First off, the executive orders.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...violence-plan/
Most of these are quite reasonable IMO. Some in fact have been called for by gun owners for years. This one is notable:
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Isn't that putting security in schools, i.e. putting guns in schools like the NRA suggested? Think anyone will talk about Obama "caving to the NRA"?
I have a few issues with this one, but you can always just refuse to answer:
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Still not "bad". I worry about where a few things will go but nothing major, hair on fire, and that's obviously from someone convinced the President would round up every gun in America if he could. He supported all the Illinois efforts to do so.
Now for the stuff he wants congress to do. Sadly not as good. Fortunately tough to pass.
1) Near universal background checks. No one is "against" background checks, they're just terrified that the "gun registry" is coming and don't trust the government to stop at just the checks. Same thing we faced with the Brady Bill that established the check system.
Exceptions for some things like family transfers. I'm not 100% against this, but I am afraid of the registry.
My biggest concern is this: since this will do nothing to stop the next mass shooting, I get this sense I'm giving something up full well knowing they're just going to come back for my next chip and I have fewer chips to give. Purely a strategic/political reaction, but also the truth. i'm 100% sure it has nothing to do with school shootings, but does tie to gun crime generally, but it's the mass shootings that create the push for these things.
Biggest point: this has NOTHING to do with Newtown, Aurora, Va Tech, none of them. None of those guns were bought outside the background check system. this is just a political rider on this tragedy. it may even be an OK idea, but it doesn't do a THING to improve the safety of our children.
I'd support it with some trepidation. I worry when I sell a gun to someone if they're selling it to someone who shouldn't have it. I do what I can, but if I had to run the background check on the person they sold it to I have to admit I'd feel a LOT better.
2) Assault weapons. Totally idiotic. Has no chance of preventing another shooting, and so few people are killed with "assault weapons" it's minute and none of them will be stopped either.
Totally for show, does nothing to improve public safety. Since the justification to remove a right like owning a particular gun must be an improvement in public safety significant enough to justify removing the right, this fails on its face.
Dead set against this one.
3) High cap magazine ban. Even worse. Has even less chance of preventing the next shooting or reducing the number killed, and has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence either, as opposed ot having almost nothing to do with it re assault weapons.
It also would cover handguns, which is a huge pain in the butt but also can limit self defense. In something like a home invasion people will not be great shots, will simply shoot down the hall at their attacker. They won't have multiple magazines tucked in their pajamas nor will be in great position to change them. Having more ammo in one magazine is a benefit. with mass shootings they're prepared, they're ready and armed with multiple guns or magazines, the extra 3-4 rounds in the handgun are meaningless. They could safe a life though in a self defense situation.
4) Armor piercing bullet ban Has ANYONE, I mean ANYONE been murdered with armor piercing bullets? Uh, no. You know why? They're ALREADY BANNED for all but the most tightly licensed use. No civilian without a pile of licenses could buy them. Basically weapons manufacturers and military contractors with licenses to construct and discharge explosives.
That's people who make and fire RPGs and such. There is no problem with that ammo being stolen (just like the RPGs), no one else has it, and it's never used in crimes.
So it's only going to impact specialty companies that may defend nuclear facilities and such, the only non-military end users of such things. Why even list this one? Purely for show, I bet no armor piercing rounds have been used in a shooting in decades, since they were banned during the Reagan administration.
So not a big swipe at our rights, but swinging in the wind for no reason. Just silly.
5) Gun Trafficking laws for straw purchases This one is indeterminate till I see the specifics. I can tell you a LOT of people buy guns knowing they'll sell them. some have a person in mind, some just know it's going cheap and they can make some money down the line, some just want to shoot it for a while then will sell it to get their money back out.
There's no clear definition of a "straw purchase" or what finally requires you to have a dealer license based on the above mix of ways in which a gun may be purchased and sold to a third party.
I'd love to see some kind of bright line, "this is what it takes" specificity in the laws.
Ostensibly a "straw purchase" is when a third party buys a gun for a person they know couldn't pass the background check. that's a felony already. Here's the problem: the law doesn't say anything about whether that person has to know it's to avoid the NICS check. It is incredibly vague. Clearly if you're buying a gun for a person you know is a felon that's straw purchasing, but what if you're buying one as a gift for a spouse or buying one you want to shoot but know you'll sell in a month or so to get your money back out? what if you're buying it to resell but you aren't specifically trying to avoid the law and don't know if the person you sell to is qualified or not? the law just doesn't say in exact terms.
so I would LOVE to see some kind of specifications. whether I support them would depend on what they are, but i'd love to see more than this very vague, impossible to implement or prosecute standard we use today.
that is for both straw purchases and what constitute enough selling that you need a license. that is the single most unclear part of all the gun laws. I've personally asked a former deputy director of the ATF regarding some of these distinctions and he couldn't give me an answer. this was at the top of my list of things in my letter to the NRA.
Now the big missing part of this proposal:
Not one, nada, zip, zilch, executive order or legislative proposal to address violence in entertainment or video games. You know, the people who donate big money to Obama and Feinstein.
I didn't expect or want a ban, but he did issue an executive order to study causes of gun violence, why not just one to conduct a study of violence in video games and its impact on children? How about one to study the treatment of children by adult targeted anti-depressants? Some of that could fall under the CDC study, but who not explicitly look at the impact of these things on children whether they pick up a gun or not?
so in summary, the executive actions he's proposed are not IMO a big overstepping of executive authority as they mostly try to enforce existing laws better. something the NRA has pleaded for over many years. Enforce the existing laws rather than keep making new ones. Arrest people trying to buy guns illegally.
the ban part is nonsense and useless and a restriction of our rights. the good news is he's not going to try to do that with executive power, and it should die. Even Reid made a noncommittal "all options should be on the table" statement. that's political talk for "I won't support it but I can't say that on the record." The NRA was a big supporter of his in his last, very close, election. even as a senior democrat he's been an "A" rated politician by the NRA and he needs their support to keep his office.
It should also die in the House.
I think my prediction less than a week after Newtown to a partner of mine will come true, that very little will happen from it. At least federally, clearly New York and other blue states will lose their minds. That's good in that we won't see draconian gun laws, a bad thing in that the anti gun people jumped on this horror and diverted us from a lot of things that could have actually helped prevent these things in the future.
so good for gun rights, bad news for public safety, but b/c the anti-gun people turned it into a gun debate and not a school safety and public safety debate.
Bookmarks