PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy


HonestChieffan
03-16-2011, 10:11 PM
Constitution means nothing to left extremists like Obama.


Sam Stein
HUFFPOST REPORTING

Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy

WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

Earlier in the day, House Democrats joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to offer another possible starting point, announcing legislation that would make fundamental changes to the nation’s gun background check system. Sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a longtime gun control advocate, the bill mirrors one introduced late last month by another New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.

“Too often, any serious discussion about guns devolves into ideological arguments that have nothing to do with the real problem,” Bloomberg, a co-founder of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told reporters at a press event outside the Capitol. “Our coalition strongly believes in the Second Amendment. We also know from experience that we can keep guns away from dangerous people without imposing burdens on law-abiding gun owners."

For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising -- albeit more limited -- vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.

The discussions were meant to build a broad coalition around the elements of reform Obama had outlined a day earlier in an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, including stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books, especially with regard to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the coalition-building didn’t start off on a promising note. The National Rifle Association responded to the op-ed by arguing that Obama had missed the point “entirely” in ignoring lax law enforcement and shortcomings in the nation's mental health system.

The NRA’s response crystallized what administration officials and gun control advocates have long known to be a major potential roadblock in any reform effort: a policy approach that gives off even the hint of restricting access to firearms will be met with forceful opposition by the gun lobby and its allies.

Even when Democrats attempted to limit the ability of outside interest groups to make anonymous campaign donations, they ultimately exempted the NRA for fear that the group would derail the entire enterprise. And so, the conversation has drifted towards executive action.

“We need tougher laws, but there’s a lot we can and should be doing to enforce the laws we have,” said Mark Glaze, the executive director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “Sometimes it’s a question of manpower and money, but in many cases it’s just a question of political will. We think the president knows that and is getting there.”

The extent to which Obama can change gun law without the hand of Congress is not, gun control activists say, wholly insignificant. Though they say they'd prefer longer-lasting, broader legislative responses to shootings like that which occurred in Tucson, Ariz., in early January, there are notable gaps that can be filled with presidential action.

With respect to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), a Clinton-era rule had prevented the military from reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, had been rejected as a recruit for failing a drug test. Obama could reverse that without Congress, Glaze and an administration official said.

As for other possible actions that can be taken without Congress, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has compiled a wishlist of sorts, suggesting that the national background-check system enforce the requirement that all federal agencies report individuals forbidden under federal law from purchasing guns; that the White House restructure regulations requiring that the FBI destroy firearm-purchase records after 90 days; that the FBI, DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives be more aggressive in pursuing federal prosecutions against those individuals who illegally attempted to buy firearms; and that the latter agency ramp up undercover investigations of sales at gun shows.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:19 PM
If we can keep guns away from dangerous people then how come dangerous people always manage to get a gun regardless of any law? they can do all the background checks they want. They can pass all the laws they want. Dangerous people will still get guns if they want guns.

notorious
03-16-2011, 10:23 PM
There is nothing wrong with improving the background check system.


I think it is a good thing as long as they don't try to go full retard and restrict clip limits, ban lead due to enviromental issues (:facepalm:), ban a rifle because it looks scary, etc.

banyon
03-16-2011, 10:24 PM
What's unconstitutional about improving the quality of background checks and better information-sharing of the data that different agencies already possess?

Also, why would anyone be against such efforts? At least people without criminal records, that is.

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:26 PM
There is nothing wrong with improving the background check system.


I think it is a good thing as long as they don't try to go full retard and restrict clip limits, ban lead due to enviromental issues (:facepalm:), ban a rifle because it looks scary, etc.

The background check system is bunk to a large degree. If you are not a convicted felon or metaly challenged person then you get a gun. It would make more sense to me to increase the penalty of burglary, particularly when a gun was stolen as that is how most guns find their way into the hands of bad people.

notorious
03-16-2011, 10:28 PM
What's unconstitutional about improving the quality of background checks and better information-sharing of the data that different agencies already possess?

Also, why would anyone be against such efforts? At least people without criminal records, that is.

It would make more sense to me to increase the penalty of burglary, particularly when a gun was stolen as that is how most guns find their way into the hands of bad people.

These.


Hammer a criminal into the ground if they commit a crime with a gun.

HonestChieffan
03-16-2011, 10:29 PM
The background check system will do what is needed if the government would populate it with the data.....that ball has been in their court since it was implemented and its a pox on teir house that it is incomplete.

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:30 PM
What's unconstitutional about improving the quality of background checks and better information-sharing of the data that different agencies already possess?

Also, why would anyone be against such efforts? At least people without criminal records, that is.

If I am not a convicted felon or mentally challenged person and I register the firearm, what more needs to be done?

banyon
03-16-2011, 10:36 PM
The background check system will do what is needed if the government would populate it with the data.....that ball has been in their court since it was implemented and its a pox on teir house that it is incomplete.

Typical. Pretend like you didn't say what you just said. Classic hcf. Good to see nothing's changed around here.

banyon
03-16-2011, 10:38 PM
The background check system is bunk to a large degree. If you are not a convicted felon or metaly challenged person then you get a gun. It would make more sense to me to increase the penalty of burglary, particularly when a gun was stolen as that is how most guns find their way into the hands of bad people.

That's a law,I would support for sure. Maybe I'll propose it. If it makes it I will give you credit.

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:40 PM
That's a law,I would support for sure. Maybe I'll propose it. If it makes it I will give you credit.

LOL the banyonz28 bill

banyon
03-16-2011, 10:42 PM
If I am not a convicted felon or mentally challenged person and I register the firearm, what more needs to be done?

Many sales aren't registered, but that doesn't seem to be a part of what Obama is proposing though.

All background checks, however, are not created equally. There is plenty of room to improve the quality of the underlying databases.

Also, what sense does it make for the FBI to throw away the sale data after 90 days?

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:43 PM
That's a law,I would support for sure. Maybe I'll propose it. If it makes it I will give you credit.

On a more serious note, don't they do the same thing with drugs? I mean isn't it if you are caught with over a certain amount it pretty much automatically goes from just posession to intent to distribute?

Couldn't you easily charge someone who stole a gun with intent to illegally sell firearms or even intent to committ a crime with a firearm? The latter may be pushing it but I think the former could be very easy. Why else did the person steal the gun if they had no intention of either selling it or using it?

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:44 PM
Many sales aren't registered, but that doesn't seem to be a part of what Obama is proposing though.

All background checks, however, are not created equally. There is plenty of room to improve the quality of the underlying databases.

Also, what sense does it make for the FBI to throw away the sale data after 90 days?

Well that certainly makes no sense. IF you are going to make me register then use the fucking information for anything other than to know who to go take guns away from.

WV
03-16-2011, 10:44 PM
It would make more sense to me to increase the penalty of burglary, particularly when a gun was stolen as that is how most guns find their way into the hands of bad people.

So wait, you want our courts more strict on criminals? But but but what about their rights....if criminals feared our judicial system at all then there wouldn't be so many crimes. Take a look at sentencing and how arbitrary and inconsistent it is. A more punitive judicial system with some balls would solve a lot of issues besides this one.

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:45 PM
So wait, you want our courts more strict on criminals? But but but what about their rights....if criminals feared our judicial system at all then there wouldn't be so many crimes. Take a look at sentencing and how arbitrary and inconsistent it is. A more punitive judicial system with some balls would solve a lot of issues besides this one.

Agreed.

banyon
03-16-2011, 10:52 PM
So wait, you want our courts more strict on criminals? But but but what about their rights....if criminals feared our judicial system at all then there wouldn't be so many crimes. Take a look at sentencing and how arbitrary and inconsistent it is. A more punitive judicial system with some balls would solve a lot of issues besides this one.

The problem at least in our state is that the only people our legislators feel popular legislating against are sex offenders and drunk drivers. Seriously, we get a new law just about every year.

When you talk about thieves or violent offenders, then the prison comes b*tching about bed space and the legislators only want to cut taxes and budgets, actually closing facilities for the last 10 years. This, of course just raises crime rates as these people are back out on the street.

petegz28
03-16-2011, 10:54 PM
The problem at least in our state is that the only people our legislators feel popular legislating against are sex offenders and drunk drivers. Seriously, we get a new law just about every year.

When you talk about thieves or violent offenders, then the prison comes birthing about bed space and the legislators only want to cut taxes and budgets, actually closing facilities for the last 10 years. This, of course just raises crime rates as these people are back out on the street.

This is where the ACLU fucked us. Stick thos fuckers in a chain gang and have their ass fixing all the potholes on the highways. Work them so hard they won't give a damn if they sleep in a bed, on a cot or on a dirt floor.

healthpellets
03-16-2011, 11:04 PM
so why do we need to register our guns? if we pass a background check, why can't everything just end there? i've got a perfect background, you should be able to sell me the weapon of my choice.

banyon
03-16-2011, 11:21 PM
so why do we need to register our guns? if we pass a background check, why can't everything just end there? i've got a perfect background, you should be able to sell me the weapon of my choice.

Lets say some gang bangers burglarize a home in your area and steal a gun. While shooting at one of their rivals, some stray rounds come into your home and kill one of your family members. The gun is tossed from the vehicle nearby, but no recoverable prints or dna are on it. There was a recoverable print, however at the scene of the burglary where the gun was originally taken.

Would you rather be able to connect the crimes or not?

BIG_DADDY
03-17-2011, 12:11 AM
Anyone who backs more gun legislation should be shot.

banyon
03-17-2011, 12:24 AM
Anyone who backs more gun legislation should be shot.

This isn't legislation.

BIG_DADDY
03-17-2011, 12:31 AM
This isn't legislation.

I don't back registration of firearms and one look at Obama and those like him is all any gun owner need to agree. They ban the availability of guns. They ban certain guns. They ban how you can get those guns. They ban who can own those guns. They want to ban how many you can have. They ban how fast they can shoot. They ban how many bullets that gun can hold. If that isn't enough they even want to ban the bullets themself. I think we all know where this is headed and the intension behind it, at some point long ago it became self-evident.

alanm
03-17-2011, 12:47 AM
This is where the ACLU ****ed us. Stick thos ****ers in a chain gang and have their ass fixing all the potholes on the highways. Work them so hard they won't give a damn if they sleep in a bed, on a cot or on a dirt floor.And bring back public hangings at the courthouse.

banyon
03-17-2011, 12:49 AM
I don't back registration of firearms and one look at Obama and those like him is all any gun owner need to agree. They ban the availability of guns. They ban certain guns. They ban how you can get those guns. They ban who can own those guns. They want to ban how many you can have. They ban how fast they can shoot. They ban how many bullets that gun can hold. If that isn't enough they even want to ban the bullets themself. I think we all know where this is headed and the intension behind it, at some point long ago it became self-evident.

Great. The article isn't about changing the status quo on any of those rules, thus no "new legislation."

BIG_DADDY
03-17-2011, 12:50 AM
And bring back public hangings at the courthouse.

I think we should have BB hangings held monthly.

BIG_DADDY
03-17-2011, 01:00 AM
Great. The article isn't about changing the status quo on any of those rules, thus no "new legislation."

You know exactly what I am saying. Obama is the antichrist to all gun owners for good reason. Giving him executive priviledge in this area is beyond wrong and subverts the system in a very important area. This is probably a great time for him to try something stupid like this before the election though.

banyon
03-17-2011, 01:15 AM
You know exactly what I am saying. Obama is the antichrist to all gun owners for good reason. Giving him executive priviledge in this area is beyond wrong and subverts the system in a very important area. This is probably a great time for him to try something stupid like this before the election though.

Really? He's doing a pretty sh*tty job of being the gun anti-christ isn't he? I mean I don't think he's proposed one gun-limiting policy since he's been in office has he? At least Clinton passed the Brady bill, right?

Honestly, this administrative lip-service is about the minimum he could politically get away with after the Tucson shooting, isn't it?

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2011, 06:46 AM
With respect to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), a Clinton-era rule had prevented the military from reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, had been rejected as a recruit for failing a drug test. Obama could reverse that without Congress, Glaze and an administration official said.



The important thing is we continue to protect the rights and sensitivities of violent, mentally deranged citizens.

And if we have to take everybody elses guns away to do it, so be it.

Iowanian
03-17-2011, 09:28 AM
I don't care if they improve the background check system a little, but I'd much rather they just strengthen the penalties for crimes committed with guns...and actually put criminals in jail.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2011, 09:33 AM
Was it really necassary to charge Jared Lee Loughner with 147 counts? Is all that paperwork really necassary???

The guy should have been strapped in ol' sparky weeks ago.

2bikemike
03-17-2011, 11:13 AM
I don't care if they improve the background check system a little, but I'd much rather they just strengthen the penalties for crimes committed with guns...and actually put criminals in jail.

exactly!

I have a buddy who erroneously failed the back ground check. He went through hell trying to get his name cleared. I think it took him over a year to get it straightened out. It seems the system can't catch the folks that should be on the prohibited persons list and if your get put on by a mistake you maybe screwed.

BIG_DADDY
03-17-2011, 04:08 PM
exactly!

I have a buddy who erroneously failed the back ground check. He went through hell trying to get his name cleared. I think it took him over a year to get it straightened out. It seems the system can't catch the folks that should be on the prohibited persons list and if your get put on by a mistake you maybe screwed.

You can up the penalty for using it in a crime but lets be honest about the availability of guns. You can acquire tons very easily through other channels. Trying to make it harder to get through gun shows or at the store is pretty much pointless.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 07:41 PM
Lets say some gang bangers burglarize a home in your area and steal a gun. While shooting at one of their rivals, some stray rounds come into your home and kill one of your family members. The gun is tossed from the vehicle nearby, but no recoverable prints or dna are on it. There was a recoverable print, however at the scene of the burglary where the gun was originally taken.

Would you rather be able to connect the crimes or not?

At the cost of telling the government about a gun I might have, which we've recently discovered in Illinois might have to be told to whoever is nosey in a state-like FOIA request? No thanks.

banyon
03-17-2011, 07:44 PM
At the cost of telling the government about a gun I might have, which we've recently discovered in Illinois might have to be told to whoever is nosey in a state-like FOIA request? No thanks.

I'm not sure I follow you here, al.

Turn over what in an FOIA request?

alnorth
03-17-2011, 10:04 PM
I'm not sure I follow you here, al.

Turn over what in an FOIA request?

A list of every registered gun-owner in the entire state of Illinois. The Illinois legislature is apparently trying to rush a bill through so they don't have to turn over that list of names, though.

banyon
03-17-2011, 10:48 PM
A list of every registered gun-owner in the entire state of Illinois. The Illinois legislature is apparently trying to rush a bill through so they don't have to turn over that list of names, though.

Well that's clearly law enforcement sensitive info, so yeah, that sounds like a dumb bill. I don't think it necessarily follows from any registration law though.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 10:53 PM
Well that's clearly law enforcement sensitive info, so yeah, that sounds like a dumb bill. I don't think it necessarily follows from any registration law though.

no, its not the bill thats bad. The AP filed a FOIA request asking for the name of everyone who had an Illinois gun owner card or whatever it is they are called. The Illinois attorney general rules that the state must comply and turn over the names. People went nuts. Gun owners sued to muck things up in court.

The bill being rushed through while things are delayed in court is basically a fix essentially saying that Illinois doesn't have to comply with a FOIA request for a list of gun owners. So the bill is a good thing, if it passes.

banyon
03-17-2011, 11:00 PM
no, its not the bill thats bad. The AP filed a FOIA request asking for the name of everyone who had an Illinois gun owner card or whatever it is they are called. The Illinois attorney general rules that the state must comply and turn over the names. People went nuts. Gun owners sued to muck things up in court.

The bill being rushed through while things are delayed in court is basically a fix essentially saying that Illinois doesn't have to comply with a FOIA request for a list of gun owners. So the bill is a good thing, if it passes.

Oh, ok. I agree.

dirk digler
03-18-2011, 11:22 AM
I don't see anything wrong with what is being proposed. They also need to close the gun show loophole.

I will add I think it is laughable the NRA is blaming it on mental health issues. The last time I checked I don't believe the NRA is going around to each State's Congress asking for more money for Mental Health services when they are usually the first to be cut.