More

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future

Obamagunmeeting

First Posted: 07/07/11 06:31 PM ET Updated: 09/06/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Half a year after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), the Obama administration is set to release a series of reforms to the current gun law, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Thursday.

The reforms, which are being crafted by the Department of Justice, come after a series of meetings with relevant stakeholders in the Second Amendment debate. But in a nod to the difficulties of getting legislation through a Republican-run House of Representatives, only executive orders or administrative actions -- and not an actual bill -- are expected to be handed to Congress.

Administration officials were coy on the specifics, from the reforms the Department of Justice would recommend or when it would actually make those recommendations.

"The president directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said at Thursday's briefing. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues and we expect to have more specific announcements in the near future."

Just how near? Carney would only say "not far in the future." Another administration official said weeks would be an appropriate measurement.

When the recommendations do come, it will represent the most comprehensive move on the gun control front from this administration to date. The president has largely punted on the issue since entering the White House, save issuing carefully worded reactions to Supreme Court rulings on local gun laws or bans.

The Giffords shooting had, seemingly, upped the pressure to implement reforms. Obama himself used the occasion to pen an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star advocating for stronger state-to-state coordination with respect to gun data, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books. The Department of Justice meetings commenced not too long later and have continued over the course of several months, according to an administration official. They are now finished.

The end result, one source close to the discussions said, was a package of reforms "not huge in scope." They are largely expected to mirror the topics covered in the president's op-ed. Gun control advocates have pushed for more, including legislation that would limit the size of magazines -- such as the 32-round magazine that Giffords' shooter used -- or a bill that would force private sellers to conduct background checks at gun shows -- which was pushed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.

Still, executive actions offer something that legislation doesn't: guaranteed results. And as one gun control advocate told the Huffington Post, there are ways to "use these administrative changes to obtain similar results."

This post has been updated

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Half a year after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), the Obama administration is set to release a series of reforms to the current gun law, White House Press Secretary J...
WASHINGTON -- Half a year after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), the Obama administration is set to release a series of reforms to the current gun law, White House Press Secretary J...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,790
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (115 total)
  1 of 6  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
supergenius02 12:18 PM on 07/08/2011
When will the liberals learn that gun control does not deter violent gun crimes by criminals but rather increases gun violence? The only thing that gun control laws do is take the power of self-defense away from the law abiding citizen and places the power of violence with criminals in a time when law enforcement budgets are being cut from coast to coast.

California has some of the most restrictive  Read More...
12:30 AM on 07/24/2011
I would like to remind everyone that the weapon that started the Brady Bill and this push for continual reform was the 6 shot revolver mis-used by Hinkley in his attempon the life of our Greatest President in modern times, Ronald Reagan.
The weapon in question was a 22 calibre 6 shot pistol - just about as far down the chart in power, danger and and cache as one could get.
The current Brady suggestions refer to a flash suppressor on certain sporting rifles as a type of silencer - already an illegal accoutrement of weapons in the USA. They also claim that 2 pulls of a trigger permit 30 rounds to discharge from the same such weapons. They are semi-automatic and require 30 trigger activations to fire 30 rounds. Magazine capacity restrictions to lower the clip round count are specious as it takes a fraction of a second to change magazines. And in any event the technology refered to here is over 100 years old.
God Bless America and the 2nd Ammendment.
11:00 AM on 08/09/2011
1) Silencers are not illegal.
2) Don't say clip unless referring to a clip.
11:51 AM on 08/09/2011
http://www.silencerresearch.com/Silencerguide.pdf

Repy to point one (1) read the entire site above. Legal and very heavily restricted. Requires an ATF Tax Stamp $200 and a set of forms. One as explained requires a local law enforcement official to sign that in their opinion it is legal for you to own, not to use, own. That form is difficult to have completed in most jurisdictions. Use of a silencer in certain crimes causes additional charges.

My real point here is to point out that IF Obama is successful on that item of law he wants changed, - your ownership of a semi-automatic weapon with a flash suppressor will require a class 3 tax stamp and greatly complicate your ownership. IF Obama succeeds in having flash supressors classified as a "silencer" that is.

Repy to point two (2) - not intelligible - suspect tight underwear on reader.
clip clip clip clip clip clip clip clip ....
12:52 AM on 07/17/2011
"Executive Orders" do not, cannot, will not carry the weight of law !!! That is freakishly close to totalitarianism or, at the very least, tyranny --- soft, hard or otherwise. Also, how naive it is to think that the capacity of a weapon's magazine can increase or decrease its letality. I own, and am proficient with, several weapons that utilize magazines; some hold 10, some 15, and some hold anywhere from 20 to 40 rounds. The level of letality is governed by one's accuracy, and how long it's lethal is determined by how rapidly one is able to exchange magazines. Of course, how long one continues to be lethal is also determined by how long it is before he/she is "neutralized" by someone else. It could be argued, therefore, that most "random shootings" would be minimized if more people involved were "packing".

"Gun control" is the responsibility of each individual (being able to hit your target), and should not include efforts by any government entity to limit Our access to them; Re: 2nd Amendment.
12:05 AM on 07/16/2011
Any gun controls comming out of the obama gang will cause a bigger problem than it solves,when the ability to protect one's self and his family has been taken away (i can hear the liberals crying now) where do we look for help after a crime has already been comitted. Read crime reports where you live.
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
11:53 PM on 07/15/2011
Moxo
540 Fans
5 hours ago (6:23 PM)
Ever taken an honest look at the damage a round does to a child?
Try it sometime for real.
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Edit | Permalink | Share it
Tao21Zen
44 Fans
Become a fan
53 minutes ago (10:56 PM)
That is called an "appeal to motion" and is another logical fallacy employed when you are unable rationally refute a factual based logical argument,

We could very easily ask you if you have seen what a round look like ripping through someone who was stripped of their means to defend themselves or what the damage inflicted by a knife can do to a mutilated body, especially given that the anti-gun crowd won't acknowledg­e either. But, we don't have to do this as the acts and logic are on side.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Stripped of the means to defend themselves"... a CHILD you mean?

So children should have full access to guns in order to protect themselves from adults with a gun?

Take that to SCOTUS - it would be an interesting test.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
06:56 PM on 07/16/2011
If you are going to reply to people, it is better to use the "Reply" button than playing "top of the pile". It makes the entire chain of the conversation much easier to follow and is far better board etiquette.
12:57 AM on 07/17/2011
Giving children access ? Really ? Consider this: The child wouldn't have to take-up arms if his parent wasn't stripped of his.
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
05:13 PM on 07/14/2011
Moxo "ad hominem" - #3 on the list of Talking Point I gather.

posted Jul 13, 2011 at 23:49:21 Reply Link

Old Jarhead Do you ever respond to any questions? Or, like most who would restrict our rights, do you feel as if we are not worthy of responding to in a civil manner?

posted Jul 14, 2011 at 08:29:13
--------------------
Yes i do - you just have to pay attention. You can always F&F me and find out when I've answered one of your mistakes.
07:37 PM on 07/14/2011
I stand corrected, as you actually answered that question. So far, it's the only one, at least on this story, and you still fail to acknowledge that David Carson was correct, or that you have evaded many other questions, that you seem to be unable or unwilling to answer.

By the way, it is not necessary to F & F you to see your posting history. I can just go to your HuffPost Social page, and see every post you have made here.

As for you answering one of my mistakes, hasn't happened yet. You have thrown some snark, sarcasm, insults. And yes, you have engaged in ad hominem attacks. But I don't think you would ever recognize one of my mistakes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Carson
05:58 AM on 07/15/2011
and HP lets you know when someone replies to one of your comments whether or not you are a fan
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
04:50 PM on 07/14/2011
Moxo Moxo Thousands of dead children from gun violence in America who died before they could learns about those "Leaders".
posted Jul 12, 2011 at 01:17:48 Reply Link

ElmCreekSmith Define "children." Also, define "gun violence."

ECS
posted Jul 13, 2011 at 20:14:02
------------------------
If you don't already know then no matter how dumbed-down the explanation you still wouldn't understand.

posted Jul 13, 2011 at 23:46:24 Reply Link

CmonAlreadyWouldja I suspect ECS' request is based on the tendency of gun control groups to include those up to age 25 or so as "children". Similarly, they also define suicide as "gun violence".

But then, I'm guessing you already knew that....

posted Jul 14, 2011 at 12:03:03
======================
Then I guess the joke is on you folks, when anti-gun violence comments require you to ponder the mean of "children" and "gun violence".
No wonder people like you are seen as "special-needs".
08:17 PM on 07/14/2011
"No wonder people like you are seen as "special-n­eeds". Moxo

Is this one of those statements that you don't think qualify as ad hominem? Or is this one just a personal attack? Just trying to get some clarification.

As for why we often wonder about the numbers put out by the CSGV/VPC talking heads concerning gun violence and children? They inflate their numbers beyond all reason. I would be happy to demonstrate that if you have any questions.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
09:22 PM on 07/14/2011
"Then I guess the joke is on you folks, when anti-gun violence comments require you to ponder the mean of "children" and "gun violence"."

Looks like you're completely ignorant about how the anti-gun groups purposefully confuse the definitions of adults and children.

No surprise.
09:19 AM on 07/14/2011
If the Obamunist Regime tips it's hand too soon, it could trigger the flop. He's already failed to deliver to the welfare crowd. I wasn't expecting this kind of totalitarian assault on freedom until after the next term was secured!
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheSarge
Firearms Inst Environmental Activist
11:59 PM on 07/13/2011
I am a rabid defender of the 2nd Amendment but it is just simple common sense to do solid background checks, close every last single loop hole. The argument about high cap mags is rather ludicrous, I can change mags in less than 2 seconds. But I doubt most criminals or would be mass causality shooters have tactical training.
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
05:45 PM on 07/14/2011
Every cop applauds your realism!
12:07 PM on 07/15/2011
While I agree with you that most criminal thugs do not have the same level of training as common firearms enthusiasts, especially those former military and law enforcement one's of us, I have a big problem with shaping laws to penalize law abiding members of society based solely on the actions of criminals, who do not obey the laws we already have.
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
11:46 PM on 07/13/2011
Moxo Thousands of dead children from gun violence in America who died before they could learns about those "Leaders".
posted Jul 12, 2011 at 01:17:48 Reply Link

ElmCreekSmith Define "children." Also, define "gun violence."

ECS
posted Jul 13, 2011 at 20:14:02
------------------------
If you don't already know then no matter how dumbed-down the explanation you still wouldn't understand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:03 PM on 07/14/2011
I suspect ECS' request is based on the tendency of gun control groups to include those up to age 25 or so as "children". Similarly, they also define suicide as "gun violence".

But then, I'm guessing you already knew that....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Carson
06:03 AM on 07/15/2011
CAW--I doubt MOXO gives a creeping crawling crud, he just likes being snarky
09:49 PM on 07/13/2011
In the case of the arms being funneled to drug lords in Mexico, we already have testimony from BATFE agents that this administration and their Justice Department and BATFE appointees orchestrated and oversaw the plan in spite of stern advice from field agents that the plan was a bad idea that it would get people killed. And now, Eric Holder, the mentored protégé of former Attorney General Janet Reno, the one man most responsible for the border debacle, is going to be placed in charge of implementing more useless -- and indeed harmful -- gun control? Really?

We should tell Attorney General Holder that he will have to resign -- and then answer for the deaths of two U.S. Customs Agents, uncounted Mexican police, soldiers, civic officials, and innocent bystanders south of the border.

--Nanjing03

Law Enforcement Veteran, 1988-04
Iraq War Veteran, 2006/07
Teacher, 2010/11
NRA Member, Life
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
11:48 PM on 07/13/2011
Don't forget to include all those responsible for turning American into a nation in which torture is a component of national defense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Carson
06:04 AM on 07/15/2011
I see you have a bad case of BDS in addition to your hoplophobia and snarkophilia
12:00 PM on 07/15/2011
And what does interrogation techniques have to do with a liberal administration's use of federal and state law enforcement agencies to illegally traffic firearms into foreign countries, where these firearms are use to kill innocent lives, including US border agents and subsequent calls for punishment of the Attorney General complicit in this action?
07:48 PM on 07/13/2011
“Yep...I own a gun I know nothing about, and do not care to.
Strike one: Cocoa.

My brother bought it for me because I live in a God forsaken town where I was told I could not live with a bi-racial daughter by some of the good citizens, and had a nut threaten to burn a cross in my yard.

..I would have no problem shooting him.
Strike two: Count Chocula

This, by the way is a Repub town.
I do not want to be some scared rabbit that feels the need to be armed and ready. There is nothing on this earth more dangerous than an easily spooked coward with a gun.

I personally know a couple of people who lost family to gun shots.
Strike Three: Sounds like you need to transplant the Keebler Tree House

One of those was a little girl too close to her father while he was cleaning his gun....he does not own any guns now.â€

It might be a good idea to run the serial number on that gun that you know nothing about Mr. Hershey. It could come up as stolen or worse. Your bro. might have picked it up from a CRIP down on da block.
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
04:18 PM on 07/13/2011
Moxo David Carson
48 Fans
Become a fan
2 hours ago (6:51 PM)
the 10 round capacity limit has done NOTHING to reduce crime--you­r disdain for the BOR is noted
----------------------
How do you know the 10 round capacity limit hasn't reduced crime?

posted Jul 9, 2011 at 21:19:15 Reply Link

David Carson simple--by looking at crime trends before, during and after Clinton's AWB was in place

posted Jul 13, 2011 at 12:57:09
---------------------
Did they show a trend to FEWER people massacred during a single incident of gun violence... or MORE people being massacred?
05:20 PM on 07/13/2011
Moving the goal posts a wee bit, are you. The string you have quoted, so ably, referred to crime reduction as a whole. Even you asked about simply crime. Then after DC references crime trends, you ask about not crime trends, but the isolated and extremely rare incidents of a mass shooting.

What DC related was absolutely accurate, and had you bothered to do even a modicum of investigation, you would have seen that the crime rate was already falling when the "Assault Weapons Ban", which banned only the manufacture or importation of NEW 10+ round magazines. The "ban" didn't accelerate the decrease in crime as it continued to fall in any measurable quantity. In 2004, the ban was allowed to sunset, and crime continued to fall unabated, despite the fact that these "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines were allowed to be manufactured and marketed freely again.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

This is amazing. You cut and paste other peoples comments, throw in a question or comment that is either an ad hominem attack, or, like this post of yours, you move the goalposts to a completely different field. Please either stay on point, or at least have the intellectual integrity to ask those questions independent of unrelated posts.
photo
Moxo
Our enemies are in the GOP.
11:49 PM on 07/13/2011
"ad hominem" - #3 on the list of Talking Point I gather.
03:35 PM on 07/13/2011
I want more Executive Orders Please!

http://tinyurl.com/4k346he
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chocolate cherries
menstrual cycles do not have 2 wheels
03:28 AM on 07/13/2011
Lol...I love how the gun nuts have all fanned each other. Lets you know that they are too deranged for most to fan, and just how many nuts you are dealing with on here.
09:55 AM on 07/13/2011
And I find it funny how the anti-gun side has to refer to law abiding gun owners as "nuts", simply for supporting a God given right. What I also find funny are the great many hypocrites out there that oppose law gun ownership for the general public, while owning one or firearms themselves. Such people fail to see that the same reason for them owning their firearm is part of the same reasoning exercised by the pro-gun side in the support of lawful gun ownership. People that oppose firearm ownership for others should at least have the integrity and strength of their convictions to, themselves, live by the same ideology they preach to others.
10:11 AM on 07/13/2011
"I love how the gun nuts have all fanned each other."

In reply to anti-gun poster Moxo:

chocolate cherries
Liberal, and proud of it!
75 Fans
6 hours ago (3:36 AM)

"You are soooo fanned!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/chocolate_cherries/obama-unveil-gun-control-reforms_n_892633_96941795.html

I love the blatant hypocrisy!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chocolate cherries
menstrual cycles do not have 2 wheels
03:19 AM on 07/13/2011
Yep...I own a gun I know nothing about, and do not care to. My brother bought it for me because I live in a God forsaken town where I was told I could not live with a bi-racial daughter by some of the good citizens, and had a nut threaten to burn a cross in my yard...I would have no problem shooting him. This, by the way is a Repub town.
I do not want to be some scared rabbit that feels the need to be armed and ready. There is nothing on this earth more dangerous than an easily spooked coward with a gun. I personally know a couple of people who lost family to gun shots. One of those was a little girl too close to her father while he was cleaning his gun....he does not own any guns now.
09:58 AM on 07/13/2011
So, you are anti-gun gun owner. Funny how your kind wants to push an ideology on the rest of society that you, yourself, don't have the strength and integrity to follow.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
10:13 AM on 07/13/2011
One thing is clear, Chocolate, you perceive yourself to be under a threat. Yet you own a gun for who knows what purpose...you are threatened, your brother gave it to you, and you CLAIM not to want it for protection. On the other hand, you declare willingness to shoot people you perceive as threats: 'I would have no problem shooting him". As the piece to resistance, you say "I own a gun I know nothing about, and do not care to".

You have placed yourself in a nasty trap. Should you ever decide you actually need to produce that gun for protection of your family, you are singularly and purposefully incapable of wielding it responsibly and reliably.

Congratulations, I think that you are in considerable danger from yourself.