The Guardian UK reports: "Bloomberg urges President to use executive powers to close loopholes but tighter laws will require congressional approval."
President Obama has been urged to go around Congress on gun control. (photo: AP)
Obama Attacks Pro-Gun Lobby As He Faces Calls to Bypass Lawmakers
15 January 13
Bloomberg urges president to use executive powers to close loopholes but tighter laws will require congressional approval
resident Obama vowed on Monday to act decisively to prevent a repeat of the Newtown school shooting, issuing a defiant message to the pro-gun lobby, which he accused of "ginning up fear" among law-abiding gun owners that the federal government would confiscate their weapons.
Exactly a month after the tragedy in which 20 children and six staff were killed at Sandy Hook elementary school, Obama added his voice to a rising chorus of demands across the country for firm action to stem the spate of shooting sprees. The debate over how to protect the nation's children from further massacres has reached fever pitch on the eve of vice-president Joe Biden's formal presentation to Obama of his recommendations for curbing gun violence.
Obama told a White House press conference that he would begin on Monday to review the proposals from Biden, whom he appointed as head of a special gun violence panel in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. Asked about a sharp increase in gun sales over the past month, and about widespread opposition to new gun laws among both Republicans in the House and rural Democratic representatives, Obama delivered a stern message to the pro-gun lobby.
"As for people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think we have seen for some time now that those who oppose any commonsense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government is about to take all your guns away," he said.
"There is probably an economic element to that. It is obviously good for business. But I think that those of who have looked at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship - they don't have anything to worry about."
The president indicated that the mounting expressions of opposition would not cow him from pressing ahead with his already-stated ambitions to introduce a congressional ban on semi-automatic weapons and a limit on the number of bullets held in high-capacity magazines, as well as a requirement for background checks on all gun buyers.
Bearing in mind the likely difficulty of steering such measures through the House and Senate, Obama said the administration was also actively looking at moves that the president could effect without congressional approval, such as a more effective system for tracking guns that fall into the hands of criminals.
Obama's executive powers were also invoked by Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, who has been a leading proponent of tougher gun controls. He exhorted Obama to show true leadership through "a stroke of his pen".
Speaking at Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg outlined four ways in which the president could immediately make a difference by wielding his executive powers.
The president could order all federal agencies to hand over relevant records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, to improve the current situation in which some 52 out of 60 federal agencies were found to provide zero mental health records to the database, thus profoundly impairing its usefulness in preventing guns falling in the hands of mentally ill people.
Obama should make it a priority, Bloomberg said, to increase prosecutions of criminals found to be lying when they undergo federal background checks. In 2010, there were more than 76,000 cases referred by the FBI to the justice department, but only 44 were prosecuted.
"That's is a sad and lethal joke. These are felony cases involving criminals trying to buy guns. It is shameful and it has to end, and the president can do it just by picking up the phone and telling the Justice Department: 'This is your job, go do it,'" he said.
The other two executive orders identified by Bloomberg was the appointing of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a position that has remained vacant for six years partly due to congressional resistance; and the repeal of the so-called Tiahrt restrictions, which strictly limit public access to information about the movement and trafficking of guns, including a requirement on the FBI to destroy records of all gun background checks within 24 hours.
Despite the potential significance of Obama's executive powers, the fact remains that the most seminal aspects of any attempt to tighten gun laws are likely to be those that require congressional approval. That sets the president on an immediate collision course with the Republican majority of the House, as well as pro-gun Democrats.
"For these politicians, the votes aren't there," said Dr Stephen Halbrook, a legal expert on the second amendment who has presented cases on gun controls before the US supreme court.
It also pits the White House directly against the National Rifle Association, the most powerful pro-gun lobby that is staunchly opposed to almost all of the proposals on the table.
In an attempt to dilute the NRA's influence by widening the debate as far as possible, Biden has spoken to a wide range of organisations over the past week, including law enforcement bodies, gun control groups and leading gun retailers such as Walmart. The NRA and the umbrella group of the gun industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, were included in the conversations.
A poll by the independent Pew Research Center shows broad support for some of Obama's gun proposals, with 85% in favour of tightening up a loophole to prevent sales at gun shows unless there are the same background checks as for licensed dealers. About 80% favour laws to prevent people with mental health problems buying guns, according to Pew.
The poll, conducted between January 9 and 13, also found a majority - 67 % - in favour of Obama's plan for a federal database to track gun sales, while 55% supported a ban on assault weapons.
Pew's research suggests strong public support for the National Rifle Association's proposal to post armed guards in schools, with 64% in favour and 32% against.
The NRA was widely derided in parts of the media after making the proposal in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, but it appears that on this issue at least it is closer to the public mood. The poll showed only 40% in favour of teachers and school officials having guns and 57% against.
As they seek to build political momentum for change, Obama and Biden can draw on the support of Newtown itself, where the 14 December tragedy occurred. The town's police chief, Michael Kehoe, joined the chorus for reforms, telling NBC that he backed demands for a ban on military-style assault weapons similar to a federal prohibition that lapsed in 2004.
A new non-profit group comprising local people from Newtown, called Sandy Hook Promise, was also launched on Monday. Its mission is to support moves to prevent further gun tragedies.
"Sandy Hook Promise is committed to making Newtown be remembered as the place where we came together as a community and as a nation and decided we must do everything we can to prevent tragedies like this from happening again," the group said.
In New York, a state which already has some of the most restrictive gun controls in place, a deal was reported to have been thrashed out over the weekend that would see a further tightening of the regulations. The deal would see the size of gun magazines being reduced from the current 10 bullets to just seven, and introduce additional restrictions on ownership of assault weapons.
The measures have been aggressively pushed by Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York state, who wants to see New York act as a role model to other state legislatures across the country.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
They took people’s sons to war to save us from terrorism, but I was not in the military, so I said nothing.
They took people’s pensions to save us from depression, but I still had a pension, so I said nothing.
They took people’s guns away to save us from ourselves, but I didn’t own a gun, so I said nothing.
But one day I decided to say something, and then they took me, and by that time no one dared say anything.
Reading between the lines of what is advocated here, at least part of it involves a national registry of the "mentally ill". This means an end to privacy as far as medical records are concerned. And just what will be done with these records?
Will anyone who has gone to a grief counselor or been sent to detox be denied the right to buy a gun? Will everyone who has ever been on antidepressants (by some estimates, 40% of the population) be regarded as a potential danger to society?
It is only one step from this to a call for "something to be done about those people" (never mind that the "mentally ill" are less likely to commit a violent crime than the general populace). The crumbling remnants of decaying state asylums stand as a lesson of what happened when this call was raised before (more Americans died in psychiatric hospitals between 1946-1989 than did during World War II).
How sure are you that you are not one of "those people"? How sure are you that someone will not decide that "something ought to be done" about you?
This is fascinating.Bus h and Cheney, and Colin Powell are mentally ill, on the basis of their criminally insane actions, BUT Obama is very rationally engaging in and expanding upon the very same crimes? Your ability to selectively deny reality is indeed awesome!
Why not take the courage and stick to the issue. Bush and Cheney are wanted in certain countries, to be arrested for war crimes as I write this missive to you. Certain Eastern U.S. states, if Bush Cheney leave the airplane, set foot in that state, they will be arrested for war crimes. You can check this out on your computer.
You have selected non-reality. No courage to face the Bush, Cheney, Powell war crimes as truth. "'cause you knows da why? Well, da Obama da man is da just as da rotten."
Some ways, Obama is a war criminal. I do not deny this fact. Can Bush, Cheney, and Powell be charged and quite possibility convicted in certain foreign countries
for war crimes? No question they could and would. Could Obama be charged and convicted in certain countries for war crimes? Probably.
A consistent application of indignation for identical misdeeds would be a welcome change from the scoundrelly supporters of both major parties.
Please take the time to understand what I said. Your position is that "if Bush, Cheney and Powell did what they did, criminal acts against society, so what?" Your view, "Obama is no better so Bush Cheney and Powell are cleared of all wrong doing." Take the time to understand what I said. I do not like to wrestle with a pig. And I'm not saying you are a pig. I'm not on this board to put people down. Let's share understanding, OK?
That is NOT my view, on the contrary! Not only do you get it wrong, radically and comically wrong, but then you aggravate your case by insisting. It's as if you stamped your own forehead with a most unflattering assessment of your intellect. That's what those 2 "thumbs down" are equivalent to.
I do not know whether the Constitutionali ty of Executive Orders has ever been challenged. I do understand that they have their place. But my understanding is that the Constitutional authority is limited to actions taking during a grave national emergency. Anything else is a violation of the Separation of Powers.
If you think you need automatic weapons to protect yourself from a government takeover you are paranoid.
As I recall, Hitler as well as other tyrants began the same way:Initially being elected democratically while gradually becoming tyrants, ruling by decree!!!
“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.
The shootings could have been stopped IN ADVANCE had he been denied access to legally purchased guns or if he had been helped effectively with his issues.
Where DO you get this crap.
It's the exact opposite, as a few Aussie posters on RSN will confirm and have done already. And they also hav Universal health care to fix any wounds without bankruptcy looming!
The rules governing firearms in Australia since Howard faced down the gun freaks are set out at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116/06_reforms.html. Worth studying as it WORKS. That's why Joe Biden is looking into it. Much better than inventing data as Midwest Tom has done. Gun homicides per capita in Australia are a small fraction of open-slather America's.
Obama is moving against combat weapons which could enable an insurrection followed by a coup and in some quarters are intended to. See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/10/30/tea-partys-radical-gun-rights-agenda.html and http://oathkeepers.org/oath/.
It's all in the name of self-defense after all innit?!
Wish they'd do like the soldiers who massacred Big Foot's band at Wounded Knee and fire in a circle -that would take care of quite few of them -but with the NRA leaders in the middle as armed targets. Even that might not change their empty minds but it would thin their ranks.
Just writing down some delicious mind pictures.
Obama and Bloomberg have jumped to the conclusion that Adam Lanza killed his mother and 26 others, but do we know that on the basis of evidence or speculation by law enforcement?
According to sources who have discussed the case with local police, the press releases were coming in from Washington DC. Is that connected to US AttorneyGeneral Holder's visits with Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy to discuss the new gun control strategy, Project Longevity two weeks before Sandy Hook became news?
We are being rushed to face new gun control legislation while being stonewalled about what really happened. That's not how participatory democracy in a constitutional republic is supposed to work.
Oh Gawd!
And what evidence do we have that you are a real person and not an FBI, CIA, Fox, Stalinist, Fascist, Tea Party, Zionist, Heavy Metal, Sci-fi channel, Dr Who, Star Trek or Baby-Doc plant.
Sheesh!
To give you a point of comparison for your "Constitutional Republic", during the entire American Revolutionary war between 1775 and 1782 25,000 American revolutionary troops died from gun & sabre battle injuries plus about 5,000 British & allies died from battle injuries for a total of 27,500 deaths from battle. The whole revolutionary war was fought so white males could engage in unimpeded colonial genocide against First Nations, continue worldwide economic plunder & perpetuate slavery. Have you no shame? !!!!!!!! The whole world is shocked at your attitudes of not caring about death & injury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, which now controls the Guarantee Of Privilege (GOP) Party, saw a chance in 2010 to capture Congress and reduce the hated Obama to one term by making the country ungovernable. If that didn't work there was always insurrection.
A professor of constitutional law, Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA, outlined the risk of insurrection at the time. See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/10/30/tea-partys-radical-gun-rights-agenda.html
Well, to the astounded horror of the latter-day Rebs the plan to oust Obama in 2012 didn't come off. So back to insurrection. Hence the panic when there's a threat to their means of carrying it out.
But hang on. A band of gun freaks against the might of the US armed forces? They'd be squashed wouldn't they? Well, not if there were enough highly placed allies to stand the armed forces down at the critical moment. It's happened before, remember. September 11 2001.
And there's a very ominous group joined at the hip to law enforcement and the military. Explore their Web site at http://oathkeepers.org. A lot or libertarian rhetoric but that's the sugar coating. Their attack is on gun control.
Obama knows the coup risk and is trying to forestall it.
Out of space but happy to explore this further.
The Oathists’ Bill of Rights talk is the sugar coating – their aim is obvious from their web site: building firepower and protecting it from anyone who threatens what they’re up to.
Their libertarian rhetoric is part of the act. Government has a responsibility to refrain from violating citizens’ rights, and to protect citizens from others violating their rights. Libertarianism is about preventing the national government from protecting the citizen from the States, and all government from protecting the citizen from every other violator of citizens’ rights. Like gunned-up murderers.
The idea of MORE guns to protect citizens is a nonsense. Who would feel safer in an aircraft if anybody and everybody could take guns on board?
There ALREADY is a well trained (hence 'regulated') militia, it's called LAW ENFORCEMENT! The POLICE! THAT is part of the US Second Admendment of the US Constitution's 'well regulated militia'! Nothing more, nothing less!
Guns DO kill! Especially assault weapons and those other weapons into the wrong hands! AMERICA DOES NOT NEED GUNS IN ITS SOCIETY! America ALREADY is THE MOST violent country on Earth! God of all the 200+ countries, it is the USA that needs guns circulaing within the public arena the absolute LEAST!
America, as a friend puts it, is a 'SICK CAT'! Too many 'bloody uncles'! (bloody= violence, uncle = Uncle Sam, the 'mascot of America).
PLEASE STOP AND RESIST the NRA! They have been an absolute EVIL in your country! THEY ALONE have been directly responsible for the on-going school massacres, and the violence in general of American "culture"!
GET RID OF THE GODDAMN WEAPONS! STAND DOWN NOW!
Thanks!
We all have a problem with human insecurity, coward-aggressi on cycles, isolation, one-side thinking & technology-enha nced aggression which in Sandy Hook elementary destroyed the lives of 26 in just 20 minutes before Adam's suicide. The key is taking responsibility for every part of the whole cycle. Both left & right agree that; we need to go deeper than 'arms'. We need to decide where our 'feet' are headed.
The 'Right-to-bare- arms' or each of us rolling up our sleeves to pitch-in for making the world a better place, each of us not bogged down in heavy body-armour & armaments. We need to liberate/empty our arms so they may fully embrace each other & the tasks before us. We need to liberate ourselves & our loved ones from the perpetual fear of scarcity through each in our own way contributing to an abundant world where people understand that mutual-aid is the greatest factor of human-society & evolution. Tell us about your own efforts. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/9-right-to-bare-arms
Buy back all guns and munitions, bombs and fighter planes, melt everything, and build monuments honoring all the victims of our amazingly barbaric regard for all living beings! Build Peace Departments everywhere, refurbish our 1,000+ military bases worldwide into Peace Centers...then see what kind of life unfolds for future generations
The 'right to bear arms' was a ploy to uphold slavery, one of the most heinously violent institutions imaginable.
now, how about a NEW and FRESH motto?
(The) RIGHT TO BEAR LOVE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED OR ABBRIDGED!
Sound better? Yes? No? Maybe? Try LOVE for a change, much better than arms! Again, arms are for HUGGING, not shooting!
Thank you!
RSS feed for comments to this post