Export thread
Here are Obama's 23 new Gun Control proposals / actions.
#1
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
We have a couple floating around gun control threads, but this seems like its own topic:
The President of the United States of America said:1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."
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."
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."
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."
5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."
11. "Nominate an ATF director."
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
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."
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
#2
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
Seems fairly reasonable to me... mostly about making background checks more comprehensive and easier to implement which I think a lot of people would agree with.
#3
Dave
Dave
I got no problem with any of that.
#4
Eriol
Eriol
Thank you for just "posting the 23" things. So many damned articles dance around it or give 1 or 2 highlights and that's it. Glad for the verbatim, but can you please also post a link to where it's stated semi-officially? I believe you, but it's good to have references as well.
#5
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I just found it on the front page of I think CNN and Fox News.Thank you for just "posting the 23" things. So many damned articles dance around it or give 1 or 2 highlights and that's it. Glad for the verbatim, but can you please also post a link to where it's stated semi-officially? I believe you, but it's good to have references as well.
#6
drifter
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf
Sorry, wrong link.
Wait, yes it is, just not neatly summarized.
Here's a link to the list.
drifter
Wait, yes it is, just not neatly summarized.
Here's a link to the list.
#7
David
David
Fox News posting something verbatim without filtering or pick-and-choose commentary? Someone check the thermostat in Hell.
#8
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I honestly don't remember which I got this from, I opened up a handful of online news sources just to compare/contrast, and I remember Fox and CNN both had that exact same text in the middle of some commentary (that I left out)Fox News posting something verbatim without filtering or pick-and-choose commentary? Someone check the thermostat in Hell.
#9
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
They can disseminate news once in a while, but wait for prime-time and then bullshit mountain will start raining down.Fox News posting something verbatim without filtering or pick-and-choose commentary? Someone check the thermostat in Hell.
#10
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Their morning show has a lot of the most putrid little excerpts I've seen. And the website is insulting 24/7They can disseminate news once in a while, but wait for prime-time and then bullshit mountain will start raining down.
#11
strawman
strawman
These are the limit of what the executive orders can accomplish, and were signed this afternoon.
Now he's going to be taking his other plans to congress, which include:
- Limiting gun magazine capacity to ten rounds
- Banning assault style weapons
- Requiring every gun sale include both a background and mental health check
Now he's going to be taking his other plans to congress, which include:
- Limiting gun magazine capacity to ten rounds
- Banning assault style weapons
- Requiring every gun sale include both a background and mental health check
#12
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Only thing of those three I agree with is the bottom but then I don't have checks ran on me because I have my concealed handgun license so yeah. That and I don't think mental patients should have firearms (or felons)These are the limit of what the executive orders can accomplish, and were signed this afternoon.
Now he's going to be taking his other plans to congress, which include:
- Limiting gun magazine capacity to ten rounds
- Banning assault style weapons
- Requiring every gun sale include both a background and mental health check
#13
Azurephoenix
I totally agree with guns sales requiring both a background and mental health check.
Magazine capacity to ten rounds is more lenient than what we have in Canada lol.
Azurephoenix
The one in bold is far too nebulous to gain any real traction. There's no real definition of "assault style". Is is based on caliber? Action? Accessories? Looks scary?These are the limit of what the executive orders can accomplish, and were signed this afternoon.
Now he's going to be taking his other plans to congress, which include:
- Limiting gun magazine capacity to ten rounds
- Banning assault style weapons
- Requiring every gun sale include both a background and mental health check
I totally agree with guns sales requiring both a background and mental health check.
Magazine capacity to ten rounds is more lenient than what we have in Canada lol.
#14
strawman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#United_States_Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
strawman
I'm pretty sure they're just going back to the old definition, but a bit more stringent. he old definition is pretty easy to comprehend, and can be found here:The one in bold is far too nebulous to gain any real traction. There's no real definition of "assault style". Is is based on caliber? Action? Accessories? Looks scary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#United_States_Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
#15
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
Who cares if a rifle has a pistol grip and a telescoping stock. The key thing is the action of the firearm and the ability to put out high volumes of fire. This kind of legislation will not do anything to make weapons less dangerous. Not by a long shot. Technically most old battle rifles would be exempt from "assault weapon" status even though they are deadly as hell.I'm pretty sure they're just going back to the old definition, but a bit more stringent. he old definition is pretty easy to comprehend, and can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#United_States_Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
#16
GasBandit
GasBandit
A lot of that is nebulous. I mean...
"Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
What the hell does that even mean? That they're just half-assing it now? That they'll be diverting resources away from vice and other departments to increase focus on crimes involving firearms? Wha?
"Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
Uh, actually, it does.
Copied directly (do a search for "gun" to find it"):
"Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
What the hell does that even mean? That they're just half-assing it now? That they'll be diverting resources away from vice and other departments to increase focus on crimes involving firearms? Wha?
"Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
Uh, actually, it does.
Copied directly (do a search for "gun" to find it"):
‘‘(c) PROTECTION OFSECONDAMENDMENTGUNRIGHTS.—øAs
added by section 10101(e)(2)¿
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection
(a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any in-formation relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed
firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property
of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition by an individual.
#17
strawman
strawman
That's why it was allowed to lapse. Studies showed it didn't decrease violence, and people seemed to recognize that those items in the list didn't actually help kill people much more than the rifle alone would have.Who cares if a rifle has a pistol grip and a telescoping stock. The key thing is the action of the firearm and the ability to put out high volumes of fire. This kind of legislation will not do anything to make weapons less dangerous. Not by a long shot. Technically most old battle rifles would be exempt from "assault weapon" status even though they are deadly as hell.
#18
Necronic
Necronic
With the increasing quality and accesibility of 3D printers I don't think it's reasonable to regulate gun parts much longer. Regulating ammo really may be the best way to go.
#19
Azurephoenix
Can you imagine the black market this would create for ammunition?[DOUBLEPOST=1358371171][/DOUBLEPOST]
I guess that makes sense. I mean really... someone with an M1A is going to be just as deadly as someone with an AR-15 (more deadly in my opinion because of the more powerful cartridge).
Azurephoenix
With the increasing quality and accesibility of 3D printers I don't think it's reasonable to regulate gun parts much longer. Regulating ammo really may be the best way to go.
Can you imagine the black market this would create for ammunition?[DOUBLEPOST=1358371171][/DOUBLEPOST]
That's why it was allowed to lapse. Studies showed it didn't decrease violence, and people seemed to recognize that those items in the list didn't actually help kill people much more than the rifle alone would have.
I guess that makes sense. I mean really... someone with an M1A is going to be just as deadly as someone with an AR-15 (more deadly in my opinion because of the more powerful cartridge).
#20
strawman
strawman
If guns and ammunition are difficult to buy they will instead be stolen.
I don't think the availability of 3D printers is really going to alter the regulation equation much, especially not in the next 5 years.
I don't think the availability of 3D printers is really going to alter the regulation equation much, especially not in the next 5 years.
#21
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I'd only agree with #2 if this only applies to background checks for guns. If it applies to ALL background checks then it would make discrimination against the mentally ill even worse than it already is. You would essentially be creating an underclass of people who would never employable through no fault of their own.
#22
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
They need to make a database of all the gun crimes in America. List they type, caliber and capacity of the guns used. I'll bet my remaining nut that the vast majority will be sub $200 crap pistols (7-10 shots) or revolvers with 6 or 5 capacity. These small guns will normally be illegally acquired, especially in towns like Chicago. Assault rifles are very rarely used in the commission of a crime. They are too obvious.
It is just odd to me that law abiding citizens are being punished for the actions of criminals or the insane.
It is just odd to me that law abiding citizens are being punished for the actions of criminals or the insane.
#23
Necronic
The nice thing about regulating ammo is:
1) It has a shelf-life (so you can grandfather existing ammo cache's but they will dwindle overtime)
2) While people can make their own ammo, there is already a system in place to trace gunpowder.[DOUBLEPOST=1358372155][/DOUBLEPOST]
Necronic
That's basically saying "We shouldn't regulate the ownership of nerve gas". This is a cop-out I hear in all sorts of fallacious security arguments: The security is not 100%, therefore it does not provide security. That's not how it works and anyone with anti-virus software knows that.If guns and ammunition are difficult to buy they will instead be stolen.
5 years is not far away at all.I don't think the availability of 3D printers is really going to alter the regulation equation much, especially not in the next 5 years.
The nice thing about regulating ammo is:
1) It has a shelf-life (so you can grandfather existing ammo cache's but they will dwindle overtime)
2) While people can make their own ammo, there is already a system in place to trace gunpowder.[DOUBLEPOST=1358372155][/DOUBLEPOST]
Don't worry, responsible recreational drug users learned to accept this years ago. They can help you learn to cope.It is just odd to me that law abiding citizens are being punished for the actions of criminals or the insane.
#24
Zappit
Zappit
I like it. It's a start, but I like it.
We'll wait about five more minutes for the NRA to release their Official Shitfit on this. Or the next ad...funny how the hypocrite ad was essentially people with guns targeting children - again.
We'll wait about five more minutes for the NRA to release their Official Shitfit on this. Or the next ad...funny how the hypocrite ad was essentially people with guns targeting children - again.
#25
Eriol
I know there's a boatload of other types of laws I'm probably missing that make sense, but still, saying that killing somebody with a gun deserves more punishment than killing somebody with a knife is the kind of insanity I mean.
Eriol
I'd say that the vast majority of laws on the books fall into that. The one's that don't are akin to "don't murder, don't steal" and maybe a few regulatory things like contract law and such. Beyond that, most laws put restrictions on people who already obey the law and aren't looking to start shit, but "may" (or it's hoped it will) discourage those that are law-breakers already. They don't, but hey, that's the thought.It is just odd to me that law abiding citizens are being punished for the actions of criminals or the insane.
I know there's a boatload of other types of laws I'm probably missing that make sense, but still, saying that killing somebody with a gun deserves more punishment than killing somebody with a knife is the kind of insanity I mean.
#26
MindDetective
MindDetective
"May not require" is not the same thing as "can't ask".[DOUBLEPOST=1358372610][/DOUBLEPOST]
Regulation doesn't mean outright banning. I think you can regulate (especially tracking!) without outright prohibition.If guns and ammunition are difficult to buy they will instead be stolen.
I don't think the availability of 3D printers is really going to alter the regulation equation much, especially not in the next 5 years.
#28
Espy
Espy
GUYS.
THIS IS WHAT HITLER DID BEFORE HE STARTED PUTTING PEOPLE IN SECRET PRISONS.
THIS IS WHAT HITLER DID BEFORE HE STARTED PUTTING PEOPLE IN SECRET PRISONS.
#29
strawman
Guns aren't illegal to own, so ammunition is going to be cheap and plentiful. Stealing it is going to be trivial, nevermind simply buying it on the black market.
A better analogy would be alcohol. A minor isn't allowed to purchase it illegally, and yet if a minor merely desires to drink alcohol they can get it from a variety of sources.
Regulating ammunition may, as you seem to think, go some way towards preventing violence, but I don't think it's going to do much more than regulating the gun itself. You're talking about a tiny, tiny margin.
strawman
Nerve gas isn't a great analogy, since it's illegal to own in any amount - there is, for all intents and purposes, none to be stolen. If you want nerve gas your only option is to import it, or manufacture it yourself.That's basically saying "We shouldn't regulate the ownership of nerve gas". This is a cop-out I hear in all sorts of fallacious security arguments: The security is not 100%, therefore it does not provide security. That's not how it works and anyone with anti-virus software knows that.
Guns aren't illegal to own, so ammunition is going to be cheap and plentiful. Stealing it is going to be trivial, nevermind simply buying it on the black market.
A better analogy would be alcohol. A minor isn't allowed to purchase it illegally, and yet if a minor merely desires to drink alcohol they can get it from a variety of sources.
Regulating ammunition may, as you seem to think, go some way towards preventing violence, but I don't think it's going to do much more than regulating the gun itself. You're talking about a tiny, tiny margin.
#30
Necronic
Necronic
Doesn't have to be nerve gas, how about precursors for meth, or heroin processing equipment? Perfectly legal to own for certain organizations. I work with it daily. Totally illegal for civilians to own. Your logic is right in that there are people who steal this stuff. But your logic fails because the amount of people that will risk stealing it doesn't come near the level of people that would misuse it if anyone could have it.
Same goes for the regulations put on psuedafed. That has actually successfully limited the production of methamphetamine.[DOUBLEPOST=1358388620][/DOUBLEPOST]Or how about passports or prescription drugs. Totally legal to own them, and they are tied to individuals. Is there theft and a black market? Of course. Should there be no security behind them?
....
Same goes for the regulations put on psuedafed. That has actually successfully limited the production of methamphetamine.[DOUBLEPOST=1358388620][/DOUBLEPOST]Or how about passports or prescription drugs. Totally legal to own them, and they are tied to individuals. Is there theft and a black market? Of course. Should there be no security behind them?
....
#31
Reverent-one
At least part of that, the FBI already does.
Reverent-one
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8They need to make a database of all the gun crimes in America. List they type, caliber and capacity of the guns used. I'll bet my remaining nut that the vast majority will be sub $200 crap pistols (7-10 shots) or revolvers with 6 or 5 capacity. These small guns will normally be illegally acquired, especially in towns like Chicago. Assault rifles are very rarely used in the commission of a crime. They are too obvious.
It is just odd to me that law abiding citizens are being punished for the actions of criminals or the insane.
At least part of that, the FBI already does.
#32
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I don't understand why this hasn't already been law for years.- Requiring every gun sale include both a background and mental health check
#33
Krisken
Krisken
Pretty much, QP. Only thing I can come up with is the manufacturers don't want that because they'd sell less guns/not make money off tragedies.
#34
strawman
Even once they figure out a way to do it that the Supreme Court finds acceptable, it will be difficult to enforce. About the only way to find and punish those that do sell weapons privately without the required checks would be to create a gun tracking and sales database, and register every transaction.
This, however, is likely to conflict with the "infringed" part of the second amendment.
strawman
Legally it's difficult to write a law that doesn't run afoul of the constitution that gets in the way of private person to person sales.I don't understand why this hasn't already been law for years.
Even once they figure out a way to do it that the Supreme Court finds acceptable, it will be difficult to enforce. About the only way to find and punish those that do sell weapons privately without the required checks would be to create a gun tracking and sales database, and register every transaction.
This, however, is likely to conflict with the "infringed" part of the second amendment.
#35
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Over the last 15 years the GOP has stripped the ATF of its worthwhile powers. So there is nearly no enforcement of gun laws. Dealers don't even need to do an inventory. And dealers will likely only see an ATF agent once every 17 years.
#36
Necronic
Necronic
"mental health check" is an incredibly broad and vague requirement. It also assumes that psychologists/therapists/etc can actually easily and reliably identify people that are a threat to others or themselves, which has historically been shown to not be the case (sadly). The lack of rigour in a "mental health check" basically makes it untennable.I don't understand why this hasn't already been law for years.
#37
Necronic
Necronic
I'll just go ahead an leave this here....
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1389...84373103351&action=collapse_widget&id=7766935
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1389...84373103351&action=collapse_widget&id=7766935
#38
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
A mental health diagnosis is a pretty private matter. Unless this person is in the flinging poo or actual killer variety, no one else gets to know.
#39
Dave
Dave
That just reads like an Onion article. Bogus is a very unfortunate name to have in a research paper.I'll just go ahead an leave this here....
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1389...84373103351&action=collapse_widget&id=7766935
#40
Necronic
Necronic
To me it reads like a pretty thoroughly researched paper.
#41
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I think giving the ATF back some of its teeth is the thing for which I'm most excited. The rest are vague or just incredibly insulting to me (pretty much anything with the words "mental health")
#42
strawman
strawman
Citation? I'm curious what powers the ATF had fifteen years ago that they don't have now, and what legislation or court cases removed those powers.Over the last 15 years the GOP has stripped the ATF of its worthwhile powers.
#43
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The Senate must approve an ATF Director, which they have not done in 8 years. The current director is only working part time.
All the cuts to their power just came through as riders on appropriation bills.
From teh wiki
All the cuts to their power just came through as riders on appropriation bills.
From teh wiki
[DOUBLEPOST=1358440996][/DOUBLEPOST]Also the Daily show had a good rundown of the changes to the ATF.Directors
A list of recent ATF directors:[40]
Senate approval controversy
- 1970–1978 Rex D. Davis (b. 1924 – d. 2008)[8]
- 1979–1982 G.R. Dickerson
- 1982–1993 Stephen Higgins (b. 1938)
- 1993–1999 John Magaw (b. 1935)
- 1999–2004 Bradley A. Buckles (b. 1949)
- 2004 Edgar A. Domenech (1st time—acting)
- 2004–2006 Carl Truscott (b. 1957)
- 2006 Edgar A. Domenech (2nd time—acting)
- 2006–2009 Michael Sullivan (acting)
- 2009 Ronald "Ronnie" A. Carter (acting)
- 2009–2011 Kenneth E. Melson (acting)
- 2011–present B. Todd Jones (acting)
The job of ATF director has required Senate confirmation only since 2006, but that has never happened, leaving the agency in the hands of acting directors.[41]
The National Rifle Association of America strongly opposes President Obama's nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers. Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a 'recess appointment,' in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly-elected U.S. Senators. Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police's (IACP) 'Gun Violence Reduction Project,' a 'partnership' with the Joyce Foundation. Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels. Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.[42]“The bottom line is the gun lobby will oppose any nominee who promises to be a strong and effective director of the ATF,” said Dennis Henigan, vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Indeed, it was persistent lobbying by the NRA. that helped to get the confirmation requirement instated. In 2007, Bush nominated Mike Sullivan for the position, a U.S. Attorney from Boston with a good reputation, but Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Michael D. Crapo, both from Idaho, blocked his confirmation after complaints from an Idaho gun dealer. In 2010, Obama nominated Andrew Traver, head of the ATF’s Denver division, to fill the top spot, but the Senate is yet to hold his confirmation hearings as of December 26, 2012.[43][44]
#44
strawman
strawman
Well, the Wacco siege left the ATF with a pretty bad image that it never really recovered from.
In fact, we're coming up on the 20th anniversary this February.
In fact, we're coming up on the 20th anniversary this February.
#45
GasBandit
GasBandit
The ATF has been some of the most egregious perpetrators of jackbooted authoritarian thuggery in living memory. I'm rather surprised to read Charlie posting favorably of them.
#46
Frank
Frank
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boomThe Senate must approve an ATF Director, which they have not done in 8 years. The current director is only working part time.
All the cuts to their power just came through as riders on appropriation bills.
From teh wiki
[DOUBLEPOST=1358440996][/DOUBLEPOST]Also the Daily show had a good rundown of the changes to the ATF.
#47
Dave
Dave
You totally beat me to this. DAMN YOOOOOOOU!
#48
strawman
strawman
"...not just a traditional southern wedding gift."
#49
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Clinton called it the ATF, The Saturday Night Bureau..."...not just a traditional southern wedding gift."
#50
strawman
strawman
Obama's wrong to go after guns. There's a simpler solution:
