Even Without Congress, Obama Can Change Gun Laws
Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action to improve background checks on gun buyers, ban certain gun imports and bolster oversight of dealers.
Prospects for gun control legislation intensified in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, as more pro-gun rights lawmakers said on Monday they were open to the possibility while Obama and three cabinet members met at the White House to discuss the subject.
Having just won a second four-year term, Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights and he could press ahead without lawmakers on fronts where federal law enables executive action.
Speaking in Newtown, where a gunman on Friday killed 20 children and six adults in an elementary school, Obama vowed late on Sunday to “use whatever power this office holds” to try to prevent such massacres.
“Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine,” Obama said at Newtown High School.
His administration has the power to issue executive orders or new rules, options that Obama is likely to consider in combination with possible new laws.
The National Rifle Association, the largest U.S. gun rights group with 4 million supporters, relies largely on its ability to influence lawmakers in order to block legislation.
Obama’s appointees at the U.S. Justice Department have been studying ideas since the January 8, 2011, shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and 18 others at a public meeting. Giffords survived but six people died.
Christopher Schroeder, who ran the Justice Department’s review, said it looked at possible legislation to send to Congress as well as action the administration could take itself.
“You always look at both, because if you can do it administratively it’s certainly a less involved process,” said Schroeder, who has since returned to a professorship at Duke Law School.
Many of the ideas have to do with the background checks that licensed gun dealers run on potential buyers.
CRITICS CITE HOLES
Critics say the system has holes because it does not include all the data it should on those ineligible to buy guns. The FBI, which runs the system, could incorporate more data from within the federal government – using evidence of mental incompetence, for example.
There are privacy concerns, however, and the Justice Department is still studying which types of data it can legally use, Schroeder said.
“That kind of system works effectively only if all of the potentially disqualifying information that has been gathered by any federal, state or local authority is accessible to the database, and that’s not the case today,” he said.
It is not clear what changes to the background checks would have prevented the mass shooting in Newtown, because the killer appeared to have used weapons his mother bought legally.
Other proposals for executive action by Obama include sharing information with state and local law enforcement about possibly illegal purchases; maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods to help with investigations; and restricting the importation of certain military-style weapons, as President George H.W. Bush did in 1989.
A pro-gun control mayors’ group co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has pushed the Obama administration since 2009 to adopt 40 recommendations it said were allowed under existing law.
One of the 40 has been put into effect, said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and even that recommendation – requiring gun dealers to report sales of multiple semiautomatic weapons – drew heated resistance.
In 2011, when the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a version of the recommendation aimed at dealers in states near the U.S.-Mexico border, gun makers sued and congressional Republicans tried to eliminate funding for the rule.
A judge upheld it, allowing it to go into effect. The case is now on appeal.
LOBBYING BLITZ
Bloomberg’s group is still pushing the other recommendations as it makes plans for a lobbying blitz over new laws, such as a ban on high-capacity magazines. “While they are important, they’re not the big-ticket items. And we’re in a big-ticket world,” Glaze said.
The administration also has leeway to act in how it defines certain categories of people prohibited from buying a gun.
Federal law bars anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective,” but it does not specify whether that means only a court can disqualify someone, said Michael Volkov, a former Republican Justice Department official now at the law firm LeClairRyan.
Another option could be changing how long a firearms dealer must keep records of a sale – a period that is now three days but could be extended, Volkov said.
Since the Justice Department began reviewing ideas to prevent mass shootings in early 2011, it has implemented a handful of changes.
In May, the department unveiled an automated system to feed records of federal indictments into the background checks database, replacing a system in which prosecutors uploaded information manually.
Schroeder said the department’s review of firearms-related ideas is ongoing. He described the process as informal, and not one that has produced a formal report.
By David Ingram.
This article originally appeared in Reuters.
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Any Unconstitutional law cannot be enacted by a tyrannical employee of the United States employers of these people. Any law enforcement officer who tries to take enforce an illegal Constitutional right by taking action against a citizen’s ‘right to keep’ and bare arms can be dispatched without any consequences to that citizen.
What the heck are the Republicans good for if they can’t be bothered to defend the Constitution in the face of this commie defiling the Oval Office?
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
Obama HATES the Constitution, always has. He has no leagl right. Just like ALL the other Executive orders, he has no right. He wants socialism and he will do whatever he can to get it. He WILL open a HUGE Pandora’s Box on this one. Also what he has been wanting. He has been WAITING for this day!
Seems likely that these gun-control persons are the ones orchestrating such tragedies. It serves their agenda quite well.
And that’s exactly the reason I am getting another AK or two, as well as another handgun with a “high-capacity” magazine. It’s not that they are necessarily needed, but they will be if anyone tries to take away my constitutional rights guaranteeing protection.
I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
So wait, this guy claims that someone who has been Indicted, ( This is NOT a conviction, its before you even go to trial) can be denied the right to own a firearm? I believe the COnstitution is CLEAR on how a trial takes place. Indictment only means there is enough evidence to PROCEED with a trial. How many people are AQUITTED DAILY in trials after they have been indicted? I can think of one very HIGH PROFILE case in Florida concerning a mother who was INDICTED for murdering her child. However, she was AQUITTED of the crime. As the Libtards like to say, “Its not the facts of the case, its the seriousbess of the charge” huh? what BS Obama can do NOTHING about gun rights administratively. Since the Heller Decision and the subsequent decisions in Illinios it will take a Constitutional Amendment overturning the 2nd Amendment to restrict gun rights in this country, so how bout we all Shut up and address the real problem which is the destruction of the FAMILY, FAITH, and the RULE OF LAW in this country that the Libtards have been hell bent on achieving since the middle 1960′s!
The real problems and unintended consequences on gun control legislation are several. First, it is never a good trade in a republic to trade self-defense (self and family), constitutional rights and personal liberties for the perception of public safety. Second, the most anti-gun legislators are the ones crafting gun control law, opportunistically, on the heels of a tragic shooting at the elementary school recently. In fact, one of the crafters of this legislation said publicly that she would take up all the guns if she “just had the votes”. I regret the vilification of the NRA, NAGR and other organizations that train citizens for responsible gun ownership and the media cast most American gun owners as somehow evil, and not responsible. Even though the FBI and Department of Justice statistics show the previous assault weapon ban was not effective at reducing violent gun crimes, these same legislators are called for another ban. Same with magazine capacities. Pre-ban magazines are still available, and like Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, if you pass enough laws, everyone will be a criminal. Had not the NRA proposed armed guards in schools (of which about 1/3 already have armed guards), the idea might have gotten more, automatic credence. A national registration scheme is the beginning of the end of civilian gun ownership in our republic, so watch out carefully for it. I side with the NRA, re-upped my membership and donated to the NAGR several times recently. Frankly, I do not trust anyone who would, like Feinstein, take away firearms from law-abiding Americans. This is not paranoia, if their agenda is what they say it is and Americans should take notice of attempts to regulate U.S. firearms from the U.N., presidential decree or anti-gun zealots in Washington. I notice they have armed protection in the performance of their duties, but would deny the same to ordinary Americans. Hypocritical at best, dangerous to the people as well.