Obama Gun Control Proposals Unveiled, Marking Biggest Legislative Effort In A Generation

This is still part of the first term.

The GOP didn't hesitate to start shitting all over him after the election so he has gone full throttle. The most intense post-election politics I've ever seen.

and not the usual way...going through Congress and then dying in committee?
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

and not via a presidential directive.

We have 3 branches of government for a reason.

Not the time to worry about being nice.

We have three branches for a reason.

And it seems the President agrees with me.

In case you may have missed it, one branch of government is controlled by idiots on the payroll of the NRA.

Good luck to you in your idealistic world that doesn't exist.
Exactly how do you plan to fix it?

The president's exec orders today did not cross a line that you seemed to want them to. He can't ban guns, he can't impliment a ban on assault weapons. Congress must do that.

And nobody stopped him.
We're not in a utopia you know. And we're dealing with thugs, both in congress and the supremes.

And I definitely think Bush was allowed to go way to far with his.

This is just one of those really passionate issues and sometimes people talk past each other

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html




On this issue, he can use EO's justifiably to change some things. He is not overstepping here on the law at all. All that is being changed exists in the executive branch to begin with. He will never get any of it approved of by Congress, anyway. Trying to "fix the House" will not work. It is gerrymandered for a good long while. I doubt we get control of it in 2014. We would need to win by 7% or more over Repubs to even have a shot at it.

I read through them and every single one seems reasonable and within presidential powers.

rammed through legislation through executive order all the time. he started two wars.

and by most accounts definitely stole the 2000 election and probably the 2004 election. In 2004 i remember hearing the Lead Repug in Ohio promising to deliver the state to repugs. problem was that the same person also ran the machines that counted the votes with no audit trails.

I didn't change my views on them just because a democrat was elected.

I think what Obama did today was fine. I think what some people wanted him to do, is not.

We have 3 branches for a reason.

nothing wrong in working to make the checks and balances function properly

regardless if Pres Obama does something or not.

They only way the Pubs can fight back is namecall and deny funding to the programs and the BATF and they are doing that already.

Like repukes would ever, EVER do anything even remotely approaching what the President has done. When assholes block every reasonable approach, going around them is the ONLY solution.

There are 3 branches for a reason.

The exec orders Obama did today do not cross the line into things that congress is responsible for. Working on another AWB and some other issues is the domain of the congress. When it comes to that he can propose, but congress must pass.

due to jerrymandering.

the supreme court has more right wing members because of the 2000 stolen election.

these are not the people we look to for good laws and reason.

so an AWB, for example, would require Congressional action.

A: None. We LOVE the dark, so's we have an excuse to break out our night vision goggles!

But at only 500 million, I wonder if the program will not be too small. Isn't that the cost of one fighter jet?

But "measured and intelligent" aren't their strong suits.

i'd also like to see maximum penalties for straw buyers.

Just a plug for my Pres. He has not even been inaugurated yet and all this is on his plate. He is handling it all, I think, spectacularly well. Let the White House know what you think!

Also... say a prayer or a positive affirmation or send a vibe. I am very concerned by the personal tone of the rhetoric from the Extreme Right. That NRA advert using Sasha and Malia? Way out of bounds!

Is this correct? I really like the increased funding for mental health care in schools. I think that more than anything will make a difference.

in relation to guns.
There are no mental services you can provide to a minor without parental consent.
and crisis counseling is a speciality field ( or damn well should be).

by professionals and well funded and of course with consent. Since a good portion of people shooting up schools are young white males perhaps this might be a resource that would be helpful.

I am playing devil's advocate here, not disagreeing with your comment.

Having worked so many years in the Mental Health field, I have seen several realities which collide with this well intentioned idea of MH staff in schools.

First, in the case of Sandy Hook, the young man's mother was an obvious disturbing influence, and the shooter had been seen by Mental Health people in the past. I do not know of any law which would have allowed discovery and intervention of that disturbed relationship in time to prevent what happened.

Second, that " such a quiet young man " who lives next door may have shown clues to his neighbors, to his school, but there is no law which allows him to be treated against his will on a suspicion of what he MIGHT do.
Exception:
Cal. has a mandatory reporting law, based on what professional think "might happen" in the future ( future is not defined) concerning individuals, but does not provide for any action after the professional makes a report to Dept of Social Services. That's it..only mandatory reporting is required. Having made several of those reports, I have discovered there was no follow up in any of the cases.

I know of at least 6 people within a mile radius of where I live who are "acting weirdly" to my experienced eye, and also know there is no effective intervention possible, until and unless they break a law.
"Poses an immediate danger to self and/or others" is the current standard of legally supported intervention.

It is a sticky wicket, unfortunately.

could order people institutionalized for what would today be considered merely quirky or antisocial behavior. My kid was always shy and introverted, but he has always been calm and abhors violence. I wouldn't want some shrink locking him away for being the quiet guy in school.

However I do think we have to lower the bar a bit in terms of what they can do as far as removing guns from the home.

In Massachusetts we remove guns routinely whenever a restraining order is drawn up.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Mental Health and Social Workers are required to report all serious threats of harm to self or others, at least in Fla and Ala and Ca. where I have worked.
further more, there is a "duty to warn" law, where you have to contact the threatened person to report the threat against them.

I feel a great deal of sadness for the young man, because I feel he was also let down by the system, and probably by his mother.

I have read - and this doesn't make it true - that he was a high-performing autistic boy, in the top class throughout his school years, but once an official diagnosis of autism was made, he was demoted from the top class, simply because of his autism, not because he wasn't capable of the work. An arbitrary decision, made without any personal considerations of where and how the boy might function to the best of his ability.

It appears his mother didn't quite know what to do - she tried home schooling, but that didn't work. (It takes particular skills to undertake that, and not everyone is able to. With the best will in the world, I doubt I could.) She was then considering sending him away to another school, which upset him because he thought she was trying to get rid of him. And with all this going on around her, the silly woman had a house full of guns.

And what about the father? Was he not interested in his son, or was he shut out? He apparently paid maintenance, but was he otherwise disengaged, willingly or otherwise?

I feel for all the children who died and their parents, and for all those who will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. But I also feel great sadness for this poor boy and can't help feeling that with a bit more care and thought from those who were supposed to be responsible for his welfare, this might never have happened. It is also an excellent argument for the greater control of guns in private hands – nobody with any sort of psychological problem should ever have access.

That would describe pretty much 99% of the population! Now, if you narrow it down to diagnosable psychological problems, that would be more than half the population, frankly, when you add in adjustment disorders, phobias, personality disorders, etc etc. "Psychological problems" means anything -- there are very few people who don't have "psychological problems" of one sort or another, even if they're just the everyday "stuff" that most of us blow past and work through as needed.

The problem is, who decides what "psychological problems" preclude gun ownership? Depression? What level of depression?About 1 of every American 10 teens/adults takes antidepressants. (CDC stats) 23% of women in their 40s and 50s take antidepressants. Should prescribing an antidepressant come with notifying authorities and having to turn in your guns if you own them? Boy, how to make people avoid getting their depression treated -- if it were me, I don't own a gun but I also don't want my name going into some sort of national "mentally ill" database!!! If I were depressed and knew that that's what would happen if I sought treatment, I'd avoid treatment like the plague!

Everyone deserves privacy when it comes to their medical records.....except those with diagnosable "mental illnesses," who then lose their rights and become a separate class of "citizens." Their medical information then become the property of the United States government? Ummmmmm, I have a problem with that.

I, too, am a (retired) professional in the psychology field and I can tell you, this is an incredibly thorny area. Someone who is a danger to self or others must be reported to the appropriate authorities and, if there is specific threat, the person(s) or entity threatened must be notified. That is up to trained professionals to determine. But to somehow classify everyone with a "psychological problem" as unfit for gun ownership is untenable, hugely discriminatory and would set understanding of psychological processes back a century!

Enough is enough.

Police officers that work with local schools. Maintain a presence, develop a relationship to the community through the school, etc.

But don't call SRO's 'BS'.

Ours (from the Seattle PD) were very effective in that capacity. It's also an opportunity for a teacher to talk to an officer about a kid that might be dangerous. That happened at our school too. Many hands make light work.

Counselors have their place too, but their reach is limited.

The 'eliminating armor-piercing bullets' piece.

Armor-piercing pistol ammo is already prohibited to the public. Only the Military and Law Enforcement can obtain it. (Part of the 1994 CAWB that is still in effect/didn't sunset)

So... that leaves armor piercing rifle ammo. That's pretty much inclusive of ALL center-fire rifle ammo. If it'll go through a deer, it'll go through a LEO III or IIIa vest without a plate in it, like butter. So I'm curious why that was mentioned, or what the specifics of that would be.

Not like we have criminals running around shooting at people with steel-core ammo that makes... a difference. Comes out of a rifle, it's going right through a human, regardless.

In fact, in wound characteristics, armor-piercing ammo doesn't expand, so it imparts less kinetic energy in meat. Whereas a hunting round (like a soft-nose .30-06) will still penetrate that vest, but it'll mushroom, and dump all it's energy into the meat, causing a much worse wound channel.


Where this might be very important, is in the trafficking piece. By all means, make it all kinds of illegal to export it. Mexico will thank you. (But do that for ALL ammo, come to think of it.)

I don't mind any of these. They don't change anything substantially. I have those evil AW and high-cap mags (if one more person says clip I will flip).

I can support better mental health screenings and universal firearm background checks. Although I would add the provision that if you already have a concealed carry permit (which you go through a strict background check, and have to renew every couple years) you shouldn't be forced to fill out another form.

but what exactly is the purpose of those big mags aside from not having to reload as often? The only answer I've seen so far is "What if fifteen crackheads invade my house at the same time?," which isn't exactly convincing. Other than straight-up laziness, it's hard to see why you'd really miss something like that if they were outlawed.

outside of availability. 30 round mags for such sporting rifles are the standard. If a guy wants to commit a mass murder the second it takes to reload really won't change much. It is a feel good proposal more than anything.

why do some gun enthusiasts object so strongly to banning them? It's not the possibility of needless administrative effort being spent on a "feel good proposal," I'm pretty sure of that. You'd think they'd applaud such proposals in any case, since it takes the heat of more meaningful actions.

I, too, marvel at the stuff that the gun community is willing to declare civil war over. I can only speculate that they've been radicalized by the NRA over the years to believe that any concession, no matter how minor, is unacceptable; the Grover Norquists of the gun world.

I am a good shot at the range but if I am home alone while my hubby is out of town and someone broke in, I probably would have a major adrenalin surge and I would want lots of chances to hit a target as I am sure my accuracy would not be good. I live in a neighborhood with car jackings, home invasions, and an increasing amt of crime which is a shame because when we bought this place which I love it was a nice middle class area. People lost their homes and investors bought them up to rent out.

don't you think with ten shots at close quarters, even wild ones, you would a) do a lot of damage to the invaders, and b) scare the fuckers off?

Also, I thought part of the point of training and practice was to maintain control and accuracy even in the midst of an adrenaline surge. If it doesn't work that way, what's the use?

I would imagine that, after the first shot was fired, neighbors would be waking up and calling police, dogs would be barking, lights would be going on all over the place, and intruders would be wanting to get the hell out of dodge as quickly as possible. Would anyone really stick around for a protracted firefight in someone's home?

As you probably realize, the two terms have been used interchangeably in the shooting community for decades. The NRA doesn't drum you out of the regiment if you say "clip" when what you're talking about is a "magazine." I'm a long-time gun owner, and I know the difference between the two items, just as I know damn well it's no big deal to casually use one term for another. The only reason the matter gets brought up now is when a Gun Enthusiast is making a clumsy attempt to make a gun control advocate look ignorant. It's not working anymore, so let it go.....

eom

There are still millions of ARs and AKs out there, and who knows how many crazies. I think funds should have been included for a buy back of assault-style rifles.

I have a feeling we'll be revisiting this issue sooner rather than later.

Buybacks would be an awesome thing - every AR and AK off the streets is a good thing.

anyone's privacy or put cops at risk going into people's homes to take them.

Buy-backs are generally voluntary, so I am not sure how that would be tied into cops going into people's homes to forcibly remove fire arms.

That makes it safer for everyone.

If guns were to be forcibly confiscated it would put police at risk. I don't think many gun owners would not comply, but there's always a few suicidal nuts out there.

...I support each and every provision.
Kudos to the President!

President Obama’s Gun Control Announcement (19:33 minutes)
VIDEO: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-president-obamas-gun-control-announcement/


Here Are The 23 Executive Actions Pres. Obama Just Signed To Curb Gun Violence
List: http://www.mediaite.com/online/here-are-the-23-executive-actions-pres-obama-just-signed-to-curb-gun-violence/

to the president. Wheeee!! Gonna be a ride but worth it.

This is exciting news. We should be pressuring our reps. For legislation.

Because during it, we all said the NRA was nuts (me included) when they said the President would call for strict gun control if he wins reelection. Guess they were right after all.