Biden to deliver a primetime address on guns

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Yahoo! News

President Joe Biden will deliver a special prime-time address on guns Thursday evening amid a slew of mass shootings and as negotiations continue on Capitol Hill to pass even modest changes to the nation’s laws.

The decision to give the speech was not made until midday Thursday, according to two people familiar with the president’s schedule, underscoring the sense inside the White House that they needed to show more involvement on the issue. The speech will be delivered at 7:30 p.m. The topic, per the White House, will be “the recent tragic mass shootings, and the need for Congress to act to pass commonsense laws to combat the epidemic of gun violence that is taking lives every day.”

To date, Biden has comforted the families of victims in separate trips to Buffalo, N.Y. and Uvalde, Texas, and he’s urged Congress to act. But the White House has stressed that they are leaving legislative discussions and congressional mechanics up to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and lead Democratic negotiator Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

On Wednesday, an official told POLITICO that Biden’s legislative affairs team has been in close contact with the Hill since the tragedies in Uvalde and Buffalo, logging dozens of calls with leadership, committees with jurisdiction, and with members who are involved in the negotiations. Biden also has vowed to meet in person with lawmakers, who are working on a scaled down bipartisan bill.

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/biden-weighing-prime-time-address-161546198.html

[Stuart G]

1. K and R Thank You for Posting

[BumRushDaShow]

2. You're welcome

Am glad it's a little "earlier" as a "Prime time address".

(early bird me starts having issues with things that start at 9 pm and later )

[Traildogbob]

3. Good for him

When I saw exactly who was in the negotiating team on gun reform, not just the idiots like Graham, Collins, and Cornyn, but also “Manchinama”, I have very little hope of any meaningful plans. Hell they will present it and still vote no. That looks to be as sincere and committed as the one Kevin wanted on the J6 one.
At least they plan to have President Biden on air before game 1 of NBA finals at 9.
Was just watching a little of college women’s soccer tournament between Santa Fe and Brigham Young. There was an injury and while the game was on hold, the crowd was chanting, “Let’s Go Brandon” which sounded to be a large group. I’ll let you decide which college was behind that BS.
This is truly becoming a Shit Hole Country. Completely brought to us by GQP and right white wing media.

[StevieM]

4. This means that there will not be a prime time address when Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

I am sorry, but this is the wrong decision. Realistically, a president can only give a live, prime time address every so often. Top priority should have been given to the Roe decision IMO.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Ironically, the RW-owned M$M

have claimed he doesn't do enough. Example -

Biden taking the national spotlight comes amid some criticism over his apparent lack of involvement with congressional lawmakers negotiating a package amid a national reckoning over gun violence.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-deliver-prime-time-address-guns/story?id=85139497

(that is in addition to the OP article's identical take, and that one was actually quoting from Politico, which I refuse to link to)

[thesquanderer]

11. I don't think he could only do one. But *IF* he were to only do one...

...while it's a tough call as to which is the stronger issue, I'd say the shootings are the stronger issue, at least politically. Because it's an issue where even most *Republican* voters want something done.

With Roe, he's dealing with (a) a public where a lot of people are indeed happy that Roe may be overturned, and (b) a public where a whole lot of people feel "well, it doesn't really affect me" (i.e. they are not women of child-bearing age who might ever actually consider having an abortion).

But with guns, he's dealing with (a) a public where the vast majority of people want something done (and only Republican politicians are standing in the way), and (b) a public where almost everyone can be affected. Not even just anybody with a child in a school. Anybody who ever goes into a movie theater, or a supermarket. It's a much more real threat to more people than not being able to get a legal abortion is.

[Calista241]

19. I suppose he could go on tv multiple times in just a few months if / when Roe is overturned

But it loses its effectiveness. How much do people care, really?

[ancianita]

5. I predict he won't get to the source -- manufacturers who produce military assault weapons to sell

to civilians. No one will go after the source of the AR-15's. Banning military weapons for civilian use isn't just about end user problems. It's about manufacturer problems. I see no regulation of manufacturers in H.R. 7910. I don't even think any past laws have stopped military weapons from being sold to civilians; by executive order, perhaps, but not under law.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Some of the low-hanging fruit things that they have been trying to get passed

include getting rid of bump stocks, raising the age for sales of certain guns from 18 to 21, etc. For example (I saw this posted on DU yesterday) -

There were already 2 bills passed by the House awaiting Senate action -

H.R.1446 - Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021

That was a simple "closing a loophole" of a gun sale without a background check if the initial check didn't come back within 3 days). That one got an attempt in the Senate to pass by unanimous consent and ASSley "objected".

Then there was this 2nd attempt -

H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021

This one was the full closure of the "gun show/internet sales loophole".

Then you have this -

H.R.2715 - Jaime’s Law

Hasn't been up for a vote yet in the House and looked to close the loopholes for ammunition purchases.

And yet another -

H.R.2377 - Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2021

No vote on it in the House yet either but this is one of the "Red Flag" bills.

Unfortunately, as long as the 2nd Amendment is there and since they hypocritically refuse to interpret it as "literal" (conflating a "militia" with "individual" ) like they insist one does all the other Amendments, then the manufacturers are free to manufacture. So all that is left is to restrict the sales.

[ancianita]

9. Not good enough if it doesn't literally lower the AR-15 output of all manufacturers that make them.

Flood the zone with weapons and then dare law enforcement and the BATF to catch bad guys and do mountains of background check work in 3 days -- that is total pro-killer bullshit.

Why is restricting sales all that's left. How about a Wartime Production Act available to the President to ban manufacturers from marketing military assault weapons to the civilian market on penalty of suspending their corporate charters and freezing their assets.

If AR-15 manufacturers do not do retail sales, or do no do gun sales, then the US doesn't have military weapons in the civilian population; then millions, including the BATF, won't waste their lives in floods of busy work and paperwork. Right now the quality of this bill is poor -- it hardly, if at all, restricts military weapons ownership, doesn't at all restrict manufacturers, at the same time they drown the American civilian market in military weapons.

This is a weak bill.

Guns are durable goods that last across generations. The only way to slow down AR-15 murders is to literally ban production at the source. If manufacturers were made by presidential order to stop all AR-15 production tomorrow, there would still be 20 MILLION AR-15s as durable goods existing inside America. Buy-back programs wouldn't get back many, if any, of those.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. "How about a Wartime Production Act available to the President"

Because an "Act" requires Congress to draft and pass legislation and the President to sign, and that is where we are stuck - unable to get past the Senate.

It's not like I don't agree 100% but as long as the cloture rule is in place in the Senate, these bills go nowhere. I.e., they won't even let them be considered for debate (that is all that cloture is - ending a silent "filibuster" and proceeding to debate a bill).

You also have gun-humping Democrats in Congress who have also objected to restrictions.

So the strategy, given that Manchin and Sinema refuse to get rid of the Cloture Rule, is to try to write something that can get at least 10 Republicans to sign on so that the legislation can at least go to the next stage which is debate, and eventually get a final vote.

IMHO, full page ads need to be taken out in every major newspaper (and run on every network) NAMING those who block these reforms.

[ancianita]

14. It's already been invoked, right? He's using it for formula right now. Why's it have to be again?

It's already public knowledge that AR-15s are military assault weapons. He's the Commander-in-Chief. Congress has to approve every little thing in the Defense Production Act?

Re the ads in every major paper, everyone knows the names of those who block all reforms. I'll give you their names right now -- they're all the 5-, 6- and 7-figure recipients of NRA spending (excluding the 10+ others that take 4-figure money):

Mitt Romney (UT) $13,647,676
Richard Burr (NC) $6,987,380
Roy Blunt (MO) $4,555,722

Thom Tillis (NC) $4,429,333*
Marco Rubio (FL) $3,303,355
Joni Ernst (IA) $3,129,723*

Rob Portman (OH) $3,063,327
Todd C. Young (IN) $2,897,582
Bill Cassidy (LA) $2,870,574*

Tom Cotton (AR) $1,971,214*
Pat Toomey (PA) $1,475,448
Josh Hawley (MO) $1,391,548

Marsha Blackburn (TN)$1,306,130*
Mitch McConnell (KY) $1,283,515*
"Ron" Johnson (WI) $1,269,486*

Mike Braun (IN) $1,249,967
John Thune (SD) $638,942
Shelley Moore Capito (WV) $346,688*

Richard Shelby (AL) $258,514
Chuck Grassley (IA) $226,007
John Kennedy (LA) $215,788

Ted Cruz (TX) $176,274
Lisa Murkowski (AK) $146,262
Steve Daines (MT) $133,611*

Johnny Isakson (GA) $131,571
Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) $112,047*
Roger Wicker (MS) $106,680

Rand Paul (KY) $104,456
Mike Rounds (SD) $100,549*
John Boozman (AR) $82,352

John Cornyn (TX) $78,945
Ben Sasse (NE) $73,573*
Jim Inhofe (OK) $74,708

Lindsey Graham (SC) $66,420*
Mike Crapo (ID) $55,039
Jerry Moran (KS) $34,718

John Barrasso (WY) $26,989
John Hoeven (ND) $23,050*
Jim Risch (ID) $22,013*

Susan Collins (ME) $19,850*
Deb Fischer (NE) $19,638
James Lankford (OK) $18,955

Tim Scott (SC) $18,513

https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators

By party: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082

[ancianita]

16. Thank you, BRDS for your OP and patience while I fuss and hand wring about what Biden will say...

Biden could just ban the importation of foreign made guns. Feinstein had a bill in 2013 for that.

It's not unconstitutional. It just limits trade.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

Yes, he's got a much better gun control plan than is in this bill, BUT just banning imports of military grade weapons would be a start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Unfortunately in our case

(and thankfully in the case of the previous occupant of the WH) the President can't unilaterally ban anything. The import stuff may have been negotiated as part of treaties approved by the Senate years ago.

And remember, as a "bill", they need to be passed by both chambers and signed by the President.

Some of the "nibbling around the edges" Executive Orders that he has done include this -

FACT SHEET: The Biden Administration Cracks Down on Ghost Guns, Ensures That ATF Has the Leadership it Needs to Enforce Our Gun Laws

It was published in the Federal Register 4/26/22 and will go into effect on 8/24/2022. Last year they had submitted a proposed Draft Rule for comment and what was just published in April was the final rule based on review of that comment period last year.

What that does is basically redefine those "gun kits", that are currently unregulated, as "firearms" and thus apply the current laws to them as if they were regular guns bought in a gun shop.

Biden is still trying to get an ATF Director confirmed (the agency head position has been vacant for years) and they have been holding hearings the past week.

[ancianita]

24. Crap. AND he can't even get an ATF Director yet. Talk about manufacturer ownership of Rethugs.

[ancianita]

25. I also see that the President can enter into "executive agreements" with foreign agents.

The Senate has considered and approved for ratification all but a small number of treaties negotiated by the president and his representatives. In some cases, when Senate leadership believed a treaty lacked sufficient support for approval, the Senate simply did not vote on the treaty and it was eventually withdrawn by the president. Since pending treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress, they may remain under consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for an extended period of time.

In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[BumRushDaShow]

29. There was a breaking news where he was going to travel to Saudi

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/politics/mohammed-bin-salman-joe-biden-meeting/index.html

Whatever was done to facilitate that might have been through that type of "agreement".

[ancianita]

30. Yes. Probably Trump and Kushner as his agent have been covered by that, too.

[ancianita]

27. I also see on an "ultimate AR-15 Manufacturer List" a lot of foreign manufacturers who he can block

trade with through "executive agreement."

Turns out that AR-15s and accessories are the advertised favorite weapon of preppers.

AR-15 manufacturers A-Z:

Adam Arms
Advanced Armament
Aero Precision USA
Alexander Arms
Armalite
American Tactical

Barrett
Beretta
Black Rain Ordnance
Brownells
Bushmaster

Cobalt Kinetics
Colt

Daniel Defense
Dark Storm Industries
Del-Ton
Diamondback Firearms
DPMS Panther Arms
DRD Tactical
DS Arms

F-1 Firearms
Falkor Defense
FNH USA

Heckler & Koch
Huldra

JP Rifles

KE Arms

Les Baer Custom Inc.
Lewis Machine & Tools
LWRC International

Mossberg

Patriot Ordnance Factory
Primary Weapons

Rebel Arms
Remington
Rock Island Armory
Rock River Arms
Ruger

Seekins Precision
Sig Sauer
Smith & Wesson
Special Ops Tactical
Spikes Tactical
Stag Arms
Steyr

Troy Defense

Wilson Combat
Windham Weaponry

Yankee Hill Machine

[BumRushDaShow]

31. The United States manufacturers the most weapons in the world

and I expect that in order to "block import", there needs to be a "for cause", and having dealt with Customs for years, i know that agencies establish their lists, based on the existing law.

As I was taught in my agency from day one, everything we did has to lead back to some requirement in the xxCFR (where "xx" was the relevant Title number).

[BumRushDaShow]

21. "It's already been invoked, right?"

I think you mean the "Defense Production Act"? And that is for actually directing that private industry "make more stuff" due to a national emergency (like making more baby formula or making more masks and other PPE).

It took forever to find the reauthorization since the earlier named one had expired in 2019 and I figured it was obviously slid in some other bill somewhere since 2019, but as an example, the last one was here -

H.R.4809 - To reauthorize the Defense Production Act, to improve the Defense Production Act Committee, and for other purposes.

And after hunting around, it was renewed through this (vs as a standalone bill) and is buried in the text somewhere (and goes to 2025) -

H.R.5515 - John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019

[ancianita]

23. Thank you. Great. Then he can invoke the "make more stuff" Act to tell manufacturers what not to

produce or import more of. Even as he can seek to remedy 'shortfalls', nowhere in the PFD could I find where it specifies that he can't invoke less.

Again, he's CiC, and civilians are suffering a slow simmering war as victims of military assault weapons. He can only call it domestic terrorism for so long before seeing that that the loss, harm, and damage to families and communities is beyond lone wolf terrorism.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. "he can invoke the "make more stuff" Act to tell manufacturers what not to produce or import more"

It's only for what is actually going to be paid for by the federal government, not private citizens. And the real types of military weapons that the federal government buys are not these "AR-15 style" weapons. They would actually be specific types contracted by DOD.

[ancianita]

28. Okay. Maybe you're right. However, I think that technically, when you say

And the real types of military weapons that the federal government buys are not these "AR-15 style" weapons.

, there are still DoD labeled military grade weapons, AR-15s or not, bought through specific DoD contracts that he can alter as CiC.

My opinion. A lot goes into disconnecting from the Guns Over People network. I'm just hoping that he's got power to stop more than the House bill does at the moment. Just to give the "regulators of the militia" more time to get the data to sell a better gun control law.

[Ferrets are Cool]

7. He also needs to bring up gas prices. Unfortunately, more 'Mericans are more worried about that

than they are about their kids being murdered in school.
He needs to make sure the nations knows that the repugs STOPPED legislation to bring gas prices down. And that the oil companies are the ones who are responsible for this fucking mess.

[thesquanderer]

10. Bringing up gas prices is easy. It's bringing them down that's tough. ;-) n/t

[Ferrets are Cool]

32. Then he should explain why.

[thesquanderer]

13. I hope he uses this opportunity to tell people...

... (a) that they must tell their Republican representatives to vote for the legislation they are blocking, and (b) if their representatives choose not to do so, they must vote them out in November in favor of people (presumably Democrats) who WILL. Because that is the only way anything will get done.

[ancianita]

15. He won't do what media will call campaigning.

[thesquanderer]

17. "Campaigning" like that is in the national interest, when the opposition party is...

...some combination of insane, bought-and-paid for, and treasonous.

I know, the media may not see it that way... but they should.

[ancianita]

18. I hear you. I get it. But he just won't do what you say because we both know how media would spin it

And he knows that, too. So he won't say that.