Posted on 07/08/2011 5:20:10 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
WASHINGTON (AP) - Six months after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, the White House is preparing to propose some new steps on gun safety, though they're likely to fall short of the bold measures activists would like to see.
Spokesman Jay Carney said that the new steps would be made public "in the near future." He didn't offer details, but people involved in talks at the Justice Department to craft the new measures said they expected to see something in the next several weeks. Whatever is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues, like banning assault weapons, but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.
"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 Thursday. "That process is well under way at the Department of Justice, with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues, and we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."
Anti-gun groups have been disappointed to see no action so far from President Barack Obama, who supported tough gun control measures earlier in his career but fell largely silent upon becoming president. Some activists were using the opportunity of the six-month anniversary of the Giffords shooting on Friday to speak up.
The shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., killed six people and wounded more than a dozen others, including Giffords. Two months later, Obama wrote an opinion piece in Giffords' local paper, the Arizona Daily Star, calling for "sound and effective steps" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks. So far the president has done nothing and administration officials have signaled that no major steps should be expected, given the climate in Congress against gun legislation of any kind.
That's not stopping activists from pushing Obama. The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sent Obama a letter calling him to act.
"To prevent the next Tucson, we need a comprehensive background check system, which is what the president called for in April," said the director of the mayors' group, Mark Glaze. "That said, there are many steps the president can take on his own authority, without new laws, that could make a very real difference."
The group's suggestions included enforcing reporting laws that could have stopped the Tucson shooter from getting a weapon.
I believe the issue here is the threshold where mental patients are added to the "mental defective" file for the NICS system to find and reject.
Question 11 f of the Form 4473 asks:
"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
Since the school that banned Loughner was not a "lawful authority" on the matter, and because Jared didn't subsequently see a doctor to get a professional diagnosis - well, he wasn't legally barred from purchasing firearms.
Whatever Obama has in mind, it'll probably involve getting most if not all mental health records dumped into the NICS system - not just cases where people have been *adjudicated* as mentally defective. That will require revising the Privacy Act where mental health records are concerned.
Uh, yeah; you’re wrong.
“Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.”
BHO2 is trying to circumvent the 2nd Amendment - SCOTUS should smack him down NOW!
Won’t the left be surprised (and be without recourse) if President Palin or Bachman or Cain govern with some dictatorial decrees of their own.
Like ending abortion, Closing the border, Tossing Islam from the country, closing doen the BLM/EPA, DOEdu....
Hey, their hero set the precedent. It works both ways.
Impeachment alone won’t get BHO to step down. That’ll take criminal charges, being tried, found guilty, then imprisoned.
He’s certainly broken enough laws and, imo, committed treason. But just impeaching (although it should be done!) won’t get rid of him. He’d never resign.
We’ll be lucky if sometime between now and Nov. ‘12, BHO et al don’t create (and declare) some kind of “national emergency”, thereby allowing him to indefinitely suspend elections, and even enforce martial law.
I’m serious - I worry about that. His evil mission to sabotage our republic knows no limits.
It's tough to blame Reagan for that one, given the slimy way that amendment was added. Here's the thread on that vote from last January. Only took a quarter-century for that video to surface.
Seems nobody wants to hold that hot potato. But it’s still the law, sucks.
So our government is corrupt and bloated and the solution is to take our freedom and money?
Nice little distraction from the upcoming vote on the debt ceiling.
>>he hit back, harder than he had been hit.<<
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2744939/posts?page=8#8
>>Banning the person to person gun sale because there is no paperwork is coming.<<
Look Momma, I can walk just fine on my knees.
Yup, as long as we stay on our knees they’ll have no difficulty swinging the chains at us either.
2. Gun Control - check.
Voila', Total Tyranny! That was easy! Now let's roll and put all those conservatives in the gulags.
That attitude needs to be lived to the fullest by those of us still believing in a free country.
Ignoring this nonsense at every opportunity is about the only thing we can do until our ‘leaders’ grow a few pair between them and a spine.
Well, since Obeyme can’t force his anti-gun agenda through any of the proper legislative channels, it only makes sense that he would attempt to appease his base by executive fiat.
***Thanks for the ping. There is a bit of a high duhhh factor in it. I suppose the best way to prepare for this is to exercise our constitutional right to own arms... not that it will be “legal” much longer.
Thanks!
Thanks, I did know they could get around it by enacting conflicting legislation and then override the veto (if they have enough folks as you said). Prohibiting the funding is usually good as well - again, if they have enough votes.
Some EO’s are more complex, though, like the one BHO signed months ago (maybe even last year) that extended the jurisdiction of the UN here in the U.S., authorizing it to intrude on American private citizens for search purposes, I believe. It’s been quite awhile ago & I’d have to look it up again.
So often, EO’s that are written for nefarious reasons, against the Constitution and our republic, are done on the down low - during holidays, when other things are dominating the news, etc. Even though the public only knows about EO’s by researching them (certainly not in the media), I wonder if Congress is kept apprised of each EO the One signs.
Incorrect, 922.(o) is not an executive order.
It was enacted as an amendment to MV-86 at the last possible moment. allegedly approved, by voice vote.
A roll call vote was not allowed, many votes were “cast” by members who had recorder their vote in support of the original bill before leaving the chamber.
They never actually voted on the amendment.
Witnesses concur that the amendment actually failed, but without a recorded vote it cannot be proven, and at this late date there is little to be done.
this same scheme has been practiced many times since that infamous day.
Reagan signed the overall law, no one wanted to catch the flack that would have erupted if the whole bill had been vetoed.
To this day MOST of MV-86 has been a boon to our RKBA, the only problem is the amendment that was rammed down our throats by subterfuge.
For full details and a link to the video, look around nfaoa.org
“Reagan did blow it with that 86 law.”
Not really, as much as I despise the 922.(o) ban, I despise the manner in which it was tacked on to the MV-86 bill even more.
That activity rivals Waco and “Fast & Furious” for it’s impudence and sheer feculent intent.
The MV-86 bill that was amended by surreptitious manipulation of fact is a very good law, it has kept a lot of Americans from becoming political prisoners of anti-RKBA jurisdictions.
I wish we could impeach AND remove, because impeachment without removal - the real necessary solution - ain’t gonna do anything for the country.
Since it doesn’t get the goal (his removal) accomplished because the senate would not remove him, it would be a victory, but only a pyrrhic victory.
Who signed the full bill and why? In the end, who was responsible?
As I tried to explain, Reagan signed the overall bill, he did not have a line-item veto power.
The D’s tacked on the no new MG’s amendment at the last minute.
The speaker declared the amendment passed despite objections, no roll call vote was allowed.
This has become a familiar tactic, create a very popular “Must Pass” bill, then put some odious trash into it that the good guys have to allow in order to get the good parts passed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.