Obama, Lynch to meet ahead of new executive action on guns

[RandySF]

(CNN)President Barack Obama will meet Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss options for tougher gun restrictions and is expected to announce in the coming days a new executive action with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales.

Described as "imminent" by people familiar with the White House plans, the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the administration says could help curb gun deaths.

Plans for the action are not yet complete, and those familiar with the process warn that unforeseen circumstances could delay an announcement. But gun control advocates are expecting the new actions to be revealed next week, ahead of Obama's annual State of the Union address, set for January 12.

The White House wouldn't comment directly on the exact timing or content of Obama's executive orders. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said that the President expected a set of recommendations on unilateral action to arrive at the beginning of the year.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/

[pwhtckll]

1. Get the popcorn ready

I will be a fun spectacle to watch the right-wing lunatics go apoplectic as the conspiracy theories run rampant.

How quickly will they start wailing about martial law, FEMA concentration camps, and the New World Order.

I will have my popcorn ready for the show!

[aikoaiko]

2. This should be interesting. There is a little discretion in firearms laws,

but its difficult imagine anything substantive that would reduce deaths or injuries.

Anything that impacts owning AR-15s or other semi-auto rifles would probably be a disaster for Democrats in the general election.

[pwhtckll]

3. At least he could close the “gun show loophole”

There are enough ill-defined terms in the legal definition of the term “engages in the business of” in federal law (18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(21)(C)) that an executive order could add specificity in a way the closes the gun show loophole and prohibit unlicensed firearms vendors from selling guns without background checks.

It might not have much of an effect, but it should have some.

[aikoaiko]

4. I think a solid definition of what would constitute a business would be helpful.

But it hard to imagine he could administratively set the number at 1 for all private sales constituting a business.

Just have to wait and see.

[pwhtckll]

5. I agree changing that definition would be hard

But since the law is vague enough, the president could issue an executive order that answers the following questions:

- What is considered a regular course of trade or business?

- What constitutes livelihood and profit?

- How frequent must the purchase and resale of firearms be to be considered repetitive?

- How infrequent must sales, exchanges, or purchases be to be considered occasional?

- What is a personal collection and how long must someone possess a firearm to have it considered part of his or her personal collection?

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. I doubt the courts would support not leaving some level of private sales.

And any federal restriction of intrastate private sales would almost certainly fail to pass constitutional muster.

Still, reducing the number of transactions a person can make before having to get a Federal Firearms License is a good move. Even leaving aside the notion of closing a loophole, it's unfair to legitimate gun dealers to allow unlicensed competition from "private individuals" who have tables full of guns at gun shows. Moreover, real FFL holders don't just have to conduct background checks at gun shows, they have very specific record-keeping requirements that private individuals don't have.

Universal background checks will be something that has to be enacted at the state level, I'm pretty certain. That's a realistic goal in most states, I think. Some deeply red states won't enact them, I'm sure, but UBCs are popular even among gun owners. We recently enacted a UBC law here in Oregon, which is a blue state, but is also a Western state, with a high rate of gun ownership.

[pwhtckll]

10. I agree that states will have an easier time enacting UBCs

It is sad that there is such strong opposition to universal background checks at the federal level when they are supported by 92% of voters--including 92% of gun owners, 86% of Republicans, and 98% of Democrats (http://bit.ly/1VwRkwq).

It's a textbook example of how a powerful lobbying organization can foment anxiety and suspicion among low-information voters and thereby gain disproportionate influence.

I'm just north of you in Washington (similar dynamics as a blue state with many gun owners). I never once felt my rights were being violated when I purchased a firearm. I'm glad the background checks are there because it protects everyone's rights.

I am convinced that if there were universal background checks and a gun culture that encouraged safe storage of firearms, then there would be fewer violent gun deaths.

[NutmegYankee]

11. The safe storage issue is just maddening.

I've seen police officers go home to their wife and kid and put their loaded service pistol on a bookshelf. I had to jump in with a WTF as soon as I was alone with him to try to talk some sense into him. I finally showed him a quick access safe that could be opened with just a finger swipe. His wife was very happy when they got it.

I still can't understand why people keep guns out and so easy to access if there are kids in the house. It's one thing if you live alone and keep a gun in a drawer, but it something entirely else to do that with children in the house.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. I'd like to see criminal prosecution for every accident caused by unlocked guns.

Up to and including second degree murder charges.

[NutmegYankee]

14. It would get the point across.

Though I think 2nd Degree would likely fail. It would probably be Negligent Homicide at best.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Yeah I was a bit hasty. Maybe laws could be changed to include a special circumstance for

guns left unattended.

[NutmegYankee]

18. You probably could.

I have doubts that long jail sentences are what is needed. I think such individuals should be sentenced to have to go to groups all around the country and tell their story of stupidity to people taking safety classes. The leaving loaded guns out for children thing needs to be destroyed.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. Agreed.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Guns have "great power" to cause harm. Responsible gun ownership includes properly securing the weapon, period...no exceptions. If it's not in your possession or direct observation, lock it up. It really is that simple.

[X_Digger]

12. If I sell my couch on craigslist does that make me a furniture store?

Do I have to get a business license, liability insurance, have an ADA compliant bathroom?

[pwhtckll]

19. Interesting thought experiment

It all hangs on whether or not one believes that firearms are fundamentally different from other forms of goods that are bought and sold.

[X_Digger]

20. Maybe a closer analogy would be cars (since cars are more regulated than furniture, generally.) n/t

[pwhtckll]

21. I can buy that (pun intended)

I like the use of cars as an analogy to guns.

We don't require background checks to buy a car, but we do have to register them with the state and receiving training and licensing before we operate them. Further, the state can suspend our authority to use them as a consequence for misuse.

All of this indicates that there is a qualitative difference between certain goods that warrants different treatment by the government.

[X_Digger]

23. Well, I don't have to register a car to own one, just to operate it on public streets.

I also don't have to have a license or insurance to own a car.

Analogous to guns, that sounds like a concealed carry license.

[Eleanors38]

22. States usually define the parameters of a "dealer" for many products, like cars.

The trouble with defining a dealer is with the internet, much as with tracking and enforcing tax liability.

Any sales over the inet must follow NICS standards, contrary to the MSNBCs of the world.

[Moliere]

6. Also hoping he restores funding for research

The NRA and their repuke servants have prevented any research into the impact of guns for years now.

[NutmegYankee]

7. Practically no chance for that.

Congress has the power of the purse alone.

[GGJohn]

8. Not true, the CDC can do all the studies it wants,

matter of fact, one was done in 2013, what they can't do is use the studies to push for gun control.
Also, the DoJ does it's own studies on firearm violence.

[pwhtckll]

17. The prohibition is informal, not formal

You are correct that neither the CDC nor the NIH is formally prohibited from researching gun violence. The prohibitions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (PL 114-113) ban only the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

However, certain lobbying organizations discourage any research by using the specter of lawsuits or congressional hearings to scrutinize any federally-funded research under the guise of ensuring they abide by the restrictions. This creates a chilling effect as no researcher wants politicians scrutinizing their every move.

Some research occurs, as you correctly state, but not enough to properly inform the public debate.

The real reason, I suspect, is that rigorous quantitative research will undermine the lobby's ability to use false or misleading statistics to bolster their case.

[Eleanors38]

24. Generally, I agree. But research is turned out by gun-control foundations through university...

"Centers" and institutes, and they find very ready acceptance in MSM, which is virtual agitprop for gun controls. I think the controllers wanted the government, through the CDC, to legitimize a priori the control/ban method, and to cement a "public health" model when gun "debates" are pushed by MSM. I note the CDC did a study of many of the methodologies used in gun research and found nearly all to be wanting. This study was, I believe, after the CDC legislation.