Obama defends forthcoming gun restrictions as constitutional

The changes to the background check would be aimed at some unregistered sellers who skirt the requirement by selling at gun shows, online or informal settings. Under current law, only federally licensed firearms dealers are required to seek background checks. - article

The NRA chalks up another assault on the American Public.

Willful peddling of guns to avoid detection of who sells and who buys?

That's the NRA's contribution. Guns for everyone.

"Forget that domestic abuse charge. Here's your nine. Good hunting!"

The current federal laws require all pistols to be transferred by licenced dealer, used long arms (rifles and shotguns) are not. Each state and municipality also may have additional laws such as Chicago, NY, LA... which place restrictions on ownership. How safe is Chicago? Is Dallas Texas safer than LA?

The gun show loophole only exists in a couple of southern states which out of state buyers may buy firearms. The MSM has you all believing it's rampant. Same as online sales, far and few between would sell a firearm by mail without a legal transfer. Again! The MSM has you under their spell.

No felon is permitted to purchase, own, or have in their residence any firearm. How many convicted felons are arrested with firearms? Or even for murder with a firearm?

"No felon is permitted to purchase, own, or have in their residence any firearm." - comments

Obviously these conditions aren't addressed in President Obama's action.

"Obama’s administration has been preparing behind the scenes to expand background checks on gun sales by forcing more sellers to register as dealers." - article

Golly, what's next? Burning Washington?

What a bunch of yokels.

Over sellers registering sales of firearms with background checks?

Chilling.

What a threat to the Constitution, well, an Amendment to the Constitution, but still, that's a holy document. It cannot be amended and there's no way to see it otherwise or you hate the Constitution. Obviously.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no credible empirical data to show that gun control saves lives at all, and so the massive waste of funds (gun registration schemes even just at the state level cost millions of dollars to maintain) and of political capital on 'solutions' for which there is overwhelming evidence of a total lack of efficacy is just stupid.

He's just trying to pad his legacy. As you say MarkG:

The gun show loophole only exists in a couple of southern states which out of state buyers may buy firearms. The MSM has you all believing it's rampant. Same as online sales, far and few between would sell a firearm by mail without a legal transfer.

What happened to all those "shovel ready" jobs that would have put a dent into the failing economies of the larger cities where gun violence is the major problem? Obama Politics, that's what.

So where did all that sweet stimulus money go? Of the money spent in swing state Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions-those with already locked-in jobs. In fact, right-to-work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states. Where Democrats had a vast majority of representatives, their states got $460 per person more.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/stimulus-money-for-shovel-ready-projects-where-did-it-go-92666/

Drug sales is the only booming business in the inner cities, decriminalize and tax it , at the same time, target the shovel ready jobs in the hardest hit areas, is what should have happened. Obama did nothing to help the inner cities and doled out the cash in a partisan manner while furthering GW Bush's hegemonic plans for control of the ME resources. To think Hillary or Cruz/Rubio will act any different is just blind loyalty and stupid.

There are many problems with the gun industry in the US, especially the cheap handguns that surround the major cities as crates of these things slip out the back door. If Obama really wanted to make an impact, he could investigate many of these, especially when they are found, over and over again to be used in crimes.

<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/02/white-house-releases-photo-of-obama-shooting-shotgun/

If Obama's new executive order does little to decrease the illegal guns on the streets, what's the point, except for padding your legacy. Those Corporate Left-wingers can keep harping on about the Corporate right-wingers as it makes them feel good, and that's about all it does to solve the problem as they refuse to see the difference between a good gun owner and a bad one.

Philip Cook, a Duke University professor who researches gun violence and policy, said gun shows are at least occasionally a source of weapons for traffickers, but that surveys of prisoners don’t show them to be a major source.

The current federal laws require all pistols to be transferred by licenced dealer, used long arms (rifles and shotguns) are not. Each state and municipality also may have additional laws such as Chicago, NY, LA... which place restrictions on ownership. How safe is Chicago? Is Dallas Texas safer than LA?

You're right to some degree. If guns can be bought willy-nilly the next state over, then it's not going to be hard to get guns into the state with restrictions. Just drive for a few hours and you have a gun.

That said, how do you not know there wouldn't be even more guns and more killings, if it was easy to buy guns in Chicago etc? The laws may very well be keeping the numbers down to some degree.

The gun show loophole only exists in a couple of southern states which out of state buyers may buy firearms. The MSM has you all believing it's rampant. Same as online sales, far and few between would sell a firearm by mail without a legal transfer. Again! The MSM has you under their spell.

Numbers please. You say its an insignificant amount, but how many guns hows are there, and how many guns are being sold at these gun shows?

No felon is permitted to purchase, own, or have in their residence any firearm. How many convicted felons are arrested with firearms? Or even for murder with a firearm?

Is this supposed to be an argument against background checks? Wouldn't you want to close a loophole if one is open? Don't you want to make it even harder for felons and the mentally ill to get guns? Why not put up every barrier that you can?

U.S. President Barack Obama defended his plans to tighten the nation’s gun-control restrictions on his own, insisting Monday that the steps he’ll announce fall within his legal authority and uphold the constitutional right to own a gun as he set himself up for a certain confrontation with Congress.

Opening his final year in office on an aggressive note, Obama summoned his attorney general and FBI chief to the Oval Office to firm up a set of measures he said he’d announce over the next few days.

If I'm reading this correctly, Obama is publically defending a policy that he hasn't yet announced to the public. And it may not have been written yet?

Obama is gone by the end of this year. Any Presidential Executive Order can be rescinded by another acting President.

I assume that yet another of Obama's EO's will be challenged in the courts and possibly overturned. The court actions will take longer than the time Obama has left in office.

My priority would be tobacco if anything. The resources used to grow it and market it and it serves what benefit? How many a year die from tobacco related illnesses? Having never smoked, I have no idea what benefit is derived. Alcohol at least gets you can drink a variety of beverages with various tastes with no foul odors. When over used it is a problem.

Guns are a sport for some and a pleasure for others. They've been used since the creation of the USA and when used properly they bother no one. When misused they can be a problem. The same can be said for thousands of products.

The raging lunatic will never go away even w/o guns. They can always find other methods.

The raging lunatic will never go away even w/o guns. They can always find other methods.

But not as many will find other methods, and most of the other methods found won't kill as many people. So better that than the current gong-show.

The new laws would mandate vendors at gun shows to obtain federal licences to sell firearms. And that they, along with on-line retailers, to conduct background check. $500 million will be added for "mental health".

The ATF will establish an info center which tracks illegal gun sales on-line.

No biggy. I can deal with that. Years ago I already went into (neighboring) AZ Gun Shows and got a few goodies.

I just hope obama doesn't try to completey ban things like: AR-15's, (mini M14) Socoms, 9mm/40/45 semi-automatic pistols and standard shotguns . . . . the fun stuff, basic stuff.

Guns are a sport for some and a pleasure for others.

This why I don't understand buyers want to buy on-line. It's fun to go to Bass Pro Shop or other shops and speak with the gun vendors, hang out, share the gun stories and then finally make a legal purchase "over the counter" the old fashioned way.

The shady thing about on-line is that people often buy parts "modifying" their assault rifles. Thus making them illegal depending on which state you live in and what constitutes an illegal firearm.

I think he will go steps further than you mention Wc. The semi-autos are at risk and a possible magazine cap as tried prior and failed.

Stanger..I'm all for better barriers but "all you can" is wide open. Like I said before nut jobs will find a way. Always did and always will. Even pressure cookers are lethal when desired.

Like I said before nut jobs will find a way. Always did and always will. Even pressure cookers are lethal when desired.

Reminds me of Nicolas Cage in Lord of War: "When there's a will, there's a gun."

I think he will go steps further than you mention Wc.

I think so too, but for now, the background checks and monitoring on-line gun trafficking is not so unreasonable. Imo, I think most gun owners have a few things & accessories, that it really wont affect them much.

Example: Many have 20 round mags for their pistols (30 for Ar-15'S) as well as High Velocity rounds instead of standard ball rounds.

Everyone I know back in the states have "altered" their standard trigger mechanisms from factory settings. This makes if it "easier" to pull the trigger without too much tension. The result- more "accurate shooting" and proficiency for the shooter.

Crips and Bloods NEVER go through this trouble and extra money to altering their firearms . . . they just spray & pray.

The raging lunatic will never go away even w/o guns. They can always find other methods.

Let them work a little harder coming up with those methods, how about it? I mean, Texas is using the "Everyone needs to pack" method. Some of us sane people would prefer there to be fewer guns around to feel safe than even more. I like my odds against a crazy with knife better than I do against a dyed-haired nut in movie theater with an automatic pistol or a guy coming to my school with his mom's pretend army rifle.

MarkG

No felon is permitted to purchase, own, or have in their residence any firearm. How many convicted felons are arrested with firearms? Or even for murder with a firearm?

Good point. Let's do away with the murder law because felons don't abide by it.

The gun show loophole only exists in a couple of southern states which out of state buyers may buy firearms.

Untrue. The majority of states have no laws that stop the loophole.

Mark G

The current federal laws require all pistols to be transferred by licenced dealer, used long arms (rifles and shotguns) are not.

There is no federal law or regulation requiring pistols to be transferred by licensed dealers. Some States like California have laws requiring private party transfers to be completed through a licensed dealer but that is it. Nothing in federal law prevents me from selling a pistol to another non-licensed individual as long as that person is a resident of my State, at least 18 years old and I have no reason to believe they are prohibited from firearm possession.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca

CrazyJoe

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no credible empirical data to show that gun control saves lives at all, and so the massive waste of funds (gun registration schemes even just at the state level cost millions of dollars to maintain) and of political capital on 'solutions' for which there is overwhelming evidence of a total lack of efficacy is just stupid.

There is. Compare Japan's 'gun controlled' gun death numbers with the US. Stark difference. Empirical fact.

Also, should we get rid of the motor vehicle registration system because it costs millions of dollars and doesn't provide any benefit? No. Because it does provide benefit and is common sense, as is gun registration.

MarkG

Like I said before nut jobs will find a way. Always did and always will.

Yes, but if a nut job attacks your local theatre with a knife, he won't have nearly the impact that with an assault rife. Gun controls save lives.

Looks like another Supreme Court ruling against Obama is in the offing . . . .

" that the steps he’ll announce fall within his legal authority "

Better get used to it. The Organizer in Chief will test the limits of "legal authority" in this last year to form his community in accordance with his political beliefs. Get ready for a tsunami of executive orders in this other areas this year.

Good for Obama, about time.

People are making much ado about something so limited.

Much of the action are just proposals and suggestions since the Executive Office cannot fund much by itself but has to ask Congress for the funding. This is not so expansive as many people make it out to be.

Breaking news is that those terrorists who occupied that Federal land in Oregon have surrendered. The question is whether they will be allowed to keep continue owning guns after this. Thoughts?

Can't find that Laguna have you got a link?

Can't vouch for it, Madverts, but: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oregon-ranchers-who-prompted-militant-takeover-surrender-to-authorities-report/

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no credible empirical data to show that gun control saves lives at all, and so the massive waste of funds (gun registration schemes even just at the state level cost millions of dollars to maintain) and of political capital on 'solutions' for which there is overwhelming evidence of a total lack of efficacy is just stupid.

Death by gun in America per 10,000 head of population: 10.64 (of which 3.55 are murder, 6.70 are suicides)

Death by gun in UK per 10,000 head of population (gun controls): 0.23 (of which 0.06 are murder, 0.15 are suicides)

I'd say gun controls work, wouldn't you?

Expect a lot of "executive action". POTUS is a "lame duck" and needs not worry about reelection !

The question is whether they will be allowed to keep continue owning guns after this.

No need to worry, the NRA will do everything in their power to ensure that they will still be allowed to own guns. Lots and lots of guns.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he wasn’t sure exactly what Obama would announce, but dismissed it as an attempt to divide the country and distract from Obama’s “failed policies” to address terrorism.

Obama is probably making many "accurate" statements on gun gun control. Yet, he still cannot call or refer to ISIS as "Radical or Extreme Islam."

Why is he calling america's gun problem exactly what it is? , but can't wear the other shoe(s)? Especially when it comes to "failed policies" and addressing terrorism . . . or better yet "Radical Islam."

Further, he is dividing america by allowing the islamic refugees into the US despite the 31 governors who are saying, "No." He must have lots of ink in that "executive order" pen. What's the old saying? Pen mightier than the sword? -Sheesh, I guess so!

No felon is permitted to purchase, own, or have in their residence any firearm. How many convicted felons are arrested with firearms? Or even for murder with a firearm?

We'd love to tell you the answer, but when word got out that the Centers for Disease Control were trying to look into firearm violence as a health issue, the NRA's lapdogs in Congress slashed the CDC's budget and actually passed a law prohibiting the CDC from doing any sort of firearm violence-related research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/their-1996-clash-shaped-the-gun-debate-for-years-now-they-want-to-reshape-it/2015/12/30/707bfed6-a8e5-11e5-bff5-905b92f5f94b_story.html

"the Centers for Disease Control were trying to look into firearm violence as a health issue, the NRA's lapdogs in Congress slashed the CDC's budget and actually passed a law prohibiting the CDC from doing any sort of firearm violence-related research. - comments"

Thank you. What part of stupid do the gun nuts not get? A lot of it?

Congress slashed the CDC's budget and actually passed a law prohibiting the CDC from doing any sort of firearm violence-related research.

What a waste of money. Gun violence is part of american culture. We all loved "The Terminator", "Rambo", "Scareface", "Heat", "Carlito's Way" and before that, the Clint Eastwood & J. Wayne westerns.

Consequently, we deal with Columbine, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino etc. . . . The CDC is better off researching AIDS, EBOLA strains and Anthrax.

Interesting how all the right wing yahoos are certain that Obama has over reached here.

Considering they havn't even seen the proposals.

Laguna - Breaking news is that those terrorists who occupied that Federal land in Oregon have surrendered. The question is whether they will be allowed to keep continue owning guns after this. Thoughts?

I think you mean "broken news".

Steven and Dwight Hammond, the Oregon ranchers whose sentencing on arson charges spurred a militant group’s takeover of a federal building, turned themselves in to authorities on Monday evening.

The Hammond's were never a part of the Occupy Federal Building movement. Felons are not allowed to own firearms (unless they later petition the state to reinstate their voting and gun ownership rights).

The problem here in the U.S. is the way the Constitution is worded. The applicable part regarding firearms reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As-written, it could be argued that "the people" could be carrying STINGER shoulder-fired anti-air missiles and Congress can't do a thing about it. This is because when the authors of this bit of text decided that it was just what was needed, the only "arms" in existence were flintlock rifles and pistols. The concept of 30-round banana clips were so far beyond their comprehension as to be science fiction.

Therefore, the "Second Amendment" needs another amendment in order to bring it into the 21st Century. First of all, the only militias remaining are either purely for show (like the Texas Militia) or decidedly anti-government. The duties performed by state militias in the 1700's using their own personal arms are now performed by the state National Guards - and THEIR arms are provided by the state. So the entire first half of the Second Amendment is a centuries-old relic that serves no purpose. Second of all, the Amendment needs to reflect the advances in firearm technology that allow a single nutter to kill large numbers of people before they can be subdued. NOBODY should have that "right". How that wording should be phrased would have to be handled by a post-referendum committee.

But the FIRST hurdle to get over would be getting enough people sick and tired of all the deaths that a call for an amendment is passed by 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the the Senate, or a constitutional convention called for by 2/3rds of the state legislatures. Once those votes are successful, the wording of the proposed amendment gets ironed-out. After that, THEN the amendment has to pass 3/4ths of the House and the Senate, or 3/4ths of the state legislatures before it finally becomes an amendment. That's a lot of hoops to jump through, but with every mass murder, the number of people calling for the amendment increases.

The ATF will establish an info center which tracks illegal gun sales on-line.

Good luck with that. Remember the war on drugs? How well did that work out?

No biggy. I can deal with that. Years ago I already went into (neighboring) AZ Gun Shows and got a few goodies.

As you said, NO big deal. As with prohibition this won't solve anything, won't solve deaths gun sales are especially now through the roof in light of all of this. This will drive Trump's numbers up and if Obama keeps going, it might push him all the way into the White House.

Obama is probably making many "accurate" statements on gun gun control. Yet, he still cannot call or refer to ISIS as "Radical or Extreme Islam."

Only if it helps his party and he can politicize an issue, he's always right on it. Partisan to the max. You should know that by now.

Why is he calling america's gun problem exactly what it is? , but can't wear the other shoe(s)? Especially when it comes to "failed policies" and addressing terrorism . . . or better yet "Radical Islam."

Because he's more worried to offend..... I'll just stop right here, but Obama is just a PC president.

Looks like another Supreme Court ruling against Obama is in the offing . . . .

It's already on the horizon.

"This will drive Trump's numbers up and if Obama keeps going, it might push him all the way into the White House - comments"

Let's indulge our liberal friend in his/her fantasy.

Something about guns and Trump becomes likeable.

Son, sonny, listen, you are pairing guns as good.

Most of Americans don't see it that way.

According to the Liberal Media, Americans are sick of the NRA slaughterhouse.

Too bad, you'll have to find another reason to shoot the neighbor, or priest, or fireman on your way to "saving America" . . . ad nauseam . . . "what a sick little freak"

Because he's more worried to offend..... I'll just stop right here, but Obama is just a PC president

Yeah a PC president. Did you see the tears during his speech. He musta rehearsed well for that stunt.

"Gun violence is part of american culture. We all loved . . . - comments"

The culture of killing. This, the American Culture. Killing.

Another Champion for Killing makes claim to necessity. Comical, again.

Something about guns and Trump becomes likeable.

California is as blue as it gets, guns were popular waaaay before Trump stepped into the picture.

According to the Liberal Media, Americans are sick of the NRA slaughterhouse.

And are sick of this president trying to slowly find a way to take our guns and rights away.

Too bad, you'll have to find another reason to shoot the neighbor, or priest, or fireman on your way to "saving America" . . . ad nauseam . . . "what a sick little freak"

It's not going to help and it won't change anything and without congress, he won't get far even in his last 307 days left.

Another Champion for Killing makes claim to necessity. Comical, again.

@kc. LoL- so what kind of movies did you watch? Brokeback Mountain? It's no secret, America loves those violent movies featuring-yes- shoot outs, car chases, explosions and sex scenes. Why won't u wear this shoe at least?

"trying to slowly find a way to take our guns" - comments

Is this an example of hysteria at the sight of a mouse?

Poor, poor NRA. Maybe a drink of tea will sooth you.

Good, good NRA, you'll kill all those children soon enough.

Don't worry yourself over any public resentment and hatred.

YOU'RE THE NRA! You Rule! Kill. Kill. Kill. GO! NRA!

Good, good NRA, you'll kill all those children soon enough.

The NRA has never pulled one trigger on a child. No transferred intentions either. The children were killed by another person with a gun. Guns don't go walking around on their own killing children. Again, that goes without saying.

"The NRA has never pulled one trigger on a child." - comments

Come On! That's coward talk! Own your slaughter! What?! Are you ashamed NRA?!

Is this an example of hysteria at the sight of a mouse?

No, it's by a radical president that believes in being partisan, overstepping congress, refuses to listen or work with the GOP on anything, I would call that being pissed off!

Poor, poor NRA. Maybe a drink of tea will sooth you.

After 307 days, it sure will.

Good, good NRA, you'll kill all those children soon enough.

How about Chicago, why Obama didn't mention that? Also, we should never blame the individual that pulled the trigger, that's just nonsense.

Don't worry yourself over any public resentment and hatred.

Nor should they.

YOU'RE THE NRA! You Rule! Kill. Kill. Kill. GO! NRA!

For the protection of our lives, families, Yes, indeed. I applaud the NRA and support them

"it's by a radical president" - comments

Oh! Yeah!

A radical President. OK. Radical, sure.

Sure, and there was a rabbit with a pocket watch.

Sure. 'Sure, mind you head Sir.'

Come On! That's coward talk! Own your slaughter! What?! Are you ashamed NRA?!

No. Only ashamed of the incumbent administration. I am "owning" my slaughter. Read my posts on the thread. . . about violent movies & americas obsession with them. Don't take it out on me cause you prefer movies like "Brokeback Mountain."

A radical President. OK. Radical, sure.

And that's being polite.

Sure. 'Sure, mind you head Sir.'

Obama has definitely hit his head, more than one time.

Obama defends forthcoming gun restrictions as constitutional

It is not the role of the executive to determine what is Constitutional. That is the role of Congress and the Courts. Well, it used to be anyway. It will take a Conservative president to purposely interpret the law in a way that goes against the conscience of the Left for the Congress to take action to re-acquire it's rightful role as the writer of laws. The current crop of legislative conservatives are too afraid to take on Obama by using Congresses power to appropriate funds to restrict Obama's executive imperialism. Put the shoe on the other foot and a Democrat minority in the Senate will never agree to a Republican doing the same.