Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama pushing "under-the-radar" gun control schemes

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama pushing "under-the-radar" gun control schemes

    .

    This isn't good.


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...r-groups-warn/

    Obama Administration Eyeing Gun Control 'Under the Radar,' Groups Warn

    By Judson Berger

    Published May 28, 2011

    | FoxNews.com


    The Obama administration, after keeping gun control on the back burner for over two years, is prompting concern among gun rights groups that it's slowly starting to squeeze the trigger on tighter regulation.

    In the wake of the January shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, President Obama remained mostly quiet on the firearms front as lawmakers clamored for new restrictions. But the president has since made a public call for tougher background checks. The Justice Department launched a series of meetings with officials and advocates to examine gun control policy. And while gun-control bills in Congress have languished, the administration has started to chip around the edges with its own proposals.

    "They're doing a pretty good job ... as Obama has said, 'under the radar.' There's a lot going on under that radar," Gun Owners of America Director Larry Pratt said, referring to a remark Obama reportedly made in a private meeting with gun control advocates. "They've shown us how much they are prepared to do through regulation."

    Pratt pointed to two proposals in particular. Under one proposed rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, dealers in four Southwestern states would be required to report multiple sales to the same person of certain kinds of rifles. The proposed requirement -- which would apply to dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas -- is open for comment until the end of May. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence claims the change would help the ATF "crack down" on Mexico's gunrunners.

    In addition, ATF released a study in January that looked at criteria for restricting the importation of certain shotguns. The authors were working off a 1968 law that restricts gun imports but exempts firearms used for "sporting purposes." The report, then, tried to define which features on shotguns are not suitable for "sporting purposes" and therefore not importable -- among the features they flagged are folding stocks, magazines over five rounds and "light enhancing devices."

    The National Rifle Association has come out strong against this study.

    Pratt said the shotgun restrictions, if approved, could lead to broader restrictions on other imported long guns -- at a time when the administration is trying to reduce federal regulations. Pratt also cited a decision last year to block the sale of U.S.-made antique rifles by the South Korean government to gun collectors in America. The State Department said at the time it was concerned the guns could fall into the wrong hands.

    These smaller-scale proposals come in lieu of sweeping restrictions like the assault-weapons ban Obama supported as a candidate but has not pursued as president. Another proposal on the table calls for banning high-capacity magazines, but it has not advanced in Congress.

    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., sponsor of that bill, has had trouble moving forward on the proposal in a GOP-dominated House and winning an endorsement from Obama -- despite having 107 co-sponsors.

    "That's just something we haven't heard the president say anything about," McCarthy spokesman Shams Tarek told FoxNews.com.

    Tarek stressed that the magazine ban wouldn't exactly be treading new ground -- it would reinstate an expired ban. "There's a precedent there," he said. But Tarek said the Obama administration is "very, very much in listening mode," not revealing one way or the other which way it's leaning on gun control.

    The most detailed statement to come out of the administration so far was the president's March op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star, in which he pushed for better background checks. Obama stressed his belief in the "individual right to bear arms," but said "there's more we can do to prevent gun violence."

    Based on the column, Tarek suggested the administration was with McCarthy and her allies when it comes to a new push to strengthen background checks. A bill she introduced earlier this month would impose stricter penalties on states that fail to enter the names of people prohibited from buying guns into a national database. And it would require background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows.

    The move was hailed by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which claimed it would fix "glaring gaps" in the background check system.

    But gun-rights groups are urging Washington against going down this road. National statistics show gun sales are going up while violent crime is edging down slightly. Though gun-related deaths and injuries still number in the tens of thousands every year, the groups say enforcement is the key.

    "The American public does not support gun control. ... What the American public wants is for criminals to be punished for their mistakes," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

    The NRA and other groups have also harshly criticized the administration for its own gun-control problem -- a Justice Department project by which hundreds of guns were allowed to "walk" across the border and into the hands of Mexican cartels.
    .

  • #2
    It won't get anywhere. He couldn't get anything through with the near one party nation he had from 2008 till last year. He couldn't get anything through on the emotional wave created by the shooting in Arizona. The feelings on gun control in this country are too far in the "pro" camp right now. Hell, here in super anti-gun CT, the magazine limit bill failed.
    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
    -Chris Rock

    Comment


    • #3
      How ****ing stupid are these people that they do not realize a criminal will get a gun and shoot somebody no matter what? This won't stop them from the dangers of being assasinated or anything. The danger will be there no matter how many regulations they put into place. If they wanted a safer place, put guns in the hands of every person who is responsible and stop sueing them when they kill/shoot a criminal for doing a crime.
      Been chatting to a girl online. She's funny, sexy and flirty. Now she tells me she is an undercover cop! How cool is that at her age!?

      Comment


      • #4
        "The American public does not support gun control. ... What the American public wants is for criminals to be punished for their mistakes," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.
        That pretty much sums it up...slow down the assembly line of justice - put more money towards putting VIOLENT criminals away; vehemently enforce the laws already on the books including prosecuting people for selling guns to criminals; actually make criminals face their true sentences for their crimes; push for the death penalty in ALL states while capping the amount of appeals; and make it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons and use them to defend themselves - maybe subsidize costs for range time, ammunition, instruction, etc...crazy ideas, I know...and STOP CUTTING MONEY TO STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS!!!!!!!!!! All that is doing is forcing them to lay off cops...

        Edited to add: What good is writing and enacting new laws when there is NO ONE TO ENFORCE THEM?!?!?! When cops are getting laid off across the country, why make it harder for citizens to defend themselves?!?!
        Last edited by Aerohead; 05-29-2011, 07:49 AM.
        Originally posted by RSGSRT
        We've reached a point where natural selection doesn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with the procreation of imbeciles.
        Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot, but not acceptable for me to point it out?

        Comment


        • #5
          None of that would have helped prevent the Arizona massacre but you have to blame something when you believe that people aren't fully responsible for themselves. The libs won't risk anything before the '12 elections but look out if they win.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
            STOP CUTTING MONEY TO STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS!!!!!!!!!! All that is doing is forcing them to lay off cops.

            I agree with your sentiments on that, but it would be much better if the federal government never took the money in the first place. It was never "theirs" to begin with. There are only a few basic things in which the federal government should be involved, with the rest of things being under the auspices of the states and localities.

            As for the "gun control" nonsense, just remember that the ulitimate goal of those leading the movement IS the total disarmament of all civilians. Their minions and emotionally-driven sycophants really do not see the big picture or how badly they are being manipulated, but still provide them with a lot of donations and often vote for anti-gun politicians.

            This is a tough fight that will go on for the foreseeable future, but we on the pro-freedom side are fortunate to have groups such as the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Jews for The Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Virginia Citizens Defense League helping us to fight the battle.


            "You can call 911 if you like, but I will call on my 1911 when I need it."

            The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

            The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

            ------------------------------------------------

            "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FromOhio View Post
              How ****ing stupid are these people that they do not realize a criminal will get a gun and shoot somebody no matter what? This won't stop them from the dangers of being assasinated or anything. The danger will be there no matter how many regulations they put into place. If they wanted a safer place, put guns in the hands of every person who is responsible and stop sueing them when they kill/shoot a criminal for doing a crime.
              +1

              The way I look at it is this: The government banned the possession of drugs many years ago. How much MJ, cocaine, heroin, etc do you see on the streets today? A ****load. Banning something DOES NOT work. Criminals will always be able to get firearms no matter what. If firearms are further restricted or eventually banned, the crime rate WILL go up. The government would just be taking away the average American's right to defend themselves.

              If you look back in history, when other things were banned in the United States, you will see a trend. For example, during Prohibition, the crime rate in America spiked to an all time high just because of the ban on alcohol.
              Everybody counts or no one counts.
              -Harry Bosch



              Some of you may remember that in my early days I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish things.
              -Ronald Reagan

              Comment


              • #8
                "The most detailed statement to come out of the administration so far was the president's March op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star, in which he pushed for better background checks. Obama stressed his belief in the "individual right to bear arms," but said "there's more we can do to prevent gun violence."

                ...Tarek suggested the administration was with McCarthy and her allies when it comes to a new push to strengthen background checks. A bill she introduced earlier this month would impose stricter penalties on states that fail to enter the names of people prohibited from buying guns into a national database. And it would require background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows.
                "

                Of all the complaints, the one I just don't understand is why anyone would oppose penalties on states for failing to enter names of persons who are prohibited from owning guns into the national data base? The NRA and most other pro-2nd Amendment organizations supported the concept of "Instant Checks" (vs waiting periods) and who here doesn't agree that those prohibited from lawfully purchasing firearms (felons, the insane, etc...) should be denied them? Why shouldn't states meet their statutory reporting requirements?

                Additionally, just what's wrong with allowing private citizens from having access to NICS, so they can verify private sales aren't being conducted with prohibited persons?

                It's one thing to spread the news when real threats to the 2nd Amendment are happening (such as some of the described failed legislation), but "headlines" like these appear for no other reason than to drum up contributions.
                "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pulicords View Post
                  Of all the complaints, the one I just don't understand is why anyone would oppose penalties on states for failing to enter names of persons who are prohibited from owning guns into the national data base? The NRA and most other pro-2nd Amendment organizations supported the concept of "Instant Checks" (vs waiting periods) and who here doesn't agree that those prohibited from lawfully purchasing firearms (felons, the insane, etc...) should be denied them? Why shouldn't states meet their statutory reporting requirements?
                  I don't know the details on it but it seems to me, it sounds a bit like the 55mph legislation. The feds provide x amount of dollars to the states and withhold it if they don't play along. That in my mind gives the federal government way too much power and control with quasi-laws. Either something should be a federal law or not, I don't like such a small body of politicians making such sweeping laws, where will it end?

                  I don't know if that's the objection, and I don't oppose a national database, but they should do it right or not at all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pulicords View Post
                    ...Tarek suggested the administration was with McCarthy and her allies when it comes to a new push to strengthen background checks. A bill she introduced earlier this month would impose stricter penalties on states that fail to enter the names of people prohibited from buying guns into a national database. And it would require background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows.[/I]"

                    Of all the complaints, the one I just don't understand is why anyone would oppose penalties on states for failing to enter names of persons who are prohibited from owning guns into the national data base? The NRA and most other pro-2nd Amendment organizations supported the concept of "Instant Checks" (vs waiting periods) and who here doesn't agree that those prohibited from lawfully purchasing firearms (felons, the insane, etc...) should be denied them? Why shouldn't states meet their statutory reporting requirements?

                    Additionally, just what's wrong with allowing private citizens from having access to NICS, so they can verify private sales aren't being conducted with prohibited persons?
                    I agree. How would this have a negative impact on sane, law-abiding citizens?

                    I also understand that Nevada allows but does not require private citizens to have the state check a prospective buyer's eligibility to purchase a firearm.
                    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by FromOhio View Post
                      If they wanted a safer place, put guns in the hands of every person who is responsible and stop sueing them when they kill/shoot a criminal for doing a crime.
                      Arizona allows openly and CCW carrying of a weapon without a permit. We also have a statute that states: "No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." That's written in the "Justification" chapter of our criminal code which talks about when it's legal to use all manners of force including deadly force.

                      We also have a statute specifically permitting any and all force, including deadly force, if the person believes it immediately necessary to stop another person's commission of several heinous crimes. Those crimes include: arson of an occupied structure, burglary in the second or first degree, kidnapping, manslaughter, second or first degree murder, sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, child molestation, armed robbery, or aggravated assault.

                      Maybe yet another group of laws the rest of the country should model theirs after.
                      Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post

                      I agree with your sentiments on that, but it would be much better if the federal government never took the money in the first place. It was never "theirs" to begin with. There are only a few basic things in which the federal government should be involved, with the rest of things being under the auspices of the states and localities.

                      As for the "gun control" nonsense, just remember that the ulitimate goal of those leading the movement IS the total disarmament of all civilians. Their minions and emotionally-driven sycophants really do not see the big picture or how badly they are being manipulated, but still provide them with a lot of donations and often vote for anti-gun politicians.

                      This is a tough fight that will go on for the foreseeable future, but we on the pro-freedom side are fortunate to have groups such as the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Jews for The Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Virginia Citizens Defense League helping us to fight the battle.
                      I like your style Mr. Dutch!

                      Originally posted by pulicords View Post
                      Of all the complaints, the one I just don't understand is why anyone would oppose penalties on states for failing to enter names of persons who are prohibited from owning guns into the national data base? The NRA and most other pro-2nd Amendment organizations supported the concept of "Instant Checks" (vs waiting periods) and who here doesn't agree that those prohibited from lawfully purchasing firearms (felons, the insane, etc...) should be denied them? Why shouldn't states meet their statutory reporting requirements?
                      I agree with Jasper. It's just something else the federal government can/would use to withhold funds from the states.

                      Originally posted by pulicords View Post
                      Additionally, just what's wrong with allowing private citizens from having access to NICS, so they can verify private sales aren't being conducted with prohibited persons?
                      That would be a huge win for the anti-gun crowd. You'd have to keep paper records just like the 4473 that dealers use, so you're not running names willy nilly and someone in the fed would have to maintain that database. That means the government will then know which citizens are buying and selling guns (the ones that are abiding by the law and actually conducting the checks, anyway). The anti-gunners would use such a system as a stepping stone to the end game of national registration.
                      NRA Life Member

                      The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                      Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                      Comment


                      • #12

                        Not to fall into the "tin foil hat" category, but the biggest reservation about a 'national data base' of firearms owners is the worry about confiscation. As we have seen in other nations (and indeed in some of our own states), registration often leads to confiscation. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it is none of the government's business whether or not I choose to exercise a constitutional right. It is a RIGHT - not a privilege subject to bureaucratic or legislative fiat.

                        I'd prefer the REVERSE of such a system, though, with a simple national data base of prohibited people - those who are forbidden to own, carry or otherwise possess firearms. Enforce the laws we already have and focus on CRIMINALS - not the rest of us who are not the problem in the first place.

                        _________________________________


                        "Ever notice how those who love and adore 'gun control' laws forced on the rest of us are usually people who are protected by police officers or private security guards WITH GUNS?" -- G. Gordon Liddy

                        __________________________________
                        Last edited by VA Dutch; 05-29-2011, 11:28 AM.

                        The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                        The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                        ------------------------------------------------

                        "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                        Comment


                        • #13

                          Our wires got crossed, Sgt. Slaughter; but you pretty much nailed what I was trying to say.

                          Sic semper tyrannis!!

                          ========================

                          "Would the last real conservative in the room please turn out the light when you leave?"

                          The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                          The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                          ------------------------------------------------

                          "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post

                            Not to fall into the "tin foil hat" category, but the biggest reservation about a 'national data base' of firearms owners is the worry about confiscation. As we have seen in other nations (and indeed in some of our own states), registration often leads to confiscation. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it is none of the government's business whether or not I choose to exercise a constitutional right. It is a RIGHT - not a privilege subject to bureaucratic or legislative fiat.

                            I'd prefer the REVERSE of such a system, though, with a simple national data base of prohibited people - those who are forbidden to own, carry or otherwise possess firearms. Enforce the laws we already have and focus on CRIMINALS - not the rest of us who are not the problem in the first place.
                            Isn't that the system we (supposedly) have now?
                            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Quote Originally Posted by pulicords "Of all the complaints, the one I just don't understand is why anyone would oppose penalties on states for failing to enter names of persons who are prohibited from owning guns into the national data base? The NRA and most other pro-2nd Amendment organizations supported the concept of "Instant Checks" (vs waiting periods) and who here doesn't agree that those prohibited from lawfully purchasing firearms (felons, the insane, etc...) should be denied them? Why shouldn't states meet their statutory reporting requirements?"

                              Sgt Slaughter: I agree with Jasper. It's just something else the federal government can/would use to withhold funds from the states.

                              Federal and state law is quite clear on both who is prohibited from owning firearms and how that data is supposed to be collected, maintained and distributed to those required to access it. This isn't a federal intrusion on states' rights, it's a necessity for dealing with an interstate issue. There's absolutely no reason for one state to conceal the identity of convicted felons (and others prohibited from owning firearms) from gun sellers in other states. Arguing against such reciprocity is akin to denying the importance of maintaining a national data base on arrests/convictions/fingerprints and other criminal history details found in NCIC.

                              Quote Originally Posted by pulicords "Additionally, just what's wrong with allowing private citizens from having access to NICS, so they can verify private sales aren't being conducted with prohibited persons?"

                              Sgt Slaughter: That would be a huge win for the anti-gun crowd. You'd have to keep paper records just like the 4473 that dealers use, so you're not running names willy nilly and someone in the fed would have to maintain that database. That means the government will then know which citizens are buying and selling guns (the ones that are abiding by the law and actually conducting the checks, anyway). The anti-gunners would use such a system as a stepping stone to the end game of national registration.

                              Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. While it may be a "win" (your words) for the antis to allow non-FFL holders the ability to access NICS, it most certainly is a "lose" for pro-2nd Amendment people to oppose such a policy. Instant checks could easily be accomplished without registration requirements and there's no excuse for responsible gunowners not to avail themselves with the technology. People that are prohibited by federal (and state) law from owning guns shouldn't be allowed to circumvent those prohibitions because private party sellers don't want to go through the trouble of making a toll-free telephone call. We (responsible gunowners) look like paranoid idiots when we oppose such a simple solution to an obvious problem.
                              Last edited by pulicords; 05-29-2011, 11:50 AM.
                              "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6421 users online. 387 members and 6034 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X