While parts of his overall plan are treacherous, Obama's four background check "actions" will change very little

No one knows who first uttered the quip about insanity being the act of doing same thing over and over again and expecting different results, but this saying gets repeated not because it's correct, but because we see this behavior happening so often.

Number One on the list of President Obama's latest round of executive actions on gun control are a prime example. In coverage of Obama's 30 minute speech, delivered on January 5, NBC's headline screams "Obama: We Are Here to Prevent the Next Mass Shooting."

But NOTHING Obama is proposing would have changed the outcome of the last mass shooting. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. Or...well, you get the picture.

In fact, the four executive "actions" related to background checks will actually change very little.

According to the White House's so-called "Fact" sheet, the president's executive actions are designed, first and foremost, to:

1: Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.

The problem? The firearms used in recent attacks had been purchased by people who underwent background checks (in every case that has been made public so far).

San Bernadino background check? Yup.

Umpqua background check? Uh huh.

Charleston background check? Indeed.

Roanoke background check? You guessed it.

And so on, and so on, and so on, and so...well, again, you get the picture.

So why does the president keep insisting that more background checks are going to prevent the next mass shooting, when they haven't prevented so many others?

The real definition of insanity is "the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness." Given how many times Obama and his ilk have told us that better background checks can stop mass shootings, and how many times they have failed to do so, perhaps the saying about doing something over and over again and expecting different results isn't so far from the truth after all.

So what exactly are the four "actions" taken by the White House when it comes to background checks? First, from the White House's so-called "Fact" sheet:

• 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.

Again, it is important to note that background checks didn't "keep guns out of the wrong hands" in any of the cases listed above.

Second, this "action" is nothing but a "clarification" - a restatement of existing law.

And since we're talking "clarification," let's be clear about something else. Under current law, if you purchase a firearm online and have it shipped to you, a background check must be performed. Under current law, if you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer at a gun show, a background check must be performed.

The Obama administration says it wants to ensure that "anyone who is 'engaged in the business' of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers." So how does one know if they are going to be considered to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms?

• 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.
• 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.

It is clear from the administration's statements that they hope to make people fearful to sell multiple guns a year, despite the fact that it remains 100% legal to do so despite this executive "action."

So what are we to learn from the above "clarification" (i.e. restatement of current law) about being "engaged in the business" of selling firearms? The administration is kind enough to admit that "there is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold" that determines when you are considered to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms, but then spends the rest of the time attempting to intimidate gun owners with an example of a conviction for as few as two firearms sold, mentions of five year prison sentences and six-figure fines.

The bottom line here is that nothing is actually changing - persons “engaged in the business” of selling firearms have ALWAYS been required to obtain a federal firearms license, and there has never been a "specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement."

The second "action" on background checks:

• Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting.

This "action" amounts to little more than a letter to the states from Attorney General reminding them of existing law. Like the "engaged in the business" of clarification above, this "action" marks no change in existing law.

Unfortunately, the next action on background checks marks a major change coming for trusts and LLCs who purchase items governed under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

• Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation.

Without citing even a single example of a mass shooting having been done with an NFA-controlled firearm, Obama claims to be preventing the next mass shooting by requiring that all responsible persons in a trust or LLC must now go through the same fingerprinting, photo and background check as individuals, and by mandating that trusts and LLCs buying NFA items be placed in the same backlog as individual purchasers. This is being done through a change in BATFE rules.

The fourth "action" on background checks:

• Make the background check system more efficient and effective.

Thus far, Administration proposals, to hire 230 additional agents to process National Instance Check System (NICS) background checks and to make the system available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, sound reasonable, aside from any discussion about the added cost to our already bloated federal budget.

The bottom line when it comes to Obama's four "actions" on background checks? Two of the four make no change to existing law, one will make things a lot more cumbersome and time-consuming for a tiny fraction of gun purchasers while having zero effect on crime, and one may in fact improve customer service and shorten waiting times for persons purchasing firearms through FFLs.

Looking beyond background checks, some of the other actions are simply more request for various government entities to enforce current law, while at other points are much more nefarious and far-reaching.

One of the more impotent executive actions is one which orders that millions of dollars be spent on a ballistic "fingerprint" database. Canada scrapped their database in 2012 after spending a fortune and seeing no positive results. Maryland also tried the same idea and recently gave up after wasting $5 million of taxpayer funds.

Another rather useless action is a Presidential Memorandum requesting that the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security "prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of [so-called "smart" gun] technology for use in practice," and "promote the use and acquisition of new technology."

While certain of the actions intended to "Increase Mental Health Treatment and Reporting to the Background Check System" may ensure that persons who have been found by a court to be mentally incompetent from owning a firearm, such as a new Department of Health and Human Services rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals - one of the most egregious actions is an order to strip away Second Amendment rights from certain recipients of Social Security benefits without any due process whatsoever. Not only will these people be flagged in the NICS system as “prohibited persons” who may not purchase a firearm, the action will also make it a felony for them to be in possession or have access to firearms or ammunition under any circumstances. For more on the problems with this action against certain Social Security recipients, click here.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.

Additional Information:

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