iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Administration To Hold Gun Policy Meetings With Goal Of Policy Changes

Obama

First Posted: 03/14/11 03:08 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has conducted informal discussions with groups from both ends of the gun-policy spectrum, including law enforcement and gun-rights organizations, and is set to hold formal meetings as early as this week in an effort to chart out a set of new firearms policies, administration officials say.

Spearheaded by the Department of Justice, the talks were described by one individual involved in the discussions as a “feeling-out process.” With more official meetings set to begin shortly, they provide the clearest indication to date that the White House is readying a response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others at Tucson in early January.

“As the president said, we should focus on sound, effective steps that will keep guns out of the hands of the criminals, fugitives, people with serious mental illness, and others who have no business possessing a gun and who are prohibited by laws on the books from owning a gun,” Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. “We will be meeting with stakeholders on all sides of the issue to discuss how we can find sensible, intelligent ways to make the country safer.”

The goal is to finalize a set of policy changes, including, perhaps, legislation that could pass through a Congress hostile to abridgments of Second Amendment rights. The last serious bite at the apple occurred following the shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007.

In a Sunday op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, President Barack Obama called for a three-pronged approach: enforcing the laws already on the books, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; pushing for greater state-to-state coordination; and expediting background checks and the release of relevant data.

“It was a promising sign that the president understands that 86 percent of the public, including around 80 percent of gun owners, think that a simple background check for every purchase includes next to zero burden for law-abiding citizens and can save countless live,” said Mark Glaze, the executive director of the coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG).

The contours laid out in the op-ed are similar to the plan currently being pushed by MAIG and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Schumer, who has also been in touch with DOJ officials, held a press conference with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg several weeks ago announcing plans to beef up the national background-check system, including eliminating a loophole that allows individuals to buy firearms at gun shows without submitting to a background check.

Though official talks have not yet begun, the Obama administration is expected to aim mostly at such low-hanging fruit, leaving issues like the legality of the high-capacity magazine -- which allows even pistols to fire more than 30 shots without reloading, and was used in the Tucson shootings in January -- to remain unaddressed for the time being. The principal debate, then, will likely center around the application of background-check standards to private dealers.

“They have been meeting with us and also with law enforcement groups and industry,” one gun-control advocate said of the administration. “This is what the White House does when they want to put a serious legislative apparatus together ... The game now becomes effectively demonstrating, in a way that is meaningful, what we know is the overwhelming support for universal background checks.”

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has conducted informal discussions with groups from both ends of the gun-policy spectrum, including law enforcement and gun-rights organizations, and is set to h...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has conducted informal discussions with groups from both ends of the gun-policy spectrum, including law enforcement and gun-rights organizations, and is set to h...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,548
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (38 total)
11:06 AM on 03/28/2011
Federal statute supports the definition of militia as being composed of 'We the people'.You are the first line of defense for your person, your home, and your family. Looking to law enforcement for advice on issues of second amendment policy is like putting Colonel Sanders in charge of your hen house. One morning you'll go out to get fresh eggs for breakfast only to find your prize layers in the frying pan. November 2012 can't come fast enough for me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AndyWright68
Freedom is inevitable!
11:47 PM on 03/22/2011
The government needs to get out of the business of making guns hard to get. It will always be easy for criminals to get them. All the government can do is hinder good people.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alex Gartzia
Specialist in Generalities.
06:26 PM on 03/22/2011
Even if these law proposals help curve illegal gun sales it won't eliminate student shootings which are frequently purchased legally. You can't limit private party sales either which can end up in criminal hands; it is impossible. I don't see a simple solution to huge and avoidable tragedy. There are too many loopholes in the system that need immediate attention. The loopholes still don't limit, expedited sales and the proper fool proof securement of firearms. The security of all citizens should be placed above all else and gun deaths are unacceptable in a modern society. It's very unsettling to know that anyone can buy a gun. Technology and law must save us from the cruelty of all firearm murders administered via government or individuals. Even "death by cop" murders/deaths are illogical.
11:08 PM on 03/16/2011
No, he will meet with those who will support his agenda. As I recall, he is the one who said "We won!" Strange, I have NOT heard that since Nov. 2010.
10:36 AM on 03/16/2011
WHo from the gun rights side did he speak with? The NRA refused to meet with him and sent him a letter detailing why.
02:22 PM on 03/15/2011
After the Republicans and Democrats are done playing Budget games we will have no Police force to help us in need. Therfore I will keep my handgun in my holster everday until they come pry it off my dead hands.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
BobJacobson
"The Future: Live it, or live with it." - Firesign
11:26 PM on 03/21/2011
You will then be shot by a thief who wants your gun, a family member who dislikes you, or a peace officer who mistakes you for the perp at a crime scene. Or perhaps you will shoot yourself in the foot, which currently is in your mouth.
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
03:11 PM on 04/29/2011
So I am guessing that you don't want law-abiding citizens owning guns? You know you are siding with the criminals here, don't you? What do you do for a living...burglaries, muggings, robberies?
photo
TedCollins
An Englishman living in France who loves America
12:45 PM on 03/15/2011
I believe that it is worth making a distinction between the NRA and the NRA-ILA, which is the lobbying division.

The NRA (which began in the United Kingdom) sponsors safety courses and sporting events.

The NRA-ILA lobbies politicians. The NRA-ILA is not funded by membership dues. It is funded by donations, most of which appear to be from firearm manufacturers.

Does the NRA-ILA represent the interests of NRA members, or the commecial interest of manufacturers?

Polls seem to show that the NRA membership favor gun laws that the NRA-ILA lobbies against.

Any thoughts?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cool Bam
01:35 PM on 03/15/2011
There is a lot of unnecessary demonization of the NRA going on here. It only serves to hurt the cause or sensible legislation by making supporter and member angry when they agree with the general concept of fixing the background checks to begin with. Not smart. The group supported the checks to begin with and are currently supporting the notion of compliance and enforcement now. It does make one wonder what "conference" is necessary if this is in fact all they want to do. Fact is they are going to go after Gun shows, which is fine with me, then real private individual sale outside or shows....and THAT is where it falls down. It's a sticky wicket
photo
TedCollins
An Englishman living in France who loves America
02:15 PM on 03/15/2011
Perhaps this is a pipe dream, but I have always wished that gun control advocates would focus more on persuasion rather than coercion in the US.

One of the reasons I think gun laws have been so readily accepted in the United Kingdom is that most people do not wish to own guns. They see having a gun in the house as an unneccesary danger to themselves or family members. And there are very good reasons to belive this.

Look at how successful anti-smoking campaings have been. In 1950, 60% of amercians smoked. Now it is less than 20%, and this was accomplished notwithstanding a well-financed industry lobby and without illegalizing anything. Perhaps this is the best model for reducing the proliferation of handguns as well.
01:59 PM on 03/15/2011
The NRA was a quaint little rifle club until it became apparent that someone had to protect The People’s Fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms as well as to protect those who manufacture and sell those arms. It’s no surprise that those People and those manufacturers would work with the NRA by providing their time, voices, and dollars. The NRA is actually a pretty big club so you do see times when the members disagree and you see members who aren’t even up to speed on or even bother to care about some issues. The Constitution contains the Second Amendment, the courts have held it to be an individual and fundamental right, around 85% of the citizen agree so, when no one, not even NRA members are bothering to keep up to speed on what they believe is already settle law, that’s when you’ll see the disconnect on the minor details between those polled and those in NRA-ILA leadership. A good example is the “terrorist watch list”. When polled a number of NRA members approved of denying those on the list. Now that the NRA-ILA has weighed in and informed their members that it’s an arbitrary list with no due process and even Teddy Kennedy, Cat Stevens, and children were on the list, you’ll most likely get a different polling response if you conduct it again. That’s the NRA-ILA’s job and that’s why some members go the extra mile to donate to both organizations.
photo
TedCollins
An Englishman living in France who loves America
02:37 PM on 03/15/2011
Do you feel there is any conflict when the same group porportedly represents both the manufacturer of a product and the customers for that product?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cool Bam
12:30 PM on 03/15/2011
Though I'm sure other gun owners would be enraged by the idea; I think the database concept should be turned around. Here WE (gun owners) go to the State and prove we are a citizen, they do the check once and we get a fancy gun emblem on our State ID. No one, even ANY kind or private sale may sell to someone without the emblem. There would just have to be an appeals process for rejections and again illegal activity would still have to be reported to cause disqualifi­cation. I believe in my Second Amendment right, but I have NO issue with proactivel­y proving that I am a citizen and still lawfully hold it. in fact I'd have no issue paying a couple bucks for my fancy new digital emblem on
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gun Banner Too
Violence Policy Advocate
12:37 PM on 03/15/2011
This is an excellent idea but is only a good start. We should just register everyone in case they buy a gun some day. We can implant an RFID at birth so the emblem doesn't get lost. If they commit a crime the RFID can be reprogrammed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cool Bam
12:38 PM on 03/15/2011
No is listening to you Tr0ll
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:00 PM on 03/15/2011
I don't think that's a bad concept.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cool Bam
01:24 PM on 03/15/2011
It's the only way I see of getting control of actual person to person sales without a litany of other issues. I'm not sure they would fly with everyone but I'd be proud to have my certification on my licence. That way Bob from down the street is not in a position to, or even able to, run a Background Check on me (or anyone). The State did it, here's the proof... no hassle .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
builderman55
Featherless Biped
11:37 AM on 03/15/2011
Leave this issue alone Obama and push for financial sector reform. You are wasting political capital...
11:11 PM on 03/16/2011
Leave enforcing the Constitution alone??? That just may be more delusional then trying to regain control of our spending.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
builderman55
Featherless Biped
12:42 AM on 03/17/2011
Not sure I get your point...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
09:29 AM on 03/15/2011
No different news to report today, except the meetings for the involved parties will be missing an "honored" guest in the refusal of the misguided and opportunistic NRA leadership to attend any meeting with some adult "conversation" planned. Spinning the kumbaya of some of the members of the gun culture ubiquitous in their comments of how they represent the common sense aspects of gun rights will be more difficult when the meetings are boycotted in the interest of $$$$$ and de...ath.....the dueling desires of the gun lobby....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:48 AM on 03/15/2011
LaPierre's choices were somewhat limited. It was either show up and shout everybody down, or not show up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gun Banner Too
Violence Policy Advocate
11:02 AM on 03/15/2011
It’s come to my attention that gun owners belong to the NRA and are Tea Party Insurrectionists Extremist Gun Fetishists and that they will not show up to policy meetings because they are busy compensating for some other shortcoming even though polls show that they support common sense civilian disarmament polices. It’s important to note that none of what I write is personal conjecture but instead comes from the study of statistics, polls, and opinion found here as well as other sites on the Internet. Good morning, we are Piers.
12:58 PM on 03/16/2011
You're clueless.
11:12 PM on 03/16/2011
"because they are busy compensati­ng for some other shortcomin­g even though polls show"

Fell off the turnip truck last week?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spkninglsh
'Poor' Fridge Owner
01:38 AM on 03/15/2011
Great news....when do the troops come home?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
03:50 AM on 03/15/2011
when does gitmo close...

when do we get all of our money back from government motors....
photo
TexasPatriot1776
Conservative Intellectual
01:33 AM on 03/15/2011
I made a very thoughtful comment and it was deleted. That makes me sad.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
10:49 AM on 03/15/2011
And I had the winning Powerball ticket but just missed five of the numbers....
11:26 AM on 03/15/2011
Apparently, you are on a watch list. It's happened to me as well- I'm not quitting and neither should you. Hang in there.
photo
unionave
Old Codger
01:19 AM on 03/15/2011
In a nation where millions of police carry WMDs , the gun industry will prosper and guns will be an integral part of it's society . Over time the guns carried by the American police have increased greatly in killing power and the murder of an American citizen has become "justifiable" . And as the guns the police carry increase in killing power , guns have become more prevalent in our society while the forth amendment of our Constitution has been destroyed . So the questions are : What is there about Americans that require the police to be armed with the most lethal weapons , while in many other nations the police do not need guns or truncheons ? If the police are to allowed to make executions or deal out punishment : Why do we need a court system ? Also after receiving a good working over with a truncheon isn't punishment by the court system a double dose of punishment ? Tried twice and punished twice ? The enormous income of the gun industry makes them a formidable foe when it come to getting the money grabbers in Congress to conjure up a law the gun industry do not like . But the media likes it because it gives them an opportunity to use their verbal truncheons on the gun industry's foes .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:43 AM on 03/15/2011
Democrats, YES DEMOCRATS in California want to make it an automatic process that any and all politicians are allowed to conceal carry a firearm. So what is good for the politician is not good for the citizen? Talk about double standards. You can sit in your ivory towers awaiting the Mexican gangs from the south if you would like but in the Southwest the crime is so bad from across the border you need protection. Get a clue tree huggers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AmosKnows
Educating The American Idol Masses
01:56 AM on 03/15/2011
The politicians work for the money (a/k/a the 1%). Maybe they believe that they need protection since they are not doing anything but screwing the super-majority of people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maxom
Just flew over the coo coo's nest
02:08 AM on 03/15/2011
how about the double standard in their health care and retitement??
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
08:40 AM on 03/15/2011
Precisely how much money DOES the firearms industry make? Do you know? What is the profit margin for Remington, Winchester, H&K, Colt, etal?
Semper fi
photo
unionave
Old Codger
11:31 AM on 03/15/2011
I have no idea what their profits are or the margins , but we all know it is enough to influence Congress and the media .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:50 PM on 03/15/2011
So they are a legal and legitimate business who employ many people in Connecticut and Massachusetts and others. They pay their taxes too.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rob2007
01:16 AM on 03/15/2011
I am a firearm owner. I took safety lessons with the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which has been around for a hundred years. I took private lessons with an instructor who taught marksmanship and safe gun handling to the Navy SEALS. All of the men and women I have met at the range are what you would call 'responsible gun owners.' Republicans and Democrats. They all feel the most important thing is safety, followed by safety, and then safety.

The fear many of them have, however, is that any gun regulation is "only the beginning." Largely, the CEO-vp of the NRA, Mr. Wayne La Pierre, is responsible for this meme. His was the loudest mouth before the election that 'Obama's gonna take away your guns!' He knows the truth, knows that this is not the president's intention and never has been. But his propaganda campaign worked exceedingly well: NRA membership spiked and firearm sales skyrocketed (Smith & Wesson's profit margin: + 37%--in a recession.) Ammunition became nearly impossible to acquire.

Mr. La Pierre's salary tops one million dollars a year. He has a vested interest in this extreme fear mongering; he is so relentless in his zeal that even otherwise reasonable gun owners, like my colleagues, parrot his nonsense. He loves to equate the president to Clinton and the assault weapon ban. If we are to get anywhere on this issue of SENSIBLE RESTRICTIONS TO FIREARMS, the administration will have to directly address Mr. La Pierre's obfuscation.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
01:25 AM on 03/15/2011
"The fear many of them have, however, is that any gun regulation is "only the beginning.­­""

For a good 70+ years that is exactly what has happened.

"Ammunitio­n became nearly impossible to acquire. "

Ammunition shortages began in the Bush 43 years well before the election. The wars in Iraq and Afghanista­n created a hollow spot in the US ammo supply chain as many manufactur­ers had to divert their production lines to meet military needs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rob2007
01:44 AM on 03/15/2011
Thanks for the history lesson. Still, I had no problem obtaining ammo before the current president took office.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
11:42 AM on 03/15/2011
He loves to equate the president to Clinton and the assault weapon ban.
Obama stated unequivocally during his campaign that he wanted to reinstate the do-nothing AWB, so equating them is hardly a stretch.  The fact that Obama has the good sense to realize that attempting it would be political suicide doesn't mean he desires it any less.

Obama and his ilk steadfastly refuse to get serious about enforcing the current laws.  It's much easier and politically expedient to keep passing newer, stricter ones, especially after the old ones didn't work (largely because they weren't enforced).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
massai
01:15 AM on 03/15/2011
Make it meaningful reform Mr. President. No compromise.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
schotts
Strength and Honor
01:16 AM on 03/15/2011
What would be meaningful?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
massai
01:24 AM on 03/15/2011
An outcome that makes a positive difference in attitudes and de@ths among Americans.