existing regulatory requirements, it would be legally invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act because ATF did not go through the relevant rulemaking requirements.

One upshot of all this is that if the new ATF action is challenged in court, the proceedings will focus on these administrative law questions and will not get into whether a more expansive definition of “engaged in the business” is lawful, let alone whether requiring background checks is consistent with the Second Amendment. The first question a court will consider is whether the ATF document is, in fact, a guidance. The administration will argue that it is, as this is the best way to make a legal challenge go away. But in arguing that the “guidance” is a guidance, the administration will also be conceding that the document has no legal effect and that it does not require anything that is not already required under federal law.

[Addendum: One way to determine whether the ATF is trying to expand the scope of the relevant legal requirements would be to assess the court decisions upon which the ATF purports to rely. Unfortunately, the ATF guidance does not provide any citations to the relevant court decisions. I contacted the ATF press office about this, and it referred me to the White House. I await its response on what court decisions the ATF guidance is relying upon, and will post on that if I hear back.]

I bet every single one of those guys went through extensive background checks and were issued firepower and training for defensive purposes, that's the well "regulated militia" they were talking about. Quite different from the yahoos running the streets with pistols in their pants that you're use to eh?

I bet they are all military or ex-military too, the only people that should be armed on your streets IMO.

no, this isn't socialist Canada, this is America, where we supposed to be free ... guns don't kill people, people kill people... and if someone wants to kill me, i can stop that with my finger...

guns or no guns, people will still try to kill each other, there's no stopping that... they've been doing it since before we were humans, and will continue long after we evolve into whatever is next..