Obama To Push Gun Control Soon

[Mauser720]

Obama To Push Gun Control Soon

Friday, January 28, 2011

To the dismay of the Brady Campaign and other gun ban groups, President Barack Obama didn’t address gun control during his State of the Union address on January 25th. However, Newsweek reports that “in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort,” and that the White House confirms, “Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month.” According to Newsweek, Obama believes that gun laws have been “too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks” following the murders in Tucson, Arizona.

Precisely what President Obama might have in mind is uncertain. His post-election transition website advocated reimposing the expired federal “assault weapon” ban, but that ban would clearly be irrelevant in the wake of a shooting that involved a firearm not covered by the old ban.

The President, a long-time gun control supporter, has been conspicuously silent on gun control restrictions since taking office. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the anti-gun groups prodding him to support their agendas. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which sent the President a long list of gun control recommendations in August of 2009, is proposing that all private sales of firearms be subject to checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—which would have been irrelevant in Tucson, since the accused killer acquired his guns from a dealer. MAIG is also calling for “fixing” NICS. Among the many “fixes” the group has in mind is that “people who have been suspended or expelled from a federally funded college or university because of mental illness” and “people who are compelled by a court to take medication for mental illness or to get other mental health care” would be prohibited from possessing firearms. MAIG also proposes to extend the prohibition to anyone who has had a drug-related arrest, a failed drug test, an admission of drug use, or a drug-related conviction within the previous five years.

Concurrently, the Brady Campaign is throwing its support behind H.R. 308—the “more than 10 round” magazine ban introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)—and asks the group’s supporters to sign a petition urging “a few basic steps,” with neither the “steps” nor the intended recipient of the petition disclosed (to read a detailed fact sheet on H.R. 308, please click here).

The Violence Policy Center, which guided McCarthy in crafting her magazine ban bill, is supporting it with yet another of its countless “analyses”-- Accessories to Murder: High-Capacity Magazines—and a similar effort directed against the type of pistol used in Tucson. The VPC uses the opportunity to suggest, as it often does, that gun ownership is fading, by referring to standard magazines for self-defense handguns as a marketing tool the firearm industry uses to appeal to “its shrinking customer base.” That's an interesting argument to hear from a group that has no members, while the number of guns possessed by Americans increases year after year.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence—VPC leader Josh Sugarmann’s employer back when the group was known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns—advocates not merely running NICS checks on gun buyers, but “investigating” them as well. The group also insists that the Tucson shooting was the result of “insurrectionist rhetoric” the group blames on conservatives, various politicians, and the five justices who joined the Supreme Court’s Heller decision—rather than being the act of one deranged individual, as all available evidence suggests.

And, in a return to his modus operandi of vilifying gun shows and the purchase of firearms by show attendees, this week anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), introduced legislation to “establish background check procedures for gun shows.” As usual, this bill is not about gun shows. Rather, S. 35 is the latest rendition in a long line of Lautenberg-introduced bills that are nothing more than “solutions” in search of a problem. Numerous government studies have determined that gun shows are an insignificant source of firearms misused in crime.

Which, if any, of these proposals and theories will get the president’s endorsement remains to be seen. But gun owners should be prepared: The second two years of President Obama’s term may be tougher than the first.


Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

[alanint]

When you have a failed presidency and a hostile congress, the only thing this will lead to is more ousters of the left's candidates, if recent history is any indication..

[Conny]

He is testing the waters for public opinion but there has been no call/cry for more anti-gun laws from the people. Any Bill proposed will go nowhere. The House is more than 3/4 packed with progunners as is the Senate. He will fail, again.

Absolutely no worry's here.

[saab-bob]

Maybe we do not have to worry, for now,about any new gun laws getting past Congress. However,Obama still controls the BATF. They can make life miserable for gun dealers and gun shows,just by passing new regulations,without any public input.
Do not forget the UN small arms control treaty that will restrict private gun ownership as a "path to world peace". Liberal judges would be only to happy to impose these international laws in the USA.

Bob

[minigun]

He can do whatever, but I just don't think he'll get anything past the new Congress. I just don't see it happening. The media will try what it can, but right now, they have way too much to fear from this health care mess they created. Throw the gun control thing on top of that and they are in for a huge loss come two years. And, the tax issue comes up in two years again too. They will really be screwed big time on these issues.

But, I'm glad I got what I have, when I did, just in case.

[conehammer]

I don't think we can ever afford to be complacent; never be that certain that the law making bodies are well stocked with pro - firearm lawmakers. Positions have been swayed before. We need to always be aware of what the wrist wringing, liberals are scheming; the UN laws concern me and whenever the country has suffered a tragedy such as the most recent those who would wrest our rights seize the moment and capitalize on it like the vultures they are.

jerry

[Edward Tinker]

Judges, liberal or conservative do not have the authority to impose any international laws...

Judges, even the supreme court interprets laws, and only those made by the US Congress.

[Mauser720]

saab-bob and conehammer bring up a legitimate concern.

"But our own law may not be the only law that determines what happens in this country. At the very moment when Americans were so preoccupied with debates about the meaning of perjury or the requirements for impeachment, a series of events around the world offered a foretaste of what may become the next subject of heated legal debate for the United States: the proper reach of international law.

In Britain, the House of Lords decided last December that Augusto Pinochet could be held for extradition to Spain, where a magistrate sought to try the former Chilean dictator for tortures and murders committed by the Chilean government during Pinochet's period as chief of state. Meanwhile, halfway around the world, the government of Australia struggled to defend itself before a UN authority, which condemned the Australian government for allowing a uranium mine to be developed in the vicinity of an Australian national park. And here in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, after repeated displays of its own impatience with judicial second-guessing of capital sentences, suddenly ordered a halt to an execution in Texas and agreed to hear an appeal claiming that capital punishment in this case would violate international standards." source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_54336464/ (a very interesting and informative read in its entirity)

If you google something like "International Law vs. US laws" you can find all kinds of examples of how International Law is already being considered when our courts, including our Supreme Court, render decisions.

[lew1]

Originally Posted by Conny

He is testing the waters for public opinion but there has been no call/cry for more anti-gun laws from the people. Any Bill proposed will go nowhere. The House is more than 3/4 packed with progunners as is the Senate. He will fail, again.

Absolutely no worry's here.

"Absolutely"--- remember it is is not over until the fat lady sings

[lew1]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

Judges, liberal or conservative do not have the authority to impose any international laws...

Judges, even the supreme court interprets laws, and only those made by the US Congress.

The USSC interprets the law, and if they say a white sheet is actually purple with orange dotsd, then it is purple with orange dots.

[Jasta2]

As long as the Suprene Cout has it conservative majority I doubt any out right gun bans would stand. BUT!the total opion of no gun restrictions at all, I feel will surely backfire. Here in New Hampshire, where a good percentage of the state hunts or own firearms in general have quite varing views, though the our states new conservative congress voted to allow it's members to carry concealed into the chamber. I work in a hardware store and we are one of the very few places in our area to sell hunting licences. Alot of the feedback I get from hunters is that if the "Gun Nuts" have their way demanding the right to own anygun, outside a full automatic firearm, including handguns with 30 round clips, is just a infringement of there rights, will lead to more outcry from the non-gunowning public to put controls in place.
I know the old saw"If we give a inch,they will take everything". Despite the last election, much of the public is turning liberal. All it will take is another event like the one just passed, a even more deadly one, you will see the 'Facebook' and 'Tweeter' users ban together and demand something be done. Don't down play them. All that is going on now in Egypt had much of it's orgination via Facebook and the like. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the right own, collect, and use most all firearms for hunting or personal defence, but if we continue on the right to own 30 round mags for handguns,ect. it will only lead to a more determed anti gun feeling among the general public. This is just my humble opinion. And I am a Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reily, Tea Party type of guy.
BillOOPs! Did not meen to have my post all in bold. Sorry!

[lew1]

Originally Posted by Jasta2

As long as the Suprene Cout has it conservative majority I doubt any out right gun bans would stand. BUT!the total opion of no gun restrictions at all, I feel will surely backfire. Here in New Hampshire, where a good percentage of the state hunts or own firearms in general have quite varing views, though the our states new conservative congress voted to allow it's members to carry concealed into the chamber. I work in a hardware store and we are one of the very few places in our area to sell hunting licences. Alot of the feedback I get from hunters is that if the "Gun Nuts" have their way demanding the right to own anygun, outside a full automatic firearm, including handguns with 30 round clips, is just a infringement of there rights, will lead to more outcry from the non-gunowning public to put controls in place.
I know the old saw"If we give a inch,they will take everything". Despite the last election, much of the public is turning liberal. All it will take is another event like the one just passed, a even more deadly one, you will see the 'Facebook' and 'Tweeter' users ban together and demand something be done. Don't down play them. All that is going on now in Egypt had much of it's orgination via Facebook and the like. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the right own, collect, and use most all firearms for hunting or personal defence, but if we continue on the right to own 30 round mags for handguns,ect. it will only lead to a more determed anti gun feeling among the general public. This is just my humble opinion. And I am a Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reily, Tea Party type of guy.
BillOOPs! Did not meen to have my post all in bold. Sorry!

What scares me even more than the 30 round mags are those hunters with the evil sniper rifles.

Plus we all know that the hunters go out to their camps aand drink all evening and night beofre they go to use thei sniper rifles.

They need to be controled, perhaps registered, and a psych evaluation at least every 6 months.

Does depend on the view point - don't you agree.

[Jasta2]

Point taken. It does very much depend on ones view point. I guess extremes can be made on both sides. I take among some gun owners, it s give me everything, no restrictions!! "We" well know the basics between a scoped hunting rifle and 'assult weapon' is mostly window dressing. No so much of the public. There must be some common ground. We all know how the media can twist us all into Gun Nuts. I, in just my own opinion, can show as gun owners that not all of us want to recreate the 'Wild West' on our streets again. No disrespect to any others thoughts on this matter.

[Curly1]

What scares me even more is posts with a lot of bad spelling