Is the Obama administration finally ready to stand up to the gun lobby?
Since the midterm elections, the administration has made two moves it must have known would draw heavy fire from the National Rifle Association.
First, shortly after the elections, the White House announced its nomination of a new Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) -- Andrew Traver -- whose experience at ATF gives every indication he will be a strong enforcer of federal gun laws. The NRA predictably blasted Traver. For the NRA, he had committed a mortal sin by serving as an adviser to the International Association of Chiefs of Police and its gun-violence-reduction efforts. The NRA's hostility to IACP is just the latest evidence of the gun lobby's longtime and shameful antipathy toward law enforcement.
Second, last week the Obama Justice Department responded to the growing crisis of gun trafficking from U.S. dealers to the Mexican drug cartels by announcing new reporting requirements on gun dealer multiple sales of high-capacity rifles to single buyers. The requirements apparently would apply to approximately 8,500 licensed gun dealers in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, and only for a one-year period.
Since 1968, federal law has required dealers to report multiple sales of handguns to ATF because they are such strong indicators of gun trafficking. However rifles -- even high-capacity semiautomatic assault rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47 that are the favored killing machines of the Mexican cartels -- are not subject to multiple sale reporting. Last week, the Washington Post reported one instance where a suspected trafficker bought 14 AK-47s in one day from a single dealer. A reporting requirement would either deter such brazen high-volume purchases or enable ATF to move quickly against the buyers. The new requirement closes an important loophole, at least temporarily in the states where the dealers are the prime source of Mexican crime guns.
Yes, it's only a small step. But it is a step in the right direction, with political significance that may far eclipse its policy impact. For two years, the guiding principle of the administration's approach to gun violence has boiled down to this: "Whatever we do, don't rile up the gun guys!" This policy was no doubt motivated by a perceived need to appease the gun lobby in order to protect the "Blue Dog" Democrats in Congress, who were given a free pass to help carry the NRA's legislative water.
As it turned out, the appeasement strategy was a lose-lose proposition, with little political pay-off for the Democrats. By ignoring (and in some cases violating) campaign pledges to strengthen gun laws, the administration certainly contributed to the "enthusiasm gap" that played a part in losing so many races -- and control of the House. At the same time, catering to the gun lobby did not protect the Blue Dogs. 59 percent of the losing Democratic incumbents had "A" ratings from the NRA and more than half received the NRA's financial support. Some of the NRA's most steadfast supporters among the Blue Dogs -- like Travis Childers of Mississippi, Zack Space of Ohio and Rick Boucher of Virginia -- went down to defeat.
On the other hand, 82 percent of the Democrats who won reelection did so without NRA support. In some close races in key suburban districts where gun policy became an issue, identification with the pro-gun ideology may have cost the Republican candidate dearly. This likely was the case in Northern Virginia, for example, where Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) won a narrow victory over Keith Fimian after the Republican had to apologize for his remark that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been prevented if "one of those kids in those classrooms" had been "packing heat." The NRA, of course, is intent on ensuring that kids in classrooms are "packing heat."
I somehow doubt that the administration's recent moves on gun policy are disconnected from the now-apparent political failure of its appeasement strategy. The new ATF initiative to fight Mexican gun trafficking has crossed a line -- and the administration knows it. For the first time since taking office, the president seems ready to do the right thing on guns, regardless of the virulent opposition of the gun lobby.
The NRA has denounced the new gun dealer reporting requirements as a "sweeping expansion of federal recordkeeping on gun owners" and an attempt to create a gun "registry." For the NRA, this is the ultimate battle cry.
As it has in the past, the NRA and the gun industry will launch an all-out attack on ATF in the new Congress. It will push legislation to make it virtually impossible for the Bureau to sanction lawbreaking gun dealers who aid and abet the traffickers arming the cartels in Mexico and the gangs in our own country. It will try to ensure that never again will ATF get notice that a gun dealer has just sold 14 assault rifles to a single buyer.
But this time the administration has made its own investment in a stronger ATF. This time the administration already has done the right thing in the face of certain gun-lobby retaliation. This time we now have reason to hope that President Obama will be prepared to fight. If he does, all Americans who seek sanity in our nation's gun policy should be ready to help him.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009).
We teach 16yr olds how to control a 2-ton projectile moving 95ft per second - guiding through narrow imaginary tunnels with only a few feet to spare - having 5-10 lives at stake. In the time it could take that teenager to react that projectile could easily move 100-150ft killing everyone within and around that projectile.
• Annual Crash Related Deaths = 5,167 (teenage related)
• Guns are dangerous - squeeze trigger = BANG.
• Approximately 12,252 murders by firearms 80% (9,802) of which are caused by felons/career criminals/gang member activities. USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009
• Approximately 600 justifiable defensive shootings by both police and citizens.
• Approximately 642 Accidental
What happens when felons/career criminals/gang member activities decide to use VEHICLES instead of GUNS? Prohibit dealerships from selling vehicles - sue unions - sue vehicle manufacturers because felons are using their vehicles? OR
Force all owners to register vehicles twice per year - and pass safety tests EACH YEAR
Prohibit the international sales of vehicles to prevent further abuses…?
Nope. By design, guns propel a projectile when triggered by a person. Danger is determined by how the person is using the gun, and some people do it safely while others do it dangerously. Guns aren't dangerous, some people are dangerous.
They like to use languagem ie, twist wirds, to make a "right" a "loophole!"
I'm convinced.
1. Legalize drugs
2. Notice the border problems disappear. Along those lines, continue:
3. Convert the military budget to a schools-hospitals and -social programs budget.
4. Start a jobs training program for the newly unemployed law enforcement industry. Some could go into teaching, nursing and so forth; the rest could train for this:
5. Assist the newly undirected existing American manufacturing capacity to do solar and wind or other constructive manufacturing.
6. Enjoy our newly improved society with no need for destroying our constitution including the 1st, 2nd or 4th amendments.
No need to thank me. Glad to help. Just do it.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=4347
But one thing I know for a fact, and I'd be willing to bet the family farm on it: Should Obama, against all common sense, try to fiddle in any way with gun-laws before 2013, he will certainly lose the entire South, including centrist and moderate Democrats. He will lose the Presidential election in November 2012. You just can't win presidential elections with New England and the West Coast only. Besides, majorities in Congress are not there. Few Southern law-makers on both sides of the aisles would be willing to vote for any type of restrictive gun law, knowing they'd be chased out of office in 2012.
Republicans have been praying for this, and I only hope the President is level-headed enough not to step into this trap again. He's got a friend who will gladly advise him on this: Bill Clinton.
And, apparently, the Brady Campaign et. al.
Obama won Florida, NM, and NC in `08. While it would be possible to win an election without those states, he needed to keep NV, CO, IN, IA, and Ohio without losing one State anywhere else. Or he could lose one but had to take MO, which McCain only took by 5.000 votes. All these states were tight squeezes in `08. In FL, NC, and NM Obama may as well hang it if he starts fiddling with gun laws. In many of the midwestern states this might no be received well either. NM is no big loss, but NC has 15 votes. Florida is a big deal, it is going to have 29 EL votes in `12, more than Illinois and Iowa combined.
The right time for gun law discussion is after Nov. 2014, and no day earlier.
I'd like to see that sentence terminated by ending the cash flows related to drug related prohibition.
We spend at least $70B/year on the War on Drugs. This gun trafficking is a symptom of the war, and the proposed reporting requirement attempts to treat a symptom.
It's long past time to legalize pot. As far as heroin and cocaine/crack, I think that maintenance prescriptions should be issued to curtail black market cash flows. I think we could cut our Drug War costs by $69B. I'd be in favor of spending some of the savings on rehabilitation programs for willing addicts.
During Prohibition I, we had a lot of gun violence. Why would anyone expect anything different on Prohibition II? Black market cash flows is the magnet that the violence is occurring over.
I think we need to get rid of black market cash flows, either my way or the libertarian way (total legalization) but, one way or another, we need to get rid of it.
Then, we'll be in a position to determine what kind of problem, if any, that we're having with guns.
1) Dealers are required to report multiple sales of handguns to prevent gun trafficking.
2) Such a law is not applied to "high-capacity" rifles.
3) Such rifles are being trafficked to Mexican drug cartels.
4) The O administration proposes a law that will apply to 8,500 dealers in four border states that will be in effect for one year.
In short, this is about as minimal a law as you will find, and there is no need for NRA-style hyperbole. I seriously doubt that Obama will pass any law that will affect individual gun owners. So, I disagree with the columnist. Remember Hillary's embrace of gun ownership? Gun laws are poisonous to touch, and Obama's entire political history shows that he generally avoids them, as do most Dems--not that it makes any difference to the NRA or to those who are members of the NRA.
2) Semi-auto rifles which accept detachable magazines. "High-cap" is not a criteria.
3) The exact extent is not known.
4) The BATFE, not the Obama admin per se, and 180 days according to the federal register.
Like "pro-Lifers" putting stumbling blocks and waiting periods and extra costs on seeking an abortion, it's just to make it more expensive and less attractive -as much as another level of paperwork towards complete gun registration and tracking ownership.
If they enact a background check on all private transfers, then a father giving his kid a .22 would need to get a background check. Giving a '357 carry revolver to your loved one along with a training course would require a background check. Inheriting your grandfather's old service rifle...
Every transfer of ownership would make a paper trail of who owns what.
First, such registration schemes don;t affect crime. Criminals have ready ways of getting what they want -see the UK, Jamaica, and other places with total gun prohibition and rampant criminal gun violence. Many instances where registration schemes cost lots to owners and the government, with very little substantive help due to it.
and the "gun nuts" are correct that prohibition always is preceded by registration.
Unhelpful, and a sure way towards more onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens with no effect on crime.
As long as there is absolute PROOF - dna - camera - etc - its easy to deal with... To stop gun violence - KILL the VIOLATOR - save the gun. The Death Penalty should be given within 2-3 days at most after PROOF & evidence is established - no exceptions - as long as their is undeniability - absolute proof...
> ...Car-jacking at gun-point = DEATH PENALTY - no-retrials
> ...Gang shooting = Death Penalty for ENTIRE GANG -
> ...Rape at gun-point = Death Penalty after being gang-raped
> ...Armed robbery = Death Penalty
etc...
Suddenly - gun violence evaporates...
To Fix for Mortgage Crisis very simple...
New Hunting Season - first six months shotguns & pistols only for the extermination of - All Wall Street CEOs, Foreclosure Mill Attorneys, and CEOs of the larger Banks. After the first 6-months expire only high-calibre rifles from 200+ yards and they cannot be driving vehicles.
That should clean-up lots of the dirty laundry and headaches our nation is facing and it would probably take less than a few months. By spring-time 2011 - it would be a much better world.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
How about we have a war on stupidity ? How about we have a war on repeating the same actions over and over and expecting different results? How about we declare war on this type of thinking by looking at the root causes of these problems. Do we all need P.hds or can we just say 1). Stop supporting Israeli terror tactics 2). Allow the working class to take home a larger % of corporate profits 3). Legalize drugs.