Executive Action on Gun Control: President Obama Had No Choice

Frankly, Obama had no choice because the entire gun control issue has been completely hijacked by the gun rights lobby which has been able to prevent even minor legislation at the federal level.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

2016-01-06-1452068052-7600589-maxresdefault.jpg

In a landmark development, President Obama has used his executive authority to expand gun-related background checks. The executive orders aim at closing the existing loopholes in the federal law which allows even convicted felons to buy dangerous ammunition from sellers who do not require criminal background checks.

Given how polarized the entire issue of gun control has become, the reaction to his decision has ranged from jubilation from the gun control advocates to allegations of usurpation of fundamental freedom by the gun right lobby.

Some have also criticized Obama for overstepping authority and indulging in what could be called "Presidential overreach." Allegations of "disrespecting" the constitution of USA as well as the mandate of the elected house of representatives, are also being levied by leading Republican politicians including Presidential candidates like Ted Cruz, Trump, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.

Was such a step essential? Shouldn't Obama have avoided an executive action to implement such measures?

Frankly, Obama had no choice because the entire gun control issue has been completely hijacked by the gun rights lobby which has been able to prevent even minor legislation at the federal level, despite the fact that a majority of the population has always supported greater gun control, particularly stronger background checks. Immediately after the Sandy Hook massacre, the proposal to expand background checks had support of over 90% and yet the proposal got defeated in the Democratic-controlled senate.

The gun lobby has been effective for three major reasons.

First, institutional structure of the U.S. is conducive to strengthening groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA). The U.S. has a presidential system in which legislative and executive authorities are separate. Compared to the parliamentary system, the presidential system is less efficient and has several veto points. This slows down the legislative process and often changes are just incremental in nature. Moreover, the party discipline is also relatively weaker in such systems which allow powerful interest groups to influence individual legislators who can actually go against their own party. In 2013, 15 Democratic members voted against the proposal to ban assault weapons and five voted against proposal to expand background checks.

Even in 1994, when President Clinton was able to push through a ten-year ban on assault weapons, the margin of victory was extremely slim (216-214) in the House of Representatives despite the fact that at that time Democrats were in a comfortable majority. At that time also, several Democratic members violated party discipline and voted against the bill. For any gun control legislation to pass, even if it is of a minor effect, Democrats have to be in control of all three branches of the government and in a very comfortable majority, something which in recent times has not been the case.

Second, the NRA is very well organized compared to its rival group. Its budget as well as membership dwarfs that of Brady Campaign, its major rival interest group. Moreover, a majority of NRA members are "single-issue" voters. This gives the NRA a huge advantage and allows it to influence individual senators and house representatives. In fact, President Obama is fully cognizant of this and that is why after the Oregon mass shooting he made the following plea:

"You have to make sure that anybody who you are voting for is on the right side of this issue. And if they're not, even if they're great on other stuff, for a couple of election cycles you've got to vote against them, and let them know precisely why you're voting against them. And you just have to, for a while, be a single-issue voter because that's what is happening on the other side."

Third, the NRA has always been able to deflect the issue, frame it to their advantage and also come up with a very effective counter narrative. For example, its proposal for expansion of background checks in 2013, was by no stretch of imagination an attempt to curtail right to bear arms. It was merely aiming to prevent some kind of people (felons to be precise) from purchasing arms. In fact, if rightly viewed, it would have actually protected the gun rights of genuine law-abiding gun enthusiasts by preventing misuse of their passion by the criminal elements. Yet, the NRA was able to frame it as a "threat" to the Second Amendment and civil rights. It was able to convince a small but determined set of gun owners that proposal for background checks was the first step towards ultimate confiscation of guns.

Likewise, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, the NRA was able to come up with an effective narrative to counter public sentiment against the easy availability of guns. Its head Wayne LaPierre, came up with a slogan: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." This ended up diluting the impact of the Sandy Hook massacre and allowed the NRA to blame mass killings on lack of guns rather than abundance of guns! The public opinion consequently also became slightly less supportive of gun control, allowing the matter to fade away from policy domain at the federal level.

Given the above facts, President Obama really had no choice but to act the way he has acted. His decision to use executive authority is the outcome of years of frustration at the inability of Congress to do anything. He had expressed his frustration a number of times, pointing that the U.S. is perhaps the only developed country to have such a high level of gun violence. In countries like Canada, UK and Australia, gun control improved after mass shootings and in USA over the years, Congress has not been able to do anything.

It should be remembered that the U.S. president is directly elected and is also a representative of the population. In certain circumstances, he has the responsibility to act ( provided constitution allows it) in larger interest of the country and its people, because he also has the mandate. He was spot on when he said, "the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage."

President Obama has acted the way he should have acted and hopefully this would define his legacy

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot