Obama administration reportedly readies executive order expanding background checks


#1

Obama administration reportedly readies executive order expanding background checks

**Published December 11, 2015
FoxNews.com **

Advisers to President Barack Obama reportedly are finalizing a proposal to expand background checks on gun buyers without congressional approval.

The Associated Press reported that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told a Wednesday night vigil for victims of the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. that Obama had asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review “in short order.” . . .

foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/11/obama-administration-reportedly-readies-executive-order-expanding-background-checks.html?intcmp=hpbt3

**
The Obama administration often floats such Executive Orders on Friday afternoons allegedly to avoid the ramifications of the news cycle.**

We’ll see what (if anything) occurs here.

Interesting times.

God bless.

Cathoholic


#2

Until he also funds it, it meaningless…


#3

I find the wording of the article to be somewhat unusual. For example,

Obama called on Congress to approve legislation to keep people on the no-fly list from buying guns. Gun rights advocates oppose the proposal because they say it violates the rights of people who have not been convicted of a crime.

It seems to argue that some people are saying that just being on a government watch list is equivalent to be convicted of a crime, when I’m not aware of anybody who is.


#4

It sounds like it is playing on the fear factor and most of these measures if not all would do little to stop the terror incidences that have been suffered.


#5

If it saves one life, then in my opinion, it is worth it.


#6

gamewell45 You said in post 5 . . . .

If it saves one life, then in my opinion, it is worth it.

Why not look at a “risk/benefit” ratio?

Why not look at lives saved as a principle?

Why not ask: “Well let’s see. If we infringe upon law-abiding citizens, then SOME of them will be WITHOUT a means of self-defense and THEY will have THEIR lives lost”?

Why not ask: What is the track record of Governments the world over in the last 150 years, who get grotesquely out of balance with power? (See the answer here - Death by Government by R. J. Rummel) Is there a possible chance that in 10 or 20 years the USA COULD go down that road of citizen democide against political dissidents too? Or can I just assume “It CAN’T happen here”?

Why not ask: The Constitution says . . . this that and the other thing. Is it OK to toss the Constitution out the window because of a political whim? And if it is NOT a mere “political whim”, why not have an open and honest debate about the issue as a nation? Why not FIRST amend the U.S. constitution before taking steps that violate “Congress shall make NO LAW” concerning the Right of its citizens to keep and bear arms.

And why not ask: Well do we REALLY want Mexican-styled firearm control or Chicago-styled or for that matter California-styled gun-control in this country? Did those laws help Mexico, Chicago, or San Bernardino (you know that the Islamic terrorists in California did this dastardly deed in a “Gun-Free Zone” don’t you? see here)?

And look at what some with the gun-grabbing mentality have said. They want gun laws that mimic countries that have had gun CONFISCATION! That is code for they want gun CONFISCATION here in this country too! That’s PRECISELY WHY they mention such countries. Do you want THAT and all the potential ramifications THAT would bring here?

And why not ask: "Well what about our police men and police women? Should we CONFISCATE THEIR guns too? (You DO know that is what SOME have argued don’t you. and they will use arguments like: “Well if it saves ONE LIFE, then it’s worth it!”)

And if not confiscation from our police, WHY NOT at least confiscation from our RETIRED Police officers?

Protection for them? Yes of course. But how about “protection” for others too? WHO do you think should form the “protection risk committee” that gets to decide WHO gets FULL CITIZENSHIP gun rights and which law-abiding citizens DO NOT?

It always sounds good to say something simple like: “If it saves one life, then in my opinion, it is worth it.” We’ve seen people in great power (who are themselves guarded by many people with GUNS) say that line over and over again haven’t we?

But the costs, gains, and practicality must be figured into the equation.

And don’t forget, the Constitutionality aspect as well.

There is a REASON that our fore fathers had the wisdom to set up the Government with powers balanced between the executive, judicial, and congressional branches, but the founding fathers ALSO saw powers with the CITIZENRY as well.

Do citizens ABUSE such powers? Yes they do. Just as judges, executives, and congressional officials. But you do NOT penalize the good law-abiding citizen because of the abusers.

Can you imagine telling a judge in Iowa she is not allowed to render a judicial decision because a judge in New Jersey was jailed for corruption?

President Obama warned us the other night about broad-brushing good Muslim people with
not so good.

Why not do the same here and NOT broad-brush good law abiding citizens with Islamic terrorists?

And if you DO penalize the good people because of terrorists, . . . then the terrorists get their way don’t they? The terrorists in a certain sense “win” because weak-willed people (I am NOT saying YOU are “weak-willed” gamewell45. Just that “some” are) want to make a false trade of their freedom with their security.

In the USA, we are citizens. Not wards of the state.
In the USA we are citizens. Not “subjects”.
In the USA we are citizens, not members of a certain caste.


#7

The bottom line in my opinion is if we do nothing, deaths are going to continue to occur at least at the rate that they are now; so if this proposed EO saves just one life, in my opinion it is ok regardless of the impact on the US Constitution, which incidentally, I believe is legal since I believe it does not impact on law abiding citizens rights to arm and defend their lives and property.


#8

I agree that if we do nothing the problem will get worse.

I am of the opinion that the proposed EO will “net” lives lost instead of lives saved.

I’ll note that based on how you worded your response that you are unsure yourself whether or not the proposed EO will actually save lives based on your use of the word “if” in your response.

Some hard evidence of what the President proposes will actually work is needed for this taxpayer before I could even remotely think about considering whether or not this proposed EO could be considered a good idea.


#9

This is a very dangerous road, because it leads undeniably to further impositions and denials of the individual rights that are protected by the constitution. I might claim that I believe, if it saves one life, it is worth denying a particular group their free speech rights, for example.

An EO that restricts American citizens of their constitutionally protected rights, including the individual right to keep and bear arms, without due process is quite frankly cause for revolution. There is a reason why the Bill of Rights is there. so that government cannot override them, even based on popular will.

…which incidentally, I believe is legal since I believe it does not impact on law abiding citizens rights to arm and defend their lives and property.

Actually, it does. Knowing that there are American citizens on no-fly lists who have not been convicted of a crime, this EO would without doubt impact law-abiding citizens (if one has not been convicted, one is presumed innocent).
Further, an EO that requires American citizens on a no-fly list to prove they are not a risk is also a violation of constitutional rights, that being the presumption of innocence, and the prohibition on government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Jon


#10

That’s funny. Immediately after calls for gun control by Obama and the Democrats at the state and federal level, gun sales spike through the roof. And not a single one of them can answer one simple question. How one more law could have changed things. And correct me if I’m wrong, but France has some of the most stringent gun laws on the entire planet, and no one here needs me to remind them to what has happened there of late. I have a suggestion for those who beat this same drum ad nauseam…get over it!

Peace, Mark


#11

Mark,
Gun laws suggested by progressives have nothing to do with stopping gun violence, much less terrorist attacks. They are specifically designed to disarm the law-abiding.

Jon


#12

When people disagree on the interpretation of the constitution or laws, we use the mechanism used to settle disputes amicably and that is SCOTUS. All sides have to abide by their decision and we all live with it unless it is overturned or modified by a change in the constitution. I may not like many of the decision handed down by them, but it is the system we have used in this country for 200+ years and it has worked rather well in many cases.


#13

When people disagree on the interpretation of the constitution or laws, we use the mechanism used to settle disputes amicably and that is SCOTUS. All sides have to abide by their decision and we all live with it unless it is overturned or modified by a change in the constitution.

There is a few problems with this partial truth gamewell45.

First of all the SCOTUS HAS overturned illegal executive fire arm restrictions (but they should not have occurred in the first place).

Second of all, our citizen-rights do NOT emanate from the Government. They come from “the Creator” and are simply RECOGNIZED by the Government.

The Constitution was put into place for protection from an over-reaching Government against its people. The people who enter office swear an oath to uphold that concept and those directives.

The other issue I have, is the President is NOT SUPPOSED to use “Executive Orders” to circumvent Congress.

We all know evasion of the Congressional process is inappropriate.

(People are not elected “Kings”, “Dictators” or “Caesars” in this country. They are not meant to have those levels of power in our governing system in the USA.)

The SCOTUS shouldn’t have to continually be overturning these violations of separation of powers. Not only are these actions illicit in the first place, but it keeps the SCOTUS from hearing cases they otherwise WOULD be hearing.

The next executive should NOT feel it necessary to issue NEW executive orders overturning PRIOR executive orders. (And what if he does? Can the SCOTUS say THAT overturning a PRIOR executive order is out of bounds? Or does this help make the SCOTUS more irrelevant? Which “law” should the SCOTUS adhere to?)

We all know, that Executive Orders powers are there for immediate emergency action for the executive branch (in which case Congress SHOULD act on them ASAP–like dealing with an act of war for the President . . . . or calling out the National Guard for a Governor and later a ratification by the state legislature or some such thing).

Federal executive actions admittedly ALSO include foreign policy, or more temporary and/or less significant items like “Appreciate Dad’s Week” (making this up as a hypothetical example) or the Country flying its flags at half-mast on a given day, or something along those lines.

The power granted to Presidents is NOT meant to bypass Congress for law making. We know that from Junior High civics.

You don’t NEED to be a Constitutional Lawyer to know this.

Does Congress go along with executive power over-reach? Many times yes they do.

After all, it is a LOT easier to have someone else slip by an “executive order” than legislating a law that may be controversial and having to take a public-opinion clobbering back home in the district or state.

Congressmen (and women) like this stuff sometimes.

They clandestinely WANT some of these executive orders, or possibly want to avoid being held accountable by their voting constituency.

(Please voters. Hey look. I didn’t VOTE for THAT measure! The President bypassed us as Congress. So don’t hold ME accountable for that “law” please. It is HIS fault!")

The citizens are tired of this routine (this may even be part of the “Trump Phenomenon”).

The citizens KNOW this is wrong. It contributes to a general restlessness of the people when these things are going on constantly.

The liberals get bent out of shape when executive orders arise that they DON’T LIKE.
Conservatives are irritated when they see executive orders they don’t like too.
But principled constituents are left wondering HOW these things keep happening in the first place??

And what about Governors? They are executives? Can THEY do an “end-around” anything THEY want TOO (and let the SCOUTS clean THAT mess up too?)?

This is WRONG. It is an abuse of power. And everybody knows it.

There is an undercurrent of uneasiness in our Country (if you are from the USA) and running around issuing “executive orders” so as to circumvent the Congressional process is only building further dissatisfaction.

It is especially important for our leaders to police themselves, because there is really little or no accountability for them when they DO NOT police themselves.

Yes they HAVE been corrected by the courts, but the courts are not perfect either and sometimes the executives just DON’T obey the court orders. As I said, little or no accountability.

That’s WHY the system is NOT supposed to be set up with a paradigm of “Just let the President (or any other “executive”) write out whatever “law” he/she dreams up. Then we’ll let the SCOTUS clean up the mess.”

That’s NOT the way the system works. And everybody knows it.

You said:

All sides have to abide by their decision and we all live with it

(I’m not saying this about you gamewell45. You sound very reasonable even though I think you are wrong on this point. But OTHERS would say . . . . )

All sides have to abide by their decision and we all live with it

How about “all sides abiding” with the decision that we ALREADY have?

How about "all sides (including the citizens, the courts, the executives, and the congressional branches) all abiding with the decision that we ALREADY have that they all say they support?

How about “all sides abiding” with . . . .

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


#14

Hey Obama,

Try something that may actually make a difference, like, say,expanding, or at least become COMPETENT in vetting Islamists trying to get in here?

This guy is so clueless.


#15

What I’m hearing is that he wants to expand the definition of a “gun dealer” to basically anybody and any person selling a gun without being a dealer would be charged with being a dealer without a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Of course, the law itself as passed by Congress and signed by the President years ago quite clearly defines what a dealer is, and it isn’t everybody. Not that the President seems to care what the law actually says anmore.

Ironically, over the past decade or so, the ATF has used this strict definition of “dealer” (that it is a major source of your income) to take away the FFLs from small guys working out of their houses, mostly doing background checked transfers for people. So after years of reducing the number of people who qualified as “dealers” now they want to expand the definition again. I’m sure the granting of FFLs won’t expand as well though.

Removing the requirement that cops get a warrant to search people and property, and the requirement that they actually charge you with a crime when holding you would save a lot of lives. I mean, think of all the lives saved if you could just imprison without trial every illegal gang member in the country? Those proposals will all save at least one life.


#16

:thumbsup:


#17

The Heller and MacDonald decisions over the last few years have decisively confirmed that which as been the case since the founding era: that the second amendment protects an** individual** right to keep and bear arms.
The SCOTUS has confirmed, also, that no one’s rights can be confiscated without due process. The only way that this or any other enumerated right of an American citizen can be taken away is if they are convicted of a crime. Being on a no-fly list is not a crime. It is not a court of law, where a defendant has a right to counsel and a jury of peers. Being on a no-fly list is not even an indictment, much less a conviction.

Even Obama, with his pen and his phone, and his regular disregard of things constitutional, knows that the government cannot restrict the constitutional rights of someone simply because they are on a no-fly list.

Jon


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.