White House plans executive action to expand background checks for gun sales

[ErikJ]

Source: LA Times

White House officials are seeking a way to use executive authority to close the so-called gun show loophole that allows thousands of people to buy guns each year without a background check, but complicated legal issues have slowed the process.

Almost three years ago, President Obama asked Congress to change the law to require background checks for weapons sold at gun shows, but a bill to do so died in the Senate – dashing administration hopes for legislative action to address the loophole.

Efforts to use Obama's executive powers to address the issue took on added urgency in October, when a shooter at a community college in Oregon killed nine people, then shot himself.

Since then, White House officials have been trying to draft an executive order that would effectively reinterpret existing law to require all or most such sales to go through the background check system.

.................................

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obama-gun-order-20151203-story.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=1153586

[Squinch]

1. Nice but not even close to enough.

[ErikJ]

5. At least also banning hi-capacity magazines

that seem to always be used in mass shootings.

[GGJohn]

23. Pres. Obama cannot ban hi cap mags with an EO,

he can ban the importation of hi cap mags, but he can't ban the manufacture of domestically produced hi cap mags, only the Congress can do that.

[beevul]

31. Plus, why would his ban succeed, where the CA ban failed? N/T

[Rose Siding]

6. He's trying to do it legally without Congress

Credit where it is due. This is a bold step in the right direction.

[Squinch]

7. I know and I agree, and I don't mean that he has to do more. I mean that WE have to do more.

I do, as always, appreciate what my favorite president in my lifetime is doing.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Go, Obama! Our POTUS has proven himself time and again!

[randys1]

3. Would this law have prevented Dear or Farood?

My point being yes please, more laws, but the guns are already out there, for one, and most who want them will still get them as long as they are legal for someone to buy.

BTW, that any citizen in America owns a weapon like these, well that is just insane.

[christx30]

4. Exactly right.

Unless there is something to flag (criminal history, ect), there is no reason to deny a weapon to someone. And if the mass shooting which results in life in prison or death is the first recorded criminal activity for the person, a background check isn't going to do any good.

[ErikJ]

10. Australia banned their sale and destroyed millions

with a buyback. (I think it was). And police confiscations take millions of guns off the streets. But the gun makers make a lot more than that every yr.

[EL34x4]

24. Nope. They expected millions.

But only 635,000 were turned in. About 1/6th of them, mostly .22 rimfires and pump-action shotguns.

[sgood]

28. +1

Informative.

[Elmergantry]

19. Nope.

But remember its all about having orgasms from thinking you did something about it even though you havent.

[ileus]

8. They don't do 4473's at gunshows?

Of course the FFL's do...


What we need to say is close the "private sales" loophole.

[MosheFeingold]

15. Private sales

Are impossible to track without a registry.

This is an important first step. Perhaps he can mandate a registry. With a registry, confiscation would be easy.

[S-Limer]

16. Confiscation would not be easy

That is the reason there is no "common sense" legislation. The right views any movement on the issue as an eventual step towards a gun grab. You do realize that the people you want to take guns from would hide them and the people you would ask to do the taking are mostly on the other side of the issue (law enforcement and military), right?

[Elmergantry]

20. You nailed it.

"The right views any movement on the issue as an eventual step towards a gun grab." And the poster just admitted it: "With a registry, confiscation would be easy."

"common sense" gun laws my ass...

[GGJohn]

22. No, he cannot mandate a registry, that's the job of the Congress,

only the Congress can make laws and fund those laws, and don't think that Pres. Obama can issue an EO mandating this, EO's only apply to the Executive branch of the govt.

[Abouttime]

25. He can do it and he will

He's finally got the public behind him. What is wrong with you?
The American public is SICK of gun violence and we are tired of firearm apologists and their childish obsession with firearms.
Grow the hell up! Give up the gdamn guns before they kill someone!

[GGJohn]

26. Sorry, but you're wrong,

Congress writes laws, the Pres. signs them into law, that's the way our system of govt works.
Jeez, don't they teach Civic 101 in school anymore?

A little civics lesson for you since you seem to not know how our form of govt works.

The Legislative branch of the govt, IE: the Congress writes laws and funds programs.
The Executive branch of the govt, IE: the President and his cabinet, signs those bills into law and distributes the money for those programs.
The Judicial branch of the govt, IE: the Supreme Court, interprets the legality of those laws

Here, learn something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

BTW, EO's can be rescinded by the incoming President.

[Abouttime]

29. Uhmmm..tell that to Barack

In case you haven't noticed our President has taken the the execution of executive orders to a completely new level. He is single handily creating law, an example are his actions on immigration. No future Republican President would ever think of rescinding that order because it would invalidate rights bestowed upon formerly illegal immigrants. The majority of the American public wants the right to be free from the worry of gun violence, this right is seen by every sane person as being vastly more important than your so called right to bear arms.
Times are a changing, we are sick of single issue politics, we are sick of those who defend so called gun rights just as we are sick of the subject of abortion etc..
With executive orders and a few favorable court decisions we will be on the way to a correct interpretation of a the 2nd amendment, in other words well REGULATED militia=national guard.

[S-Limer]

30. Militia

Title 10 US Code explains what the militia is. Spoiler alert- it is not the National Guard:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Times are a-changin but perhaps the needle is moving the other way on this issue- Maine going for concealed carry in 2015 for instance?

[GGJohn]

32. Well, I'll just leave you to your delusions. eom.

[Big_Mike]

41. And you regard this as a GOOD thing

How about if W. had that power and used it for prayer in school, or to direct voting rights?

Our system was built on checks and balances, and the system is overwhelmingly in power of the Executive already. Perhaps one person could do right by this, but you want to hand something like that to Mike Huckaby or Trump? As Bugs Bunny said "What are you thinking?"

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. Not legally, he can't.

And if he issued an illegal EO, the GOP would be licking their chops.

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. "With a registry, confiscation would be easy."

Well, it would actually be possible, I suppose...but not remotely "easy." Confiscation would be widely resisted, and anyone who assumes otherwise is naive.

But more to the point, I don't think there is executive authority to mandate a national gun registry. Even if there were such authority, that authority would definitely not extend to funding. The chances of Congress appropriating funds for gun registration are about as good as those of me being scouted by the NFL (I'm a 112lb woman...).

[MosheFeingold]

37. Do it at the state level

Start with a national registry, then get the Democratic states to start confiscation.

You eat an elephant one bite at a time.

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. That might work in a handful of states.

But only a handful. States aren't ever wholly "blue" or "red," they're all purple. There are millions of gun owners in Democratically-held states that would oppose confiscation. In a lot of Democratic western states, Democrats have guns at an only slightly lower rate than Republicans.

I think the only way any states will see confiscation of civilian firearms is if the nation breaks up into regional polities (which I consider inevitable, by the way). I could see a polity formed from several northeastern states banning civilian firearms and even conducting confiscation. California, which I would expect to go it alone in the event of a break-up of the union, might (although that's not a given). Nowhere else would this fly.

[S-Limer]

40. Try this another way...

In your post above, substitute the 2nd amendment for the first for the overall topic. Then substitute democratic for republican. Substitute "confiscate" for prosecute.

My point is simple. The firearm is part of the American double helix. Speech and self-defense are viewed as timeless virtues of humanity that Americans particularly treasure in raw independent form. Progressivism and conservatism are in a similar vein both needed. Guns are not going away. If you are under the seductive trance of demographic/milennial liberal social terraforming, allow me to pop that bubble:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/03/10/287314912/4-reasons-the-pew-millennials-report-should-worry-democrats-too

People under 30 appear to believe the government should largely butt out of marijuana use, bedroom decisions, and personal firearm use. Perhaps there is a common thread to the Paul and Bernie voters out there. Möbius band of sorts.

[Big_Mike]

42. Who is going to do this confiscation?

You do realize that this dream is exactly why people do not register weapons when loved ones pass away. I know many here in CA that refuse to register any weapon they have regardless of what the state law says. So, what are you going to have, informants like in the Soviet Union to denounce their neighbors and the police drive an armored vehicle through the walls of the house to look for weapons that were only imagined?

Don't go counting on the cops, the military, or most especially the National Guard for that. Ain't a gonna happen.

[Lizzie Poppet]

43. Preashing to the choir, amigo.

I've tried to make that point in multiple threads: LEOs and the military/NG, in the main, support civilian ownership of firearms. A lot of them feel every bit as strongly about that as do so many civilian gun owners. Some would obey orders to confiscate; some woudl not, and I'd bet money the latter group is larger, probably a lot larger.

I don't live in a registration state, but I have no doubt that if a law were passed here in Oregon, compliance would be no better than it is elsewhere, and probably lower than most.

[mwrguy]

9. "a wonderful opportunity, and a wonderful moment, to really make significant change"

Strike while the iron is hot.

[rockfordfile]

11. A good start

[dpatbrown]

12. Long, long overdue!

[Triana]

13. . . .

[trof]

14. I like the 'B(ernie)/leftie' logo.

As opposed to the 'H(illary)/rightie' logo.

[Cha]

18. Thank you, President Obama!

[GGJohn]

21. The problem I suspect he's running into is that EO's only apply to the Executive branch of the

govt., this is more a states issue, many states already have background checks for all firearms transactions.

[flamingdem]

27. A step in the right direction and let's hope there are

many to follow.

[pipoman]

33. No, won't and can't happen

The President nor the feds have jurisdiction over intrastate noncommercial sales of legal personal property.

What he can and should do with EO is require a regulatory change to the FFL licensure requiring FFL dealers to do background checks on private sales upon request. He can set the fee for these checks at a reasonable level and require they are done in a timely manner. This is long overdue and essential to encourage states to require checks on private sales.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. That would be a good step.

I can see more an more states requiring UBCs. We have them here in Oregon.

[pipoman]

39. As it is now states have to fund the system of checks

as Colorado is finding out. Since FFL dealers are not required to do the checks many are refusing, charging way too much, or making them unreasonably lengthy.

If it was required of FFL dealers I suspect a lot of private sellers would voluntarily do them...I know I would....