search
top

What’s In the Obama Executive Orders

Slate has it. Much of it is relatively mild and some uncontroversial. But here are my comments:

  • “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.” Does this mean that we can just get the check without the 4473?
  • “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.” Hey, you know who already has one of those going? The NRA.
  • “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).” This was one of Bloomberg’s recommendations. The potential issue here is that they mandate expensive locks that provide little additional safety benefit over existing locks with the sole purpose to drive up costs.
  • “Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” They did this in the 90s, and it was pure political hackery designed to promote more gun control.
  • “Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies” Smart gun nonsense. I want a phaser too.

I hate to say it folks, but this is not nearly as bad as I was expecting, unless there’s more gems hidden in this.

UPDATE: I should note here that I think Obama’s strategy is to lay responsibility for action at the feet of Congress. How much weight does the White House intend to put behind these efforts? We know Obama’s machine has a great deal of energy and organization. We must match that. Hell, we must overwhelm it in the years ahead.

UPDATE: I’d also note we’re not really out of the woods on the executive order issue. One, there could be more. Two, we still don’t really know what’s in this order yet, other than what they’ve released to the media.

52 Responses to “What’s In the Obama Executive Orders”

  1. Mark says:

    Save the best for last for last, when people tune out.

    • Bill says:

      My fear in a nutshell. “Under the radar”.

      • Harold says:

        The big one, banning imports, won’t exactly be “under the radar” once importers get their applications denied….

    • Jake says:

      Yup. These are just the ones he’s telling us about in a big press conference. Watch out for the ones that get signed quietly and without any fanfare.

  2. terraformer says:

    But none of it would have changed anything. And anything that would have changed any of these shootings is not mentioned. WTF do we need to do to make sure SAFETY is talked about.

  3. J says:

    Camel’s nose under the tent? I think the EOs were crafted to have an overall Common Sense™ feel so that the administration can point out that they tried to Do Something™ when Congress refuses to pass most of the AWB BS that the President clearly supports.

    • m11_9 says:

      The changes to the import sporting definition could then come back if Congress doesn’t play ball.

  4. TS says:

    “Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

    Ok, so why don’t they read the CDC report that said the last AWB was useless?

    • Archer says:

      Besides, isn’t the CDC forbidden by federal law from engaging in such research, specifically because it can be used as anti-rights propaganda? The EO wouldn’t change the law. Is the Narcissist-in-Chief really going to order them to violate federal law and order the DoJ (or whatever relevant enforcement agency) to give them a pass?

      Selective enforcement of laws, “Rules for thee but not for me”, etc. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

    • Harold says:

      Hmmm, I thought the Congress had outright banned the CDC doing this sort of thing, but I’m not finding enough confirmation. Ah, with Obama in office it appears they just redefined what they were “researching”:

      For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don’t matter to the Obama administration.

      With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They’re not researching guns; they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. “These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances,” wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.

      • Archer says:

        [sarcasm] Oh, is that all? [/sarcasm]

        Now, if they’d research how teens and young adults in gangs affected the rates of gun- and non-gun-injuries, I’d almost think they’re serious about finding causal links.

    • Sebastian says:

      CDC didn’t do that study. It was the NIJ, which is part of the DOJ.

  5. Clay says:

    The President is always playing the long game. He wants to destroy the GOP, not crucify his own party for a policy that most of the public doesn’t care all that much about. So he will leave it to Congress and they will probably do something about guards for schools and mental illness. The AWB will not happen and he knows this which why he has already signaled he will sign a bill that does not include the AWB. The only real thing I worry about is that the GOP will screw up on something else like immigration and end up having a lackluster midterm election, in which case the left and the media will blame it on them having not supported gun control.

    • Archer says:

      Given some of the GOP-affiliated politicians’ words and actions recently, I have approximately zero confidence that they won’t screw up on gun rights, let alone anything else. They’ve shown that they – as a whole (individual results may vary) – are not friends of gun owners; merely not actively against us.

      I strongly suspect the GOP as we know it is on its last legs. So is the Democrat party, but at least we know which direction they’re going (probably will proudly assume the moniker of the Progressive Party or the American Socialist Party, “AmSoc” for short, in Orwellian fashion). The GOP’s new direction is a toss-up, and that makes me a bit nervous. Will they continue trying to woo a non-existent “middle ground”, or will they return to their core base and try to scoop up the TEA Partiers, Constitutionalists, and Libertarians?

      • Harold says:

        There’s the thesis I’ve mentioned before that the Democratic Party per se will die when their promises of free ice cream fail; the second part of that thesis, that the Republicans will replace them as the party of the state, is sure looking less likely right now due to gross incompetence. And, yeah, I could see the Progressives, after they’ve destroyed the “brand” of the Democratic Party, going whole hog and becoming AmSoc or the like … a name I might start using in the foreseeable future.

        The GOP? Well, its establishment utterly loathes its base, including the three groups you mentioned. But the first two have perhaps realistic chances of ousting the current establishment, although, echoing the above, I’m not sure that would happen before the Republican Party’s brand became too tarnished.

        (I’m leaving out the Libertarians if for no other reason that their litmus test is marijuana decriminalization, which, whatever its merits or demerits, is currently a non-starter, although that might change in the time frame we’re looking at. Although, if it helps to kindle schizophrenia, as Clayton suspects, it’s bad for us.)

    • Bram says:

      Obama is a pure polarizer. He just destroyed the DNC in middle America. The Republicans may still self-destruct, but the Democrats are screwed in the South, Midwest, and Mountain states.

    • Sebastian says:

      This is a very real worry, and you’re right, that’s exactly what the media is going to blame if they throw another Senate election.

      • Harold says:

        Are Republican’s really stupid enough to believe that?

        Ah, wait a second….

        Seriously, let’s see what happens with immigration, which would appear to be a bigger priority of Obama and the national Democrats. The issue is utter, pure poison for the Republican base, to the extent the last time they did a strong campaign for it they shut down one of their major fund raising phone banks because the decrease in people willing to fund the party made it impossible to justify upgrading it and keeping it going.

        The facts, as far as I can tell, are that Hispanics just don’t vote (per The Lost Majority, which was NOT written by Republicans), and that they pretty strongly vote Democratic or at least big government. So it’s not in the party’s interest in any way; if they ignore all of the above, we’ll be in more danger than we thought, modulo a save in the Senate.

  6. Old NFO says:

    Had to be seen as doing ‘something’… I think the real push will be behind the scenes/under the radar later this year…

  7. Ken says:

    Hasn’t congress prohibited the CDC from spending any funds to do research about gun control? How would “…directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence” be compatible with this?

  8. Bubblehead Les says:

    Doctors asking about Guns in MY HOME? What, will I be denied Treatment if I tell them “None of Your Business?”

    LOTS OF ANTI-RKBA STUFF seems to fall under ObamaCare rather than the ATF.

    Thanks John Roberts.

    • Harold says:

      Well, the statue says they can’t ask about guns during the new Obamacare annual “wellness” medical history and such visits, thanks to Harry Reid. But this Administration is of course good at ignoring the law, or telling others to violate it with the tacit “we won’t prosecute you” in the message, and I don’t remember there being a blanket ban on asking about guns in all types of visits (and we surely would have heard if there was one).

      • David W. says:

        I would say just say no, or if they ask say no comment, or N/A if its a question on a list or something a long those lines.

        If they refuse you treatment sue them for discrimination or find a new doctor. A lot of doctors where I live are down to earth people trying to help others, and don’t really care if you have guns. Then again most of the people around here own guns so…. yeah.

        • Harold says:

          I would say just say no….

          If that were a lie, and Obamacare AKA nationalized health care survives, I would expect it to eventually become a Federal felony.

          • David W. says:

            That’s terrifying.

            • Harold says:

              There are reasons nationalized health care is a roach motel of national politics and society, and why the Democrats were so willing to sacrifice to achieve it.

            • Ian Argent says:

              It’s already a felony to lie to a federal agent…

              • Harold says:

                That’s one of the things that got me thinking along these lines, It’s one of the possible end points for nationalized medicine, although directly really unlikely in the US since that would prevent the plaintiff’s bar from suing for malpractice, or at least getting big awards. They are of course one of the biggest supported of the Democrats, and malpractice reform was conspicuously absent in a bill that they claimed would save money.

                But agents of the state for those sorts of purposes? Where getting probable cause is easy (“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the NRA/posted to a RKBA blog/etc.) and falsification is trivial (i.e. raid the house and find the guns).

    • Richard says:

      Can you deny owning a gun when you lift up your shirt during the appointment and you have a Glock in a IWB holster?

      Dr: What type of work do you do?
      Me: Insurance
      Dr: Okay, well you have x and I’m going to prescribe x.

      And then she talks with me for another ten minutes. Maybe its in my medical file maybe not but who really cares. If they are trying to keep a back door registration list I’m sure the shredder at the FBI’s NICS office hasn’t worked since forever.

  9. Ian Argent says:

    Sound and fury … signifying nothing.

  10. Patrick H says:

    Yeah, I’m feeling better now that we know what is in the EOs.

    I think part of it is he doesn’t want to risk a almost certain court challenge to the “sporting purposes” clause. Just like for a long time, we didn’t want a SC ruling on the 2nd, he might not want it because if its struct down, a LOT of gun control laws are going with it.

    • Patrick says:

      Good point. I’ve noticed a reluctance to push that. The ATF has backed off at least twice (I think) once the NSSF threatened to go to court to stop an expansion of their regulation to new firearms.

      • Harold says:

        Indeed; and while 30 round “ASSAULT WEAPONS” may not find favor with the judges (who am I kidding), the normal handguns that most people use for self-defense are another matter altogether … well, unless the Supreme Court’s makeup changes in the wrong way (and I have some vague hopes for Kagan).

  11. MattW says:

    Anyone wonder if the entire motivation behind this big drum up on gun control and releasing fairly mundane EOs was to make the NRA, it’s members, and other gun advocates sound more like paranoid crazies?

    • Jeff says:

      Cuomo’s actions in NY took that off the table IMO.

      • Harold says:

        Agreed 100%, especially in the no discussion, back room deals, middle of the night passage of it. It’s a googoo’s (Good Government) worst nightmare, and not something that’s going to engender trust in politicians going forward.

    • David W. says:

      Politicians only want three things.
      Power for themselves.
      Power for their party.
      Power for the government.

      If they tried to ban guns, they would loose power for their party. Obama can screw himself over and over for the next 4 years and not have to worry. He already gave himself secret service protection for life, so its not like he has to worry about a knife in a back alley, and hes probably not going to be a senator or anything like that ever again, but he doesn’t want to screw over his party if he can help it. And he has the added bonus of screwing over a handful of republicans who sided with him. Not going with AWB and magazine bans, but talking about them, made a lot of people get angry and write to their senators and the newer ones told the truth when they should have lied, and a lot of gun owners will remember that and vote them out of office in the future when this fiscal crap is over with.

  12. Ryan says:

    As much as it galls me to admit, I think he’s playing it smart. I think he recognizes the political reality that nothing like the ’94 ban will pass the House right now, so he’s throwing up some relatively non-threatening EO’s to “do something,” and I expect he’ll work with Bloomberg and others to try to build support between now and the mid-term elections. I think we need to look at this as a four year game of chess. We may need to prepare for several attempts at legislation over his entire remaining term. Only a fool assumes his enemy is stupid.

  13. Guav says:

    “I should note here that I think Obama’s strategy is to lay responsibility for action at the feet of Congress.”

    I agree, and really, that’s the way it should work. I also think he’s left an “out” of sorts by saying “the only way we can change is if the American people demand it. And by the way, that doesn’t mean just form certain parts of the country.”

  14. Brian Picardo says:

    I watched this earlier. The one thing that makes me sick to my stomach and stark raving mad is how he used those children who lost thier lives at Sandy Hook to make it about “our childrens safety.” And he spoke of how there lives were cut short. Yet throughout this entire “debate” the President, Democrats, media, and every other liberal continues to completely ignore that Planned Parenthood has slaughtered over 300,000 innocent babies in a single year. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf)
    (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthood-s-annual-report-got-4874m-tax-money-did-329445-abortions)

    • Matt says:

      Brian, I hate to say this but that is confusing two issues. To liberals, the right to abortion is just as sacred to them as 2A rights are to us. They can’t understand those bitter right-wingers obsession with it but there it is.

      The problem is a lot of 2A supporters, myself included, don’t conflate the two issues. While as a male I really have no say in the issue of abortion, I support an individual’s right to choose. Solely because it revolves around individual beliefs. If you believe abortion is murder, I can’t change that for you. But parking children behind you, as crass and cheap as it is from a political standpoint, is not the equivalent of abortion.

      I’m a small-L libertarian. These issues are not related. I can be in favor of abortion and in favor of gun rights simultaneously because both relate to individual liberty. While I may disagree with your choices, I respect your right to choose. I can’t change your mind on where life begins nor would I try.

      That is the kind of divisive argument liberals who hate us 2A supporters seek to exploit and split off from us. We can’t let them. “If you don’t support abortion, you can’t support gun rights because both kill children!”. Simplistic and distracting from the real issue at hand.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        A trigger pull is not always a kill, and most of the time a trigger pull is for defense, protection, or recreation. An abortion guarantees the murder of an innocent.

        Part of my defense of the 2A with fellow pro-lifers includes this. Otherwise why on earth would I be interested in defending the right to own something that can also kill senselessly? The problem is the killing, not the tool.

        It would be hypocrisy to both defend abortion and RKBA in the same stroke of the pen as “personal choices,” especially when, as someone pointed out, the modern Democrat party gets their panties in a wad over restricting something that always kills children but in the same sentence declares a recreational or defensive activity as a potential assault against children.

        Other than the fact that both matters concern death, yeah, I guess they are two issues.

        • Lucky Forward says:

          The Second Amendment helps us protect *innocent* life. Each abortion destroys an innocent life.

          The hypocrisy of the Left is sickening.

  15. David W. says:

    I just realized something. If the school resource officer thing works and most of the schools take care of it, there is a chance another school shooting might never happen again!!!!

    That means the brady’s and MAIG can’t get political capital by letting children die anymore!

  16. Wolfman says:

    I was a littke surprised he didn’t get too extra-constitutional. A lot of this stuff is fluff- tell federal agencies they are required to share information with NICS? They don’t do that already? Thats dumb… What it does, for now at least, is put the ball back in Congress, where we have more sway. We have to maintain the pressure, and keep recruiting new members. We have to infiltrate the D party, too. Support good Dems at the local level and up, especially in the primaries. We have to break up their block, and keep winning the culture war. They are playing soft on the opening salvo this time, so we have a moment to gather ourselves.

  17. Joe Huffman says:

    The letter to FFL’s about private transfers is out.

    There was a CDC study that was fairly neutral. Which implies the true conclusions that should have been drawn were very pro-gun.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. A Dollop of Gun News « Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog - [...] has issued his executive orders on guns. The good news is that the Executive Orders themselves are not nearly …
top