PDA

View Full Version : Obama and gun control.



Shellback
07-08-2011, 01:23 PM
It appears that the White House is moving forward with their gun control agenda after reading these 2 articles, here (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/07/six-months-after-tucson-shooting-white-house-readies-gun-control-stance) and here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-gun-control-reforms_n_892633.html)

I know there's nothing set in stone yet but I'll continue to keep this thread updated with any new additional information I find out. This will definitely help draw attention away from the Project Gunrunner debacle which I'm sure is a motivating factor as well.

F-Trooper05
07-08-2011, 01:50 PM
Great. Get ready for "Round 2" of the national ammo shortage.

jslaker
07-08-2011, 02:13 PM
I'd be in favor of better mental health reporting to the NICS since it's an area where the system has failed dramatically several times now, but that's about it.

Kyle Reese
07-08-2011, 02:20 PM
At a time when Gunrunner and Fast & Furious is under tremendous scrutiny. Who is advising this guy?

Ga Shooter
07-08-2011, 02:45 PM
At a time when Gunrunner and Fast & Furious is under tremendous scrutiny. Who is advising this guy?

SATAN!!!!!:eek:

Ga Shooter
07-08-2011, 02:46 PM
Great. Get ready for "Round 2" of the national ammo shortage.

I'm thinking more like mag shortage. During the last ban were you able to buy repair parts for pre ban hi caps? I don't remember.

Kyle Reese
07-08-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm thinking more like mag shortage. During the last ban were you able to buy repair parts for pre ban hi caps? I don't remember.

Yes you could, unless your individual state prohibited it.

Back in the early 2000's (while stationed in Texas) I was rocking a Browning Hi-Power with surplus mags and a Bushmaster M17s bullpup. Those were the days of plentiful and inexpensive South African 5.56 surplus ammo as well.


At the risk of sounding redundant, PLEASE support the NRA (http://membership.nrahq.org/), as well as any state level gun rights organization. This is where we make a difference.

Shellback
07-08-2011, 02:56 PM
At a time when Gunrunner and Fast & Furious is under tremendous scrutiny. Who is advising this guy?

I think they're releasing small amounts of information on their new gun control agenda to intentionally steer the media and people's attention away from Gunrunner. Most of the general public have no idea about what's going on, don't care and would rather stick their heads in the sand.

Or watch American Idol :p

Ga Shooter
07-08-2011, 02:57 PM
Yes you could, unless your individual state prohibited it.

Back in the early 2000's I was rocking a Browning Hi-Power with surplus mags and a Bushmaster M17s bullpup.

:cool: Lets just hope it doesn't go anywhere.

Kyle Reese
07-08-2011, 03:01 PM
I think they're releasing small amounts of information on their new gun control agenda to intentionally steer the media and people's attention away from Gunrunner. Most of the general public have no idea about what's going on, don't care and would rather stick their heads in the sand.

Or watch American Idol :p

Very true!

jslaker
07-08-2011, 03:02 PM
Most of the general public have no idea about what's going on

This. It's gotten a couple of nightly news type spots, but most of the people I've talked to have no clue about it.

Shellback
07-08-2011, 05:02 PM
Another article published today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-08-obama-gun-control-safety-giffords_n.htm

jslaker
07-08-2011, 06:10 PM
Another article published today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-08-obama-gun-control-safety-giffords_n.htm

Doesn't seem to be suggesting much more radical than better reporting.

Honestly, I don't think anything much more radical has a snow ball's chance in hell of passing, anyway; the votes just aren't there. Blue dog Democrats are terrified of touching anti-gun legislation with a 10 foot pole, and Republicans are equally terrified of pissing off the tea partiers.

Tamara
07-09-2011, 09:20 AM
Doesn't seem to be suggesting much more radical than better reporting.

Honestly, I don't think anything much more radical has a snow ball's chance in hell of passing, anyway; the votes just aren't there. Blue dog Democrats are terrified of touching anti-gun legislation with a 10 foot pole, and Republicans are equally terrified of pissing off the tea partiers.

That's my hypothesis. It would be politically savvy to try to "Do Something" right now, while the tiny fraction of single-issue anti-gun voters are all lathered up over the Giffords shooting and the Mexican Gun Smuggling thing, and then he can shrug and say "Well, we tried, but those Republicans in the House killed it," and there's still plenty of time for Blue Dogs to forget between now and Nov. '12.

Shellback
07-09-2011, 12:40 PM
I think the keywords are Executive Order, DOJ and "gun safety measures".


Spokesman Jay Carney said that the new steps would be made public "in the near future." He didn't offer details, but people involved in talks at the Justice Department to craft the new measures said they expected to see something in the next several weeks. Whatever is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues, like banning assault weapons, but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.

"The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said Thursday. "That process is well under way at the Department of Justice, with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues, and we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."

jslaker
07-09-2011, 12:48 PM
I think the keywords are Executive Order, DOJ and "gun safety measures".

An executive order isn't a royal decree; there's only so much he can do within existing law.

Frankly, NICS does need some kind of overhaul. Loughner probably should have tripped something along the way given his behavioral history, and there was previously the high-profile failure of Seung Cho being able to purchase the weapons used in the Virginia Tech shootings because Virginia wasn't properly reporting mental health cases.

Even so, I'm not sure there's much Obama can actually do either way. It's slightly more likely that he could get the GOP to go along with tightening up NICS to keep guns out of the hands of the truly crazy, but I think the end run around of the executive order is a bit of a paper tiger in this case.

Shellback
07-09-2011, 12:51 PM
An executive order isn't a royal decree; there's only so much he can do within existing law.

We're dropping bombs on 6 different countries currently without Congressional approval. I'm not trying to argue with you and I do understand what you're saying but working within the constraints of our "laws" is not high on their priority list.

jslaker
07-09-2011, 01:42 PM
We're dropping bombs on 6 different countries currently without Congressional approval. I'm not trying to argue with you and I do understand what you're saying but working within the constraints of our "laws" is not high on their priority list.

I'd say there's a pretty huge difference between overstepping the boundaries of the War Powers Act and autonomously enacting domestic policy.

I'm totally fine with remaining vigilant; I'm just pointing out that the reality of what's likely is hardly doom and gloom.

joshs
07-09-2011, 01:50 PM
An executive order isn't a royal decree; there's only so much he can do within existing law.

Frankly, NICS does need some kind of overhaul. Loughner probably should have tripped something along the way given his behavioral history, and there was previously the high-profile failure of Seung Cho being able to purchase the weapons used in the Virginia Tech shootings because Virginia wasn't properly reporting mental health cases.

A lot of discretion is given to the Attorney General in the Gun Control Act, especially in the area of importation. There are many things the administration could try to do without new legislation.

What do you think that Loughner should have "tripped" along the way? He never had an actual adjudication against him. Yes, he had a history of "behavioral" problems, but I don't think that it should be possible to lose a Constitutional right without some due process of law. Whether that process is a criminal trial or a commitment proceeding where the respondent is given an opportunity to present his case is unimportant, as long as there is some process.

Virginia, and a number of other states, have updated their reporting after the passage of the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007. So, theoretically, someone who had an adjudication like Cho's would now be reported to NICS.

Shellback
07-09-2011, 01:57 PM
I'd say there's a pretty huge difference between overstepping the boundaries of the War Powers Act and autonomously enacting domestic policy.

I'm signing off after this... I know it's a Wikipedia reference but it was quick and easy... Lest we forget.


On April 6, 1998 Clinton signed an order that permanently banned the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic "assault weapons".[9] In 1999 White House domestic policy chief Bruce D. Reed said, "The country is tired of waiting for Congress to respond to the tragedy in Littleton. The administration is going to do every thing in its power to make progress on guns."[10] In 2001 Clinton also used executive orders to ban the importation of "assault pistols" and tighten licensing rules on gun dealers.[11] Many accused Clinton of overuse of the executive power on gun control issues.

jslaker
07-09-2011, 02:09 PM
What do you think that Loughner should have "tripped" along the way? He never had an actual adjudication against him. Yes, he had a history of "behavioral" problems, but I don't think that it should be possible to lose a Constitutional right without some due process of law. Whether that process is a criminal trial or a commitment proceeding where the respondent is given an opportunity to present his case is unimportant, as long as there is some process.

Indeed, and the fact that he'd never been adjudicated is part of the problem. The mental health system in this country in general is a mess. Loughner had multiple run-ins with law enforcement due to his increasingly erratic behavior.


Virginia, and a number of other states, have updated their reporting after the passage of the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007. So, theoretically, someone who had an adjudication like Cho's would now be reported to NICS.

In Virginia, at least. The problem is more along the lines that there isn't an effective, uniform method of reporting these cases.

I don't want to come off as sounding like I want to make it easy for somebody to be denied gun rights because my position is quite the opposite. I think that mental health cases are tending toward underreporting currently, and that it's probably better for everyone involved to fix that.


I'm signing off after this... I know it's a Wikipedia reference but it was quick and easy... Lest we forget.

Sure, but those actions were taking within the realm of choosing how to enforce existing importation laws, as joshs pointed out. Obama isn't going to be able to "close the gun show loophole" or the like by executive order; lord knows Clinton would have done so if he could have.

Kyle Reese
07-09-2011, 03:21 PM
I think that the list of "prohibited persons" will gradually be expanded, as opposed to seeing blanket bans and confiscation. There was some rumbling afoot a while back to include veterans with PTSD into the prohibited person category.

Been treated or counseled for PTSD? No gun for you! :mad:

Don't underestimate how devious, manipulative & mendacious these anti gunners are.

ubervic
07-09-2011, 06:01 PM
I'd be in favor of better mental health reporting to the NICS since it's an area where the system has failed dramatically several times now, but that's about it.

Agreed.

Mjolnir
07-09-2011, 07:03 PM
At a time when Gunrunner and Fast & Furious is under tremendous scrutiny. Who is advising this guy?

Zbigniew Brzezinski and other Globalist bastards, of course.

I have to ask though... Have You ever written him? We HAVE to. It seems that "the opposition" is well coached and funded while we remain reactionaries, for lack of terminology.

mnealtx
07-11-2011, 08:52 AM
I'm signing off after this... I know it's a Wikipedia reference but it was quick and easy... Lest we forget.

On April 6, 1998 Clinton signed an order that permanently banned the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic "assault weapons".[9] In 1999 White House domestic policy chief Bruce D. Reed said, "The country is tired of waiting for Congress to respond to the tragedy in Littleton. The administration is going to do every thing in its power to make progress on guns."[10] In 2001 Clinton also used executive orders to ban the importation of "assault pistols" and tighten licensing rules on gun dealers.[11] Many accused Clinton of overuse of the executive power on gun control issues.


There was no April 6, 1998 EO. There *were* two April 7 EOs, neither of which were gun-related.
There were 12 EOs signed by Clinton in 2001, none of which were gun-related.

mnealtx
07-11-2011, 09:03 AM
I'd be in favor of better mental health reporting to the NICS since it's an area where the system has failed dramatically several times now, but that's about it.


Agreed.

This appears to have been addressed by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Link (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640)

So far as I can tell, it is requiring notification to the NICS system for any adjudication or commitment, and (equally as important in my opinion). gives avenues for restoral of rights after the adjudication has been cleared.

jslaker
07-11-2011, 01:31 PM
This appears to have been addressed by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Link (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640)

So far as I can tell, it is requiring notification to the NICS system for any adjudication or commitment, and (equally as important in my opinion). gives avenues for restoral of rights after the adjudication has been cleared.

Well, in that case, there isn't very much I'd be in favor of. ;)

grimel
07-11-2011, 08:24 PM
If they want to limit the availability of firearms to criminals especially Mexican drug gangs how about they defund and disband the BATFE? Seems that would stop about 2000 guns a year right there.

Mitchell, Esq.
07-12-2011, 11:28 AM
Using executive orders to legislate in this area post-Heller/McDonald is going to be different than it was ante-Heller/McDonald.

Ante-Heller/McDonald their was no constitutional protection for the RKBA; at present their is.

What that entails, or how far it goes, is not clear - but it does exist, and the more egrigious the infringement the Obama Administration attempts to put on, the better it will be for caselaw to come out of it.

Good cases come from places like DC & Chicago which have badly overreached to the point they were great test cases.

If Zero wants to try doing an end run around a newly protected right, go for it.
It is going to make the end result all the richer if he goes too far.

Executive orders have to be Constitutional, and they can be chalanged in federal court.

Shellback
07-12-2011, 11:52 AM
Nevermind using Executive Orders they'll just make "rules" arbitrarily.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/11/atf-to-require-information-on-frequent-gunbuyers-in-border-states/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gun-buyer-rule-approved-mexican-border-states/story?id=14049165

Shellback
07-12-2011, 12:11 PM
If they want to limit the availability of firearms to criminals especially Mexican drug gangs how about they defund and disband the BATFE? Seems that would stop about 2000 guns a year right there.

LOL! :D

Shellback
07-12-2011, 01:11 PM
Congressman Issa nails it when it comes to the new "rules".

“This political maneuver seems designed to protect the careers of political appointees at the Justice Department and not public safety. It’s disconcerting that Justice Department officials who may have known about or tried to cover-up gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious are continuing attempts to distract attention from clear wrongdoing. In Operation Fast and Furious, gun dealers didn’t need this regulation as they voluntarily provided ATF agents with information about suspected straw purchasers. In return for this voluntary cooperation, the Justice Department betrayed them by offering false assurances that they would closely monitor sales of weapons that dealers otherwise did not want to make.”