US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

www.bbc.co.uk

President Barack Obama has unveiled sweeping gun control proposals, setting the stage for a showdown with firearms rights advocates.

(visit the link for the full news article)

During the press conference, the president urged Congress:

to ban "military-style" assault weapons such as those used in several recent mass shootings

impose limits on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds

introduce background checks on all gun sales; currently private sales and some sales at gun shows are exempt

pass a ban on possession and sale of armour-piercing bullets

introduce new gun-trafficking laws

Finally approve the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Mr Obama added he would sign a directive so that government agencies can conduct research into gun crime

The Democratic president also signed 23 executive-order measures, which do not require congressional approval.

S0 here it is the new gun regulations that Obama seeks to impose in America, its created a lot of debate here on ATS and all over the country but the changes Obama seeks to bring about have now been made public. . I will post more links as I find them, I know this is important to Americans

So ATS I ask you…. Your thoughts.

Let’s keep this civil.



www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



Personal views…

Anyone who has read my past posts on this issue may say that I am all for banning guns.

ATS I have a confession to make,

You have changed my views, while say a month ago I was for a total ban on guns I am now an advocate of the Second Amendment. I believe that Americans should have the right to own a gun to defend themselves and that this right should not be taken away by government. That said however I do still believe that something does need to change in the American attitude to guns and the laws that regulate guns. I disagree with these changes unveil by Obama I think in some ways they go too far, what exactly the solution is I don’t know, all I know is that this isn’t it.

Obama did not sign ONE Executive Order. These are Executive Actions.

They are listed here:

Obama's Executive Actions

Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Nominate an ATF director.

Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

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

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.

Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

I have just posted this in another thread but if you want to read the official documentation on these proposals you can do here.

'Military style'. A phrase so ill defined and vague it could encompass anything.

That's the thing that jumps out to me.

Just to clarify something here for me, does this mean the president has effectively bypassed Congress to impose these changes or do Congress have to approve them?

Please forgive me ignorance but I believe that it is wrong for any head of state to just impose changes this important without democratic support.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I'll start off by saying my thoughts are in a haze of shock to see what he's really done here.

However, in logical and purely pragmatic terms? We're watching a fundamental change and shift in the entire power structure of Washington and the 3 branches of Government for how they interact and function.

If this is by design, it would be nice to have some debate over it within the public the Government is supposed to be made for and by. If it's not by design of at least 2 of the 3 branches ..which I think is more likely the case.... then it's the largest power grab by one branch over another we've ever seen.

Executive has taken the power of creating law and new policy from the Legislative branch specifically charged under our system with that duty. Will Congress allow themselves to be rubber stamped into irrelevance? That will be the thing to watch, in my opinion. It transcends guns and it transcends politics. This goes beyond all that while guns are the hot, raging topic it's being done WITH.

We're in real trouble...and he's not even inaugurated to the second term yet. Good God...we need His help in the coming years...and that's another thing I never thought I'd hear myself say.

S n F

This may seem light, but again this is creating infrastructure.

I just wish the real documents were released so we could go over them closeley.

With this gun control issue paired with the 10/26/12 DHS executive order proposal, theres some investigative work ahead of us.

reply to post by khimbar

'Military style'. A phrase so ill defined and vague it could encompass anything.

Yeah I agree what does that even mean?


Surly any firearm can be considered a “military style” gun depending on how it is interpreted.

For instance Glocks are used by the military, does this mean a ban on hand guns something i do think would be a push too far

I will admit that I think something needs to be done about gun regulation but these changes don’t have me convinced.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Just to clarify something here for me, does this mean the president has effectively bypassed Congress to impose these changes or do Congress have to approve them?

These do not need Congressional approval. But look at them. They are about enforcing existing laws, finding the root cause of the violence and dealing with mental health issues.

Congress DOES need to make the law banning the "military-style" weapons. It's up to Congress.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Just to clarify something here for me, does this mean the president has effectively bypassed Congress to impose these changes or do Congress have to approve them?

These do not need Congressional approval. But look at them. They are about enforcing existing laws, finding the root cause of the violence and dealing with mental health issues.

Then In that case I would have to say I am opposed to these changes.

I know that some who may have read my previous posts on this subject may take that as a u-turn on my views but its not. I just think it is wrong that the president can just does this when it affects so many American’s.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Then In that case I would have to say I am opposed to these changes.

Which Executive Actions do you oppose?

Originally posted by khimbar
'Military style'. A phrase so ill defined and vague it could encompass anything.

That's the thing that jumps out to me.

We need to stop letting them define how we speak. I call them Tyranny Defense Weapons .

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson

I fear my Government, and rightfully so.

He did absolutely nothing to stop criminals with mental issues from committing crimes. NOTHING. He did get a lot of applause and invoke the 'children' about a thousand times all scheduled -->33rd

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Here comes a stronger version of the 94' ban accompanied by a new national gun registry (so they know where to collect guns when the confiscation comes).

I have 2 things to say - 1) I TOLD YOU SO!! and 2) 'Thanks a lot' to all of you who voted for this man and his evil tyrannical machine...

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


You still think we live in a Democracy? I don't recall voting for the war in Afghanistan, drones in Pakistan, the 100 cruise missiles tossed at Libya on day one or for that matter the darn President!

Democracy = Distracticy (Yes I made that word up).

Its funny that we cannot wait ONE MORE day because we can save ONE life. Yet, they managed to wait THIRTY THREE days in order to complete their satanic ritual.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


S&F for you OtherSideOfTheCoin and OtherSideOfTheCoin have you seen this yet? From CNN
Piers Morgan: No military weaponsPiers Morgan: No military weapons. CNN

Piers Morgan: still following the same narrative as the government Ban military style weapons for which Americans can use them for self defensive agaisnt the Government when it turns agaisnt the people.

And OtherSideOfTheCoin keep watching notice how he keeps claiming about those claims that lone shooters? what rubbish.

Originally posted by seabag

I have 2 things to say - 1) I TOLD YOU SO!! and 2) 'Thanks a lot' to all of you who voted for this man and his evil tyrannical machine...

You are Welcome Bud.

Always willing to help a Bloke out.