Obama set to unveil curbs on gun sellers

[alp227]

Source: Politico

President Barack Obama’s bid to assert himself in his final year will begin with long-awaited executive actions on gun control, expected to be released next week, shortly after he returns to Washington.

The White House is putting finishing touches on several measures in an effort to make progress on curbing gun violence, an issue the president and close aides have found frustratingly intractable, before the race to replace him enters prime time.

According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.

The administration is also expected to impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-guns-gun-control-217234

[Kingofalldems]

1. Look out below!

[lancer78]

2. Seems reasonable.

I just hate the precedent setting of executive orders. We were not happy when the man-child did it. We shouldn't be happy when our guy does it.

[doc03]

3. There very likely goes our chances in 2016 n/t

[eggplant]

5. Oh, please. n/t

[trillion]

8. Most people want gun control

[EL34x4]

32. Based on what?

Poll after poll shows support for gun control is declining with Americans in favor of increased gun control now in the minority.

[yellowcanine]

14. Your concern is noted.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. These seem like minor measures, should be minor impact. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. Possibly. But as a gun owner...

...and sometime gun rights advocate, I have no objection whatsoever to the measures cited in the OP. I've never liked the not-uncommon sight of someone who is obviously "in the business" operating w/o an FFL as a private citizen (that is, they have big tables full of merchandise at gun shows, including right up to the current number of guns they can transfer without hitting the "now you have to get an FFL" limit). Lowering that number to something that actually corresponds with a private individual selling off a couple unused guns is sensible...and well within presidential prerogative.

The president can't mandate universal background checks, nor can Congress: intrastate transfers would undoubtedly be found to be a state-level matter, not a federal one. But there may be a way for the federal government to strongly encourage states to pass UBCs. Financial incentive, perhaps?

[Skittles]

45. yes, we must cater to gun humping cowards

OR ELSE!!!

[Sunlei]

4. I love that Executive Action Man

[mwrguy]

6. Got a pen and a phone... fuck congress!

[trillion]

9. ?

[Yupster]

11. Boy that sounds really bad to me

Do you really want one man setting the rules for a nation with his pen and phone?

Screw the whole outdated idea of congress passing laws.

Boy that sounds bad.

[CTyankee]

19. well, yes, when they are majorly owned by the NRA, who was elected by nobody.

And we know all about the redistricting brought about by major $$$ of the gun lobby and other groups that are certainly not members of DU.

So yes, fuck that congress, indeed, for NOT DOING the will of the people...

[Hekate]

7. GOBAMA, and screw the NRA and their dupes. It is so far past time to do this. nt

[trillion]

10. +10000

[forthemiddle]

16. YES!!! and I can't wait until President Cruz

figures out what new executive actions he can take to curb our other rights. He will be looking for new ways to curb abortion and womens rights, and I am sure his lawyers will help him find them.

Even though we might not always like who controls each part of it, we have 3 sections of government for a reason!

[Hekate]

23. You'd like that prediction to come true? La-de-dah.

I'm painfully aware that Executive Orders can become a political football-- just google for the Global Gag Order + women's clinics.

However, the House of Reps part of the lawmaking branch of the government has done damn near nothing for 7 years but try to shut down the government and oppose every single solitary effort of Obama's to improve our lives.

Gods willing we will have enough Democrats in both houses to actually help a Democratic President to build on Obama's many substantial achievements, and yes, that includes this Executive Order.

But that is going to take hard work and some measure of unity on the part of the ground troops of the party ( i.e. you and me) to get those many many Democrats elected. It does not happen by magic.

[jen63]

41. Do you

not think Cruz would do that any way?!

[frizzled]

12. Obama must feel like he's trying to stop an arterial wound with a Band-Aid

nt

[trillion]

13. Good

[madville]

18. The crazy thing is that the SCOTUS

Agrees mostly with the guy on the left side of the picture.

[CTyankee]

20. I would hope more people on DU resemble the guy on the right, but I am fearful...

[Yupster]

21. Something I still can't understand is how can a Doctorate degree holder from Harvard

think it was Constitutional to make recess appointments when the senate wasn't in recess?

It's not even a big deal, it was seats on the NLRB or something, but that was the most blatant in your face unconstitutional abuse I've ever seen, and about such a minor issue.

How could a guy with his education think that was okay?

[Hekate]

24. Excuse me? We've got the most dysfunctional Congress in US history, with more days off...

...that days in session. Their leaders actually shook hands the day Obama was inaugurated on an agreement to make him a one term president by opposing each and every thing Obama wanted to get done. The GOP members made a mockery of their oath of office, the US government, and in some cases the citizenry itself (the letter to Iran).

And you think President Obama did something heinous?

And you are griping that they were not actually not in session?

[Yupster]

25. Everything you said could be absolutely true

but none of it gives the President the right to violate the Constitution, even in small ways, and even if he really, really wants to.

[onecaliberal]

27. Oh I don't know... Maybe because Congress WASNT really in session

They were using that as a tool to go around presidential nominations. Refusing to give people an up or down vote for months and years because they're not in your party, doesn't constitute abuse to you? Spare me really. Your comment is very fucking weak tea.

[Yupster]

28. Well the Supreme Court voted that the President violated the Constitution

and those appointments were struck down.

The vote was 9-0 meaning Kagan and Sotomayor agreed that the President violated the Constitution.

It was the easiest case ever because who decides when a body is in recess? Any of us have been on committees. A chairman hits the gavel and says, "we stand in recess". You can't have an outside body or person decide a group is in recess.

That's obvious to everyone including all nine Supreme Court Justices, but the question is, why would the President violate the Constitution so blatantly on such a minor issue?

[onecaliberal]

31. But when bush did the same shit they yawned.

If congress would do their fucking jobs those appointments would never have happened.
Why would anyone IGNORE the fact that congress has refused Obama's nominees a vote at historic levels? Answer the question. I already know but I'm sure republican obstruction and treason is of no worry to you. I'm done with you.

[Yupster]

34. You must understand that it doesn't matter

whether the President hates the Congress a million times infinity percent.

He still can't violate his oath of office. He knew what he was doing was unconstitutional and did it anyway.

My interest is why would such an educated man blatantly violate the Constitution, especially on such a minor issue.

[onecaliberal]

36. But you're okay with Congress NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

It's not about hate. But I see you don't answer the question and ignore that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[Yupster]

37. I hate congress not doing its job

The Constitutional answer to that is to elect a new congress.

The answer to that is not to violate the Constitution.

[onecaliberal]

38. Congress not doing its job is ALSO a violation of the constitution.

On Edit: the republicans have cheated and rigged the maps so that it's nearly impossible to get a congress that works. When you talk about what the president did in comparison to the cheating, lying, election strealing republicans it's laughable.

[Yupster]

39. No, Congress not doing its job is not a violation of the Constitution

In the early days of the Republic, congress would only meet for a few months a year. There were years where they passed almost no laws. That was not against the Constitution. They can choose to either act or not act on any issue. If you don't like the way they're acting or not acting, then elect new ones.

'It's too hard electing new ones' is not an excuse to violate the Constitution.

[GGJohn]

40. Show us where in the Constitution it says that. eom.

[deathrind]

29. Everybody had left.

Except for a couple people who went on the floor and gaveled in the morning and than went back and did the same in the afternoon. So they could say they were still in session.

[branford]

42. Separation of Powers.

Except for some very limited and delineated circumstances, Congress decides when Congress is in session, not the executive branch. That's the reason why SCOTUS voted 9-0 against the president.

Elections have consequences.

[deathrind]

44. That is a sad reply.

Elections do have consquencs. But not nearly as devastating as the consquencs that are coming due to replays like that.

[madville]

17. Doesn't look like much

I doubt the effects of any of these orders will be visible to most, they pretty much just clarify or tweak existing definitions and rules.

Just seems like doing something to do something since none of these changes would have prevented any of the mass shootings that I know of.

[NutmegYankee]

22. That's all an executive order can do.

An executive order (EO) is just directing the executive branch agencies to modify the implementation of an existing law. It cannot go beyond the laws scope however. It is possible for Congress to block an EO by passing a law that says no funding can be used in the implementation, but that is subject to veto.

An example of EO's are those that the president issues to set the pay raises for the Civil Service. He signs the pay raise out and OPM modifies the scales and the raise is implemented. The only thing that can stop it is Congress mandating no raise in the appropriations bills.

[hack89]

26. Political theater.

have no problem with the EOs but political theater non the less.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. These are sensible steps.

Mandating truly universal background checks is almost certainly beyond the legal scope of an executive order; it would likely be found to be a state-level prerogative, not a federal one, to require them within a state's borders. But reducing the number of guns a person can sell over a short period of time without having to become a licensed dealer is something the president can do, and it's a good idea. The rather high current number of transactions before you have to apply for an FFL was probably set to accommodate collectors...but most serious collectors are FFL holders. The much lower number is more in line with what a regular gun owner might buy or sell for private use.

[TeddyR]

35. These changes seem unlikely to have a lot of impact

But I'm not opposed to them. I am generally opposed to the use of executive orders - we have three branches of government for a reason and won't always have a Democrat in office.

[NickB79]

43. I predict a lot of DU'ers are going to be pissed over this

And I'm not talking about the pro-gun DU'ers.

For all the claims that Obama could simply legislate tough new gun control laws with an executive order if Congress failed to act, it turns out he really can't (as a lot of other DU'ers here kept pointing out).

All he can do legally is put a hard number on what does or doesn't constitute a gun dealer (something that really should have been done decades ago) and put into place action to report when dealers (not private citizens) lose guns.

There is also rumor of having the ATF investigate anyone who fails a background check, which is ironically something the NRA and other gun groups have been calling for for years when they talk about "enforcing the gun laws we already have."

So, a few basic, common-sense laws that should have some impact on the flow of illegal guns, but nothing sweeping. No universal background checks. No new assault weapon ban.

[TomCADem]

46. It is strikes me a small regulatory type action...

...that will still be overblown by the right and some on the left as some sort of executive over reach. The definition of who is a gun seller is the type of thing that would be delegated to an administrative agency. Still, given the gun lobby, expect the take-our-guns types to go out of their minds.