Posted on 05/30/2015 12:41:56 PM PDT by jazusamo
The Justice Department plans move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.
The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.
Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.
But the gun lobby contends that such a sweeping ban would unfairly root out a number of prospective gun owners who are not a danger to society.
“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” said Luke O’Dell, vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights.
The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.
Some of the rules come in response to President Obama’s call to reduce gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook. He issued 23 executive actions shortly after the shooting aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous people, and some of those items remain incomplete.
“If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown,” Obama said at the time.
“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale,” he added.
Gun control groups have rallied around Obama’s call to action, zeroing in on polices that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and domestic abusers.
Congressional efforts to expand background checks and keep guns away from dangerous people have failed in recent years, but the legislative defeats won’t stop the Justice Department from regulating.
The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is looking to revive a rule proposed way back in 1998 that would block domestic abusers from owning guns.
As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.
The ATF plans to finalize the rule by November, according to the Unified Agenda. But gun rights advocates are concerned the Obama administration will use this rule to unfairly target certain gun owners.
“That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” warned Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Americans for Responsible Solutions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
But Everytown, a group financially backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has argued that keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers can be a matter of life or death.
“American women are 11 times more likely to be shot and killed than women in other developed countries,” the group argues. “The high rate of domestic violence deaths in America is directly related to our weak gun laws. But we know that smart gun laws can—and do—stop domestic abuse from turning into murder."
The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms, which is attracting even more criticism from gun rights groups.
“The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist,” Hammond argued.
The NRA contends that many people who are mentally ill may not necessarily pose a danger to society — or as the gun lobby puts it, the policy “snares masses of mostly harmless individuals.”
Gun rights advocates argue it would be more effective to ban people on an individual basis, as opposed to banning all people who are mentally ill.
“A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA wrote. "Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” it added.
Aside from these issues, some gun rights advocates have also raised concerns about upcoming ATF rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts, provide gun storage and safety devices, and place restrictions on high-powered pistols, among other things.
“The Obama administration hates the Second Amendment, and it’s clear that every place where it can push, it will,” said Hammond. “This is an indication of an anti-gun administration trying to annoy us in any way it can."
I think so too.
High-powered pistol?
Let’s examine compliance shall we ?
The Connecticut modern sporting rifle ban compliance was below 10%
NY unSAFE Act....compliance was nearly zero.
You can make your rules and nobody will comply.
Ya gots to love it when anything this quota boy enacts by decree gets taken to the supremes and they slap him down AGAIN.
Amen, that ticks him off no end.
Once they got that seemingly innocuous law in place, they ratchet up the disqualifiers for buying and possessing guns. Remember when the Brady Law was first enacted? Handguns only. Then came long guns, and the background check supposedly only affected "felons, mental cases, and drug users".
Then Congress included "domestic violence or even the accusation of domestic violence".
Then Congress added "misdemeanors that could be felonies today".
They want to finish the net and then begin making a tighter and tighter net until nothing gets through.
Warn Congress to block this mess and let's get a set of elected officials who will repeal the Brady Law and GCA 68 once and for all.
They say this is because of Sandy Hook.
Even these rules would not have kept the firearms out of that whack jobs hands. His freakin’ mother bought him the weapons.
How are you going to avoid that?
How about we go back to locking down crazy people. And not just let them roam around looking for people to kill.
Couldn’t agree more, get the crazy people out of circulation.
“It’s impossible to fathom why these people keep trying to disarm Americans... But out of an estimated 400 million +/- guns, just how many do you imagine thry could actually confiscate (a few thousand maybe?... Chances of citizen compliance - two percent tops?”
Suppose the government announced today that all Americans have two weeks to turn in all firearms or face prosecution. That is it not really confiscation, merely a temporary but necessary measure due to mostly unnamed factors, and that the firearms would be returned within a short time frame. The public’s decisions would be influenced by the following:
1. Many new gun-owners own one firearm recently purchased out of fear of the unknown, and many barely know how to use it, if at all. Many have never fired their weapon, and to “temporarily” relinquish it would not be a hardship for them. This is a new thing, and all will be ok.
2. Most Americans still like to think that the government is actually there for their benefit, and that any act of “temporary gun inspection” is in their best interest. Most cling to the ideals of their youth or those of their forefathers, and still hold the US Government in high regard.
3. Many believe any real threat to national or local security can be best handled by the government.
Most Americans would willingly line up to turn in their weapons, still holding a misguided faith that all will be well. I really believe that AT LEAST half of all guns in America would be turned in, rather than their owners risking criminal charges.
Many would be hold-outs and risk the consequences, some actively resisting. The number of gun-owners who would actually resist, particularly armed resistance, would be astoundingly small compared to the bluster and bloviating done by millions of internet arm-chair Keyboard Kommandos.
Besides, what would YOU do if a SWAT team stood at your door with a warrant, or whatever is needed, to search your premises for weapons? Would you have a shoot-out with them? I doubt it. They would leave with every firearm in your house, and you would be left sitting and wondering what happened. Talk is cheap. Kudos to those who are prepared. Almost none really are.
No doubt it would be a small step from being
mentally ill and not being allowed a gun, to
wanting a gun makes you mentally ill.
Have to lock you up for the good of society...
Just a guess, but I think that refers to handguns that can fire rifle cartridges, especially the pistols based on the AR-15 design.
As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.
I thought the Lautenberg Amendment (1996) already did this?
Time is coming for this brain dead Marxist Muslim dictator to B removed, before he decides to call a state of emergency and cancels the 2016 election.
Nice Barbeque grill, put a tow hitch on it and drive around the streets of Baltimore.
FRiend, I don't think you've thought this through, nor do I believe that "most Americans" would give up their weapons as easily as you appear to be willing to do. In fact, I'd submit that most new gun owners have joined our ranks precisely because they no longer trust this government, nor hold it in high regard. Do you really believe that they'd be so quick to surrender their weapons? Note how many weapons, expensive weapons, have been purchased in an otherwise down economy, and think about the message behind that.
Of course no one with any sense would seek to have an armed confrontation in such conditions as you mention. However, think 4GW - do you really believe that those who gave such orders, who live here among us and not not an ocean away, would be immune from eventual consequences?
What makes you believe that every firearm will necessarily be stored in the same place? Maybe there are some "low hanging fruit" pieces available for confiscation in such an eventuality, but maybe some stored elsewhere too... Especially once word gets out that this is coming.
You decry the "bluster" of "internet arm-chair Keyboard Kommandos", but I suggest that Americans are an ornery, clever, independent-minded bunch, and even if some of those you seem to look down on might be all hat and no cattle, there are most certainly many who would just keep their mouths shut, and become a royal pain in the a$$.
I had that question right away as well and did a quick search for the “Unified Agenda”, but haven’t found anything yet. If these new rules have been released, they ought to be able to be found somewhere in non-abbreviated form.
If the Administration ignores the Constitution (which it has sworn to uphold and defend), then the American people can ignore whatever the Administration comes up with. The Administration will not be happy until the government and the people come to blows. Of course, such a thing would be fatal to the government, so don’t be surprised to see the government call in foreign “assistance.”.
Is that what the recent civil strife is all about? Incite rioting in the cities to promote new gun laws?
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.