Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Bear With Me. This Is Gonna Get Ugly...

We needed Executive Orders for this?

1. clOsinG BacKGrOund checK lOOPhOles TO KeeP Guns OuT OF danGerOus hands

Most gun owners buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting. Yet too often, irresponsible and dangerous individuals have been able to easily get their hands on firearms. We must strengthen our efforts to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.

Ah, that old chestnut, the gun show loophole. Also known as the selling of private property loophole.

2: BanninG MiliTarY-sTYle assaulT WeaPOns and hiGh-caPaciTY MaGaZines, and TaKinG OTher cOMMOn-sense sTePs TO reduce Gun ViOlence

We need to do more to prevent easy access to instruments of mass violence. We also need to provide law enforcement with additional tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make sure health care providers know they can report credible threats of violence and talk to their patients about gun safety, and promote responsible gun ownership.

Remember how we said we weren't going to talk away your guns? Yeah, we were lying through our teeth. Plus, that original assault weapons ban didn't do anything to stop violence (Columbine!), so let's do it again only harder.

end The FreeZe On Gun ViOlence research

There are approximately 30,000 firearm-related homicides and suicides a year, a number large enough to make clear this is a public health crisis. But for years, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other scientific agencies have been barred by Congress from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control,” and some members of Congress have claimed this prohibition also bans the CDC from conducting any research on the causes of gun violence. However, research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.

We handed the CDC a dumptruck full of money to find a public health angle on gun control. Despite throwing millions of dollars at it, they couldn't find a single link. Let's throw more money at it!

PuT uP TO 1,000 MOre schOOl resOurce OFFicers and cOunselOrs in schOOls and helP schOOls inVesT in saFeTY

Putting school resource officers and mental health professionals in schools can help prevent school crime and student-on-student violence. School resource officers are specially trained police officers that work in schools. When equipped with proper training and supported by evidence-based school discipline policies, they can deter crime with their presence and advance community policing objectives.

Wait wait wait. Didn't Obama ridicule the NRA's suggestion that we put more police officers in schools? REALLY? And he just turns around and incorporates their suggestion into his plan. SHAMELESS.

4: iMPrOVinG MenTal healTh serVices

As President Obama said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun.” Today, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. While the vast majority of Americans with a mental illness are not violent, several recent mass shootings have highlighted how some cases of mental illness can develop into crisis situations if individuals do not receive proper treatment. We need to do more than just keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illness; we need to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need before these dangerous situations develop.

Gratuitous dig aside, it would be nice to see some more attention paid to the mental illness side of the equation. The likelihood of the FedGov using this information in a proper manner is quite low, of course.

So, he's zeroing in on private sales and a new AWB, but he's leaving it to Congress to take the fall if it is not implemented. He's pushing the same old tired ideas that have tried and failed, and dressed them up in the guise of "for the children". I would say it's cliched and formulaic, but it doesn't even rise to that level. This is "phoning it in" bad.

Looks like we'll be fighting this more on the state level than federal - so it's not as bad as it could be...

That is all.


JD said...

it was a speech about nothing and he knows he can't EO a new AWB. . Not really worried I don't think it can pass at this point in Congress. . . It is the state level BS that gets me worried but eventually we can kill that in court if we keep SCOTUS on our side. . that is a BIG IF I agree

Ed said...

I can see the new slogan, now that New York has passed a new gun law:
"Massachusetts - at least we don't suck as much as New York".

If you have a Kimber or other 1911 based pistol, you would prefer a 8 round magazine over a 7 round magazine. Other than that, the only pistols with 7 rounds or less magazine capacity are pocket pistols. If you have a pistol that is designed for a 13 round or 15 round magazine, there is no compelling reason to put a lesser capacity magazine in that pistol except to comply with a logically unreasonable state law. How can that be a Constitutionally acceptable "reasonable limitation"? You could take a 13 round magazine and load it with 7 or 10 rounds, but that would be illogical and dumb if you are loading the pistol for self defense purposes.

Brad_in_MA said...

IANAW, nor do I play one on TV or the intrawebz. That said . . .

The 2008 Heller SCOTUS decision forbids a ban on weapons "in common use." Perhaps a reasonable federal judge like Posner (the guy how declared the Illinois ban on concealed carry as unconstitutional) to rule that arbitrary limits on magazine size are just as unconstitutional as 20- and 30-rounders are "in common use."

Wally said...

I love how we all need background checks to weed out the unstable.

So after proving we are stable, we still can't buy things that are military-styled.

When will my military-styled truck be outlawed?

Anonymous said...

On another blog someone suggested that barry o should be subjected to the 'standard' background check that law abiding citizens have to pass in order to 'qualify' for a CHL/CPL (or whatever it is called in the states that require them. Never mind the one that any of us vets had to pass in order to obtain a security clearance...........

There is just way too much of the 'control' factor built into the 23 'initiatives' for the liking of most Citizens - especially when barry and a big share of his cabinet (not to mention the 'czars') most likely couldn't qualify...............

Old NFO said...

And Hollywierd escapes attention yet again!!!

PJS said...

Scary times we live in.

Daniel in Brookline said...

This president IS scary. It's a good thing he's also incompetent.

Ed said...

You were reading my mind. I had reread a summary of Judge Posner's decision in Shepard v. Madigan before writing that comment.

Look at what I was reading, and look closely at the photograph:

Would you limit that woman to only seven rounds or ten round to defend herself and her associate? I do not think that would be a "reasonable limitation". I would give that woman whatever she thought she needed. Twenty rounds of 230 gr. 45 .ACP +P JHP? You got it.

There is a huge ongoing human cost in suffering being paid in this gun control nonsense, and it is not being paid by the politicians despite their pained facial expressions. It is being paid by victims rendered defenseless by the politicians who must have a Christ complex and truly believe that they are bringing peace on earth and feel compelled to "do something". This must stop.

If they are truly worried about gun violence, then they should revoke most of the gun control laws on the books now and also establish education and training programs so that most citizens will be proficient and can safely carry firearms whenever possible. Treat it like learning first aid and CPR by turning everyone into armed "First Responders". Make it as routine as Driver's Education and getting your driver's license. Encourage it and we will be safer. Some will never want to carry a firearm, just like some do not wish to drive, but let that be their choice, not their government's choice made for them.

Ritchie said...

Dear Doctor: We do not discuss security protocols. That would make them less secure.

Dear Barry: Liberty is not a loophole. It does not need to be plugged up.

phssthpok said...

"1. clOsinG BacKGrOund checK lOOPhOles TO KeeP Guns OuT OF danGerOus hands

Most gun owners buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting. Yet too often, irresponsible and dangerous individuals have been able to easily get their hands on firearms. We must strengthen our efforts to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands."

What? No Patented JayG hate-rage for Obama saying this with a straight face while ERIC HOLDER sat in the front row?

Rifleman762 said...

Deval Patrick just filed a 7-round mag limit and 1 gun/month bill that includes a slew of other restrictions. So yes, I'd say we're definitely gonna be fighting at the state level, but no, it's not gonna be easy.

March on the State House at noon this Saturday (1/19).

Dirk said...

"For the children!" - the rallying cry for stupid legislation.

My CHILDREN are smart enough to understand that more laws are not going to stop criminals from obtaining and using guns illegally.

I told them about the NY 7-round restriction, and how even in the privacy of your own home, you could become a criminal by putting 8 rounds in a magazine. Without prompting, they said "That's stupid." And then the 11-year-old piped up with "Someone going to shoot up a school isn't going to worry about how many bullets they put in their guns - they're going to go kill people!"

My 14-year old suggested a "hilarious" party game for NY residents. Take one 10-round magazine. Load it with 7 rounds. Add an 8th, and exclaim "Hey, I'm a criminal!" Then, remove the round, and declary "Nope, not a criminal anymore." Rinse and repeat.