Obama’s Gun Control Push
Obama followed through with a bunch of executive orders regarding gun control. Before we go through each of them, I have some general comments.
First, recognize that the Executive is undermining the legislative process with executive orders. Some of the orders are fine and within his power. Some of them should clearly come from the Congress through the normal legislative process as dictated by the constitution. It’s a usurpation of the power of another branch of government, but the members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have come to put their political party over and above the pride and power of the institution in which they serve.
Second, overall, the orders aren’t as bad as expected. Some of them are just fine and sensible. Some of them are useless. But the really heavy lifting is up to Congress where representative government and the legislative process can work.
Third, bear in mind that absolutely nothing Obama signed would have prevented Sandy Hook - the supposed impetus for this action.
With that said, let’s take a look:
1. “Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”
Ooooo… a memo. It’s nebulous, but seems harmless. One would hope this was happening already.
2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”
This one, in combination with a couple of the other orders, it troubling. HIPPA is meant to protect a patient’s privacy. It forbids a health care provider from sharing your information with someone else without your written permission. This sounds like it would let health care providers send individual health care information, like mental exam results and whether or not you own a firearm (later orders open it up for health care providers to ask patients if they have a firearm), to a national background check database. Essentially, it’s allowing states to ignore your medical privacy in lieu of putting more information into the background check system.
3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”
More spending (that’s what “incentives” means) pumped to states to help with order #2.
4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”
This will depend on what the review turns up. There’s certainly nothing wrong with reviewing.
5. “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”
The problem with this one is with the term “seized.” If a gun is seized in the commission of a crime, then I have no problem with this. But officiers are also allowed to seize the weapon of a concealed carry holder during something routine. For example, if I get pulled over for speeding, the officer is within his authority to seize my weapon while he issues the ticket even though the weapon was not being used for a crime. It is not acceptable for the officer to then hold my weapon for days to run a background check before returning the weapon. It should be returned when we part ways.
6. “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”
Harmless.
7. “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”
Harmless, but yet more spending.
8. “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).”
Again, a review is fine. But if they issue ridiculous requirements for the manufacture of safes and locks ans drive up the prices, we’ll see fewer people using them.
9. “Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”
This is fine, but utterly ironic in light of Fast and Furious.
10. “Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.”
Fine.
11. “Nominate an ATF director.”
Ummm… isn’t he supposed to do this anyway? Why the need for an order for something he should have done alreasy? Whatever.
12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”
Fine. More spending and most law enforcment and first responders already get this training.
13. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”
Good! Prosecute gun crimes. I’m all for that.
14. “Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
This is preparing for future gun control laws. Once they identify the “cause,” then there will be a push for more “fixes.” Somehow I doubt that the CDC will conclude that the cause of gun violence is bad people.
15. “Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.”
Oooo.. a report and a challenge!
16. “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”
You knew Obamacare would worm its way into this. This goes in conjunction with #2. Obama is pushing to have doctors ask patients if they have guns in their homes and then provide that information back to the national database. This will aid the federal government in developing a database of every American who has a gun in their home. Gee… I wonder what that information could be used for. If you are a gun owner, I encourage you to refuse to answer if a doctor asks you if you have a gun in your home. It’s not related to your medical condition and it’s none of their business. If a doctor ever asks me that, it’ll be the last time they see me.
17. “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”
This is fine. If there’s an active threat of violence, I would hope that a health care provider informs the police.
18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”
More money for schools.
19. “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”
That’s fine. Most of these institutions already have these plans, but it never hurts to get new ideas. Of course, it’s more federal spending.
20. “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.”
One would hope that was already clear.
21. “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.”
Back to Obamacare. Funny how Obama is using the gun issue to advance Obamacare regulations, eh?
22. “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”
Well, at least we’re committed now.
23. “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.”
Yes. Let’s have a dialogue. OK.
Why didn’t you list 24. “Confiscate all guns?” I thought that’s what y’all said was gonna happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2013 at 2301 hrs
I’d prefer to see this:
Provide incentives for schools to hire armed school resource officers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0643 hrs
?? Where’s the money coming from ??
As of Tuesday, it will be 1,000 days without a budget and Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of our Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” Since the last time a budget was passed, these bozos have blown thru $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.
It is about time we stop the merry-go-round. Our Dear Leader (apologizes to Kim Jong-il) is addicted to OPM (Other People’s Money - pronounced OPIUM). Rep. Stockman, Radel and Gohmert have the right idea; impeach Our Lord and Savior (credit to Jamie Foxx.) Free of the stress of the Presidency, BO could check into a nice rehab center to receive help to kick his addiction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0647 hrs
As of Tuesday, it will be 1,000 days without a budget
Yes I thought that was funny when they said the money would come from money already budgeted. Budgeted from what ? We don’t have a budget !
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0741 hrs
How about Bloomberg this morning on CBS…?
About 5 minutes into his interview, he came up with this gem.
Gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers in the country that I know of that have been granted immunity from misuse of their products or them producing products that they know will hurt people. The automobile companies dont have kind of restrictions, CBS doesn’t have that kind of restrictions, that, that kind of protections.
What a sack of shit. Is he saying that Ford is at risk of being found guilty of someone taking their Ford Focus and purposely running down some old lady crossing the street tomorrow? Assbag.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0944 hrs
If my doctor asks whether I have a gun in the house, I will lie and tell the doctor no. Refusing to answer is fine, but we know the doctor will probably mark you down as yes for gun ownership. It is none of their business so simply say no. If later, they ask you why you lied about it, that will be when I tell them it is/was none of their business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0956 hrs
Already got that question on my physical last year. I asked what gun ownership had to do with my physical. When he said it was “just a standard question”, I told him it was none of his business but if he really wanted to know he was welcome to come by any night after dark to find out for himself.
My big mistake was telling him this BEFORE my prostate exam!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1024 hrs
When you defend every gun , any gun, you lose the American public.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1303 hrs
Mark that is like telling the victims of Lizzie Borden that all axes should be banned and if you defend axes then the end of the lumberjack trade is nigh. Get real, over 300 million firearms are in this country now and we had less than 5000 deaths by firearm that were not by police officer or found to self defense. Statistically, that isn’t even significant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1448 hrs
I’d prefer to see this:
Provide incentives for schools to hire armed school resource officers.
I thought that actually was one of the proposals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 2119 hrs
Ummm… nope.
Posted by Owen on January 17, 2013 at 2205 hrs
Regarding item #6; Why is it that as a private citizen, I am required to go through a federally licensed dealer if I want to obtain a background check on a prospective buyer of a firearm I own.
If I personally know the buyer, no background check is required. If it’s an out of state buyer, I’m required to ship through a dealer in the buyers state. Right now, when I sell something from my collection, I ask to see their driver’s license and CCW permit because that’s the only way I have to verify they’ve passed a background check.
Why can’t there be a toll-free number I can call, pay a $20 fee, provide the same personal info provided from a buyer if they went to a dealer and run a check with DOJ that gets a “go/no go” on my private sale to a person I don’t personally know.
As a responsible person, I’d be willing to do that voluntarily if it was available, just don’t shove it down my throat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 2223 hrs
Ummm… nope.
Ummm… it clearly mentions “school resource officers,” which last I looked were armed police personnel. Where’d I go wrong?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 2250 hrs
“The president’s proposal also includes new initiatives for school safety, including a call for more federal aid to states for hiring so-called school resource officers (police)”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 2253 hrs
I didn’t see anything in the president’s communications that indicated that they would be armed. Where do you see that?
If that’s the case, then I applaud it. He’s following the NRA’s advice. But it should still be funded locally - not a federal program. But that’s an issue for another day.
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2013 at 0645 hrs
I didn’t see anything in the president’s communications that indicated that they would be armed. Where do you see that?
The resource officer in my kids high school always was. I think it’s just how it’s done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 0927 hrs
So anyway. It looks to me like the president’s proposals are pretty moderate, considering the history of the issue, the magnitude of the problem and the level of public outcry.
His assault weapon ban idea has been done before. And championed by no less than St. Ron Himself.
His background-check-for-every-sale idea is widely supported, even among NRA members.
Speaking of which, he incorporated one of their main contributions to the discussion: more funding for armed police presence in schools.
Anyone who sees this and thinks “tyranny” has a screw loose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1225 hrs
So scott if I were to give my WW2 german Lugar to one of my sons or daughters I need to pay for the background check,lisense and so on? Why is it that he/she needs more proof/aproval to/from the govt to recieve a weapon that I recieved from my great uncle than they do to vote? I believe more people have died at the hands of the govts. voted in than the weapons used to keep them in power.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1447 hrs
if I were to give my WW2 german Lugar to one of my sons or daughters I need to pay for the background check,lisense and so on?
I think so, yes.
Why is it that he/she needs more proof/aproval to/from the govt to recieve a weapon that I recieved from my great uncle than they do to vote?
Because the astronomical level of gun violence in the US is a real thing and voter fraud isn’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1514 hrs
So explain to me, Scott, how that would prevent people committing violence with guns? Do you really think that the guy selling a gun to a gangbanger will adhere to the check? Or does such a system just create another hurdle for lawful gun owners?
I would encourage you to go through the statistics before we had mandated background checks. Did the system reduce the crime rate at all? You claim to be a data-driven person. Prove it.
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2013 at 1527 hrs
go through the statistics before we had mandated background checks.
You mean the checks that 40% of gun sales didn’t have to go through?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1531 hrs
You claim to be a data-driven person. Prove it.
Let me. Stop making it illegal for gun violence to be studied.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1535 hrs
The 40% number is BS put out by propagandists. Back it up if you think it’s real.
But you, again, wuss out and won’t provide data to back up your assertion. The data is there. I have it. You’re looking for gun crime stats per year per capita in conjunction with the implementation of federal background checks. You don’t need the CDC to spoon feed you.
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2013 at 1539 hrs
The 40% number is BS put out by propagandists.
I did not know that. So what is the percent of gun sales that don’t involve background checks?
You’re looking for gun crime stats per year per capita in conjunction with the implementation of federal background checks.
Do you think such statistics would be indicative of what they would be if every sale required background checks?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1603 hrs
Roughly 15%.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1605 hrs
Roughly 15%.
Since Owen’s put us all on guard against propaganda, how can we be sure this number isn’t made up as well?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1609 hrs
Scott… do your homework and come to the debate. You’re unarmed.
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2013 at 1610 hrs
At least I knew what was in the president’s proposals.
I think it’s on you to explain why you’re against background checks. Do you have any idea just how minority that view is? It has overwhelming support even among households with NRA members. Like in the 80s. In the general population, it’s in the 90s.
help me understand why you’re against it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1626 hrs
I should also add that I have been ambivalent at best on the issue of gun control. So when I say convince me that your position is more reasonable than the president’s, I’m sincerely inviting you: convince me. I’m a convincible person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1641 hrs
28.At least I knew what was in the president’s proposals.
Did you? We still don’t know what the president meant. All you know is your own experience. Time will tell.
And no. It’s on you - the person who wants to impose his will on me through the force of government - to justify your desire. If I were to say that I think Scott should be prohibited from saying “shit” in blog comments, wouldn’t you demand the same from me?
And no, you have not shown yourself to be either convincible or ambivalent. That’s a fiction in your mind.
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2013 at 1651 hrs
We still don’t know what the president meant. All you know is your own experience.
I only know that I’ve seen like three different media references to it, all of which viewed it the way i described. What have you been hearing?
And no. It’s on you - the person who wants to impose his will on me
Actually, no. The people who want universal background checks don’t have to sell you on it in order to have it. They’ve already convinced 90%+ of Americans that it’s a good idea. They do not need to wait for approval from the rest. So in that sense, it really is on you. If you can’t convince a lot of them otherwise, they’re just going to go ahead and do it. So you better get ‘splainin’ if you don’t want that regulation. If you think it’s unduly infringing on your constitutional rights, then go ahead and convince a court of that. I don’t suspect you’ll have much luck.
Me, I’d rather toss the whole thing and end the drug war. I bet it’s twice as effective at reducing gun violence than anything the president has proposed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1706 hrs
And no, you have not shown yourself to be either convincible or ambivalent. That’s a fiction in your mind.
I think you’ll find that my comments on the subject over the last year or two have been exactly that: ambivalent. I tend to see the whole thing as a a highly emotional and symbolic front in some kind of culture war, having almost nothing practical to do with the lives of most Americans. I can point to a few blog entries that detail my past position on it. So it’s not, as you say, a fiction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1712 hrs
I only know that I’ve seen like three different media references to it
So you “know” what other people interpreted for you. Gotcha.
And again, you aren’t willing to do any actual research or thinking for yourself on the subject. You’re a willing patsy. At least I know where you stand.
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2013 at 1712 hrs
Geez, man. Take a breath. Did you do your very own gun research or are you just “a willing patsy,” relying on what other people “interpreted for you”?
Is this how the discussion is going to proceed?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1718 hrs
Scott always feels the need to get in the last word
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 2123 hrs
I am no fan of the POTUS on this matter, but, if you look at the Federal Register Executive Order Disposition Table you will find something rather curious. the latest EO on the table is:
Executive Order 13632
Establishing the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task ForceSigned: December 7, 2012
Federal Register page and date: 77 FR 74341, December 14, 2012In fact; as far as I can tell POTUS signed 3 memoranda, which, respectively:
direct federal law enforcement to trace all guns taken in federal custody in the course of a criminal investigation
direct the Department of Justice to ensure that all applicable information from federal agencies is made available for background checks
and direct the Department of Health to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2013 at 0204 hrs
The President has overstepped his bounds as a legislative branch several times, not just with congress, but with the judicial system as well…now this. It’s ironic that he has armed guards protecting him at all times, but we as American people cant arm ourselves. Gun registration needs to be imposed on everyone, but taking weapons out of the hands of citizens is completely unconstitutional.
Posted by Amy Carter on January 31, 2013 at 1503 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 40
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2013 04:56 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).