Here comes the gun control push

[oneounceload]

PROMISES, PROMISES: No action from Obama on guns

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/...ma_gun_control

An excerpt:

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement that the Justice Department is "consulting with the key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights."

Schultz declined to comment beyond that, but whatever the administration produces is likely to fall well short of the steps activists would like to see, such as legislation banning the kind of high-capacity ammunition clips used in the Giffords shooting.

There's that same old manta - "common-sense"

Common sense would mean California NOT releasing 40,000 violent criminals because they're a little crowded
Common sense would mean keeping criminals anywhere locked up
Common sense would be to go after the criminal, not the object

But then, common sense seems to be missing from a lot of folks of a certain political persuasion

[jmortimer]

The current administration has made clear statements that they would regulate and move to support restrictive gun laws and support the United Nations gun ban treaty. We need "change" in the Senate. Fortunately, their party lost the house but they are one justice away from stacking the SCOTUS and destroying, for sure, the Second Amendment. Let's hope the "right " people are elected in 2012.

[pgdion]

Common sense would be to go after the criminal, not the object

And common sense would mean to go after the criminal and not the victims, ie - Castle Doctrine (or lack thereof)

nice post jm

[Technosavant]

There's little doubt the administration would love to do it, but keep in mind who the enforcement arm of gun control tends to be- the BATFE.

The same agency currently being slow-roasted in Congress for their corruption. I'd be surprised if the aftermath means real reform in the agency, but at least for the time being there isn't likely to be much support for anything to do with them in the House (and possibly even the Senate).

Besides, the administration has to also prioritize; if they blow their political capital on gun control there's nothing left for any other work. I'd expect this talk to be a sop tossed to gun control advocates in the hopes of support in next year's elections. I doubt they'll do much this year or next, but if Obama gets reelected while picking up anti gun politicians in Congress, I'd expect things to change quickly.

[Kreyzhorse]

Housing, economy, two wars, fast and furious, an election up coming and a Congress that likely won't support any gun control measures, I just don't see it likely that he'll make a lot of waves on gun control right now.

Just because I don't see it happening doesn't mean that I don't think he'd like too however. As Technosavat pointed out, I'd worry more about if he gets elected again.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Watch going into general electoral politics, please.

[Tom Servo]

Housing, economy, two wars, fast and furious, an election up coming and a Congress that likely won't support any gun control measures, I just don't see it likely that he'll make a lot of waves on gun control right now.

He won't. You've got an article that slants towards quotes from Frank Lautenberg and Paul Helmke, discussing a policy issue that the administration wouldn't touch even when it had both houses of Congress on its side.

Stop crying wolf, people.

[alan]

Re "common sense", if that unfamiliar to some commodity were ever actually utilized, Gun Control Legislation of the type so often encountered would be the absolute last thing considered. Alas "common sense" is something of a rarity, it being rather less often encountered than the adjective infers.

[armoredman]

oneounceload, absolutely, but remember that when your DOC asks for money for new prison construction and more staff. A little crowding is not bad, but define ' a little. When you have three in a cell designed for one, that's bad, fights and deaths occur. Remember that when budget battles come up, and voter propositions to fund spray painting the trees green instead of supporting those who do what we can to keep people safe.
As for the story, absolutely, the anti's are trying DESPERATELY to spin the attention away from the ATFE hearings, and turn this into a win for their side, somehow making it our fault that those guns were there for ATFE to wave a fond but regretful farewell as they disappeared over the border into the hands of thugs and drug runners. If we weren't such horrible people who wanted gun, well, that wouldn't happen, so we'll take those horrible guns away from everyone so nobody ever can take one across the border again, whether of not a Federal agency is actively assisting the illegal gun smuggling.
I doubt they will get anywhere right now, current make up of Congress wouldn't allow it. Let Dear Leader get re-elected, maybe we'll see some Executive Orders, maybe not, but not right now, not legislatively.

[kozak6]

For a couple minutes, I thought this was an old recycled article from March.

Consider the response a few months back to the suggestion of "common sense" measures.

Now, the memory of the Tucson shooting is even further faded.

I really don't see it going anywhere this time. And especially not this term.

Obama also has gone out of his way to be bipartisan, and even when he didn't have to be. I would imagine that any serious measures would be quickly blocked or defanged.

Also, with the recent attention to the BATFE's exploits in Mexico, this seems to be a strange direction to take things.

[Eghad]

That was probably double talk for saying that we are doing nothing but we want to appear to be doing something. I do not think president wants to touch the third rail of gun rights and mobilize the gun rights crowd. If he wins a second term he might try some under the radar stuff then if he has a Democratic Congress behing him in 2012.

[Silver Bullet]

881 days down, 580 days to go.

60%.

Will the Republic survive ?

[Patriot86]

I am more worried about what the gun control climate will be in 2013, If Obama is re-elected then we are probably destined for more "common sense" gun laws. This issue is a non starter with the economy as it is in 2011, people without jobs, three wars, you have little political appetite in the general public for gun control.

[AirForceShooter]

Last I heard the only "Stakeholders" in the United States are the voters.

AFS

[danez71]

I am more worried about what the gun control climate will be in 2013, If Obama is re-elected then we are probably destined for more "common sense" gun laws.

IMO.... BINGO.

I'm more worried if/when he is reelected. At that point, he doesnt have to worry about loosing voters and may push to leave his legacy as 'the president that put an end to gun violence'.

Last term presidents often push their own agenda.

[Uncle Buck]

Quote:
Common sense would be to go after the criminal, not the object
And common sense would mean to go after the criminal and not the victims, ie - Castle Doctrine (or lack thereof)

But when the criminals are viewed as the victims, the end results are skewed against us all.

[Carry_24/7]

The same people went screaming about new gun laws when he was elected, same folks then hoarded ammo and blamed everyone else, here they go again.....

[Rifleman1776]

Don't forget "reasonable" gun laws.
That and the "common sense" phrase are carefully focus group tested words that are deemed to be acceptable to a large percentage of Americans.
The danger is that this kind of rhetoric is also effective with many members of Congress who make and pass laws.
That is why we who support the 2ndA must stay vigilant and in contact with our lawmakers in Congress. If they do not promise support for the 2ndA remind them, as politely as possible, that elections are coming.

[Tom Servo]

At that point, he doesnt have to worry about loosing voters and may push to leave his legacy as 'the president that put an end to gun violence'.

LBJ did that with the Gun Control Act because he had little to lose, and he had Congress behind him.

However, the current President does not have Congress behind him. The current President has more important political priorities. The current President has to conform with two Supreme Court decisions affirming the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

[carguychris]

Last term presidents often push their own agenda.

However, they often get nowhere doing it.

When past second-term Presidents have chosen to tackle unpopular pet "legacy" projects, they have often had so many strikes against them on other issues that Congress aggressively pushed back or simply ignored them.

Witness GWB's attempt at comprehensive immigration reform; I believe a picture of the plan may go in the next edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary next to the word "backfire".

[Double Naught Spy]

oneounceload quoted...

PROMISES, PROMISES: No action from Obama on guns

apparently has now changed to...

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama yet to act on gun safety

881 days down, 580 days to go.

60%.

Will the Republic survive ?

Of course. It did under W and it did under Carter. It will under Obama.

However, the current President does not have Congress behind him. The current President has more important political priorities. The current President has to conform with two Supreme Court decisions affirming the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

True, but while we often blame the President for everything and often give them undue credit as well (Carter could not even get helicopters to flew long enough to make a rescue and Reagan caused the fall of Communism), in this case it is Congress that is the key factor. What is the Congressional agenda that is at hand? The President will sign bills agreeable to his position/views if they cross his desk, but they have to go through Congress first. So it really isn't what the President is busy with, but what Congress is busy with. Often they have all the same interests and immediate goals, but not always.

Obama may get re-elected, I hope not, but he might. If he doesn't get both houses of Congress, he will be a very lame duck President. He will be lame if he just gets one. If he gets both (which seems hugely unlikely), we are screwed. He would be a very powerful duck.

[Daugherty16]

If this bozo gets re-elected, he can accomplish much of what he wants for further gun-control (and if you doubt his record as a rabid anti-gunner, do some research) through executive order, gov't agency fiat, and regulations/policies.

So he doesn't need to carry the house or win back the senate, although that would be a disaster.

The contempt being shown for the senators trying to investigate Gunrunner is nothing compared to the contempt he'll show if re-elected. He'll have his "4 more years", with no re-relection worries. His health care administration will give him the perfect platfform to utilize for "de facto" outlawing guns.

First, declare guns to be dangerous houshold devices and raise gun-owner's insurance premiums. Then determine them to be incompatible with long-term good health, and drop health care coverage for gun owners. The only way to get it back is to surrender your guns. Then detemine guns to be a public menace and begin the confiscation. All those health care questionnaires that have since been uploaded into the big healthnet database will tell them how many guns you own, where you live, and your brand of favorite underwear.

Just saying it could be done and if the votes are not in favor of legislation, he has other avenues to travel. He learned from Bill Clinton's mistake, you see.

[Tom Servo]

If this bozo gets re-elected, he can accomplish much of what he wants for further gun-control (and if you doubt his record as a rabid anti-gunner, do some research) through executive order, gov't agency fiat, and regulations/policies.

There seems to be some confusion on exactly what can be done via executive order. It is not a legislative tool. Though the exact parameters have never been strictly defined, the Supreme Court has ruled a few unconstitutional for over-reaching.

I have no clue what "agency fiat" might mean.

In terms of regulations, it also seems unlikely. OSHA tried to get ammunition, primers, and powder defined as "explosives" back in 2007. The public was alerted to the measure almost immediately, and the backlash was enough to make them reconsider. Love it or hate it, the internet ensures that the government can't just sneak stuff in through the back door like they used to.

I can't help wonder what good all this energy and vitriol would do if it were focused on something more constructive.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sorry, folks - rambling fears and politics - nah.

Closed.