I fixed CNN’s headline for them.
(CNN)President Barack Obama is expected to announce in the coming days a new executive action with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales, people familiar with White House planning said.
Described as “imminent,” the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.
Planning for the action are not yet complete, and those familiar with the process warn that unforeseen circumstances could delay an announcement. But gun control advocates are expecting the new actions to be revealed next week, ahead of Obama’s annual State of the Union address, set for January 12.
Obama appears to be focusing on two things. One is to spend more money on enforcing existing gun laws. I’m cool with that. The second would be to change the definitions of things to expand background checks for private sales or the so-called “gun show loophole.”
Here’s the issue in a nutshell… businesses that sell guns are required to conduct a background check before selling it. Private sellers are not. So if Uncle Ben wants to trade his ol’ shotgun for a snow blower with his neighbor, he is not required to do a background check on the neighbor. The gun show aspect is a farce that liberals use to drum up anti-gun sentiment by showing pictures of gun shows with their rows and rows of guns for sale. But in reality, the vast majority of sellers at a gun show are businesses and conduct background checks just like everyone else. So what the anti-gun folks are really after is requiring background checks for the private sales of guns.
Why is this a problem? There are three reasons. The first is that it creates an additional expense and hassle for people who haven’t done anything wrong. Uncle Ben is not the problem. The second reason is that while inconveniencing law-abiding folks, it will have virtually no impact on crooks. The bad guys will still sell guns illegally to each other. Many of them are already felons and not allowed to have a gun and that’s not stopping them. Why would this? So it’s a measure that imposes cost ant inconvenience on good guys while not deterring the bad guys at all. No thanks.
The third reason folks like me oppose requiring background checks for private sales is because it is a path to a gun registry, and a gun registry is an instrument used by tyrants throughout modern history to disarm the citizenry. Instead of forcing people to actually go down the court house and register their guns, background checks get there through the side door by creating a record of every time a gun is transferred. It would take a generation for almost every lawful gun in the country to be registered – just the lawful ones, because the crooks’ guns would still not be cataloged.
Remember that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self-protection… it’s about an armed citizenry maintaining the capacity to violently overthrow their government if it becomes necessary. As the Declaration states:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
That’s hard to do if the people are arming themselves with plastic garden rakes.
So in the end, what Obama and his anti-liberty cohorts are wanting to do is impose additional costs and restrictions on law-abiding people that will have no impact on actually reducing crimes committed with guns while creating a precursor for a future tyrant to disarm Americans.
As I said before… no thanks.
Excellent public service Owen on headline fixing.
There are some very uninformed liberals out there when it comes to 1st and 2nd amendment.
1. The 2nd amendment is the shortest and plainest article in the constitution. It doesn’t say anything about reasonable restrictions but does very plainly and bluntly tell the government HANDS OFF.
2. This is nothing less than a scheme to criminalize as many gun owners as possible.
The problem with background checks is that they talk about gun purchases (change of OWNERSHIP) but write the bills to apply to change of POSSESSION. this criminalizes common activities as loaning your friend a gun at the range, loaning a gun to a new hunter, and temporarily keeping a friend or relative’s guns (My son is in the military over three years now and I am still keeping some of his guns for him). Previous bills proposed in Wisconsin would have made a criminal of a spouse if their SO went out of town more than 2 weeks.
Sad we are at this point. But if Obama and the left want to start an echo chamber about private sales being a major US problem, then bring it on. This won’t end well for them politically.
While we’re at it Owen, who in your opinion runs the best firearms training course for teens in Washington County? Mine learn a lot from myself and other family members but would like to find a third party/range also for them.
I couldn’t really speak to that, Steve. I’ve never explored it. Like you, it’s a family thing for us.
There is a new private indoor range near Cabela’s. Outdoor Wisconsin visited the range last year and looks really nice. I would expect them to offer training.
Genuinely curious question. Have gun owners been prosecuted for the acts you describe like loaning a gun to a friend at a range or loaning a gun to a new hunter in the party? I have not heard about it, but this is not an issue I follow as closely as some.
Thanks in advance.