White House Makes its Gun Control Push

Posted | By:  

For four years, many have been waiting for the other shoe to drop on the current administration's stand on gun control and on January 16, 2013, they heard it fall. Firearms Talk looks at what is being asked for, what has been declared by executive order, and what is to come.

23 Executive Orders Issued

White House Makes its Gun Control Push - christophereger - obama-screen-shot-965.png

The President, as head of the Executive Branch of the federal government, signed 23 executive actions into effect. Many of these are directed at the medical and insurance community, calling for more training for social workers, counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals. The White House is calling for 'more nurturing school climates', which presumably means a drive against bullying. In a move bound to spark debate over doctor-patient privacy, the orders call for increased notification of potentially unstable persons to law enforcement.

Another action orders an ATF director to be appointed (the agency has been on autopilot for six years). Yet another calls for the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. A third calls for increased research and testing on gunlocks. Some $4.5 billion was coughed up by the administration to help pay for 15,000 more police officers, 1000 school resource officers, provide more active shooter response training, and give states more money for background checks.

Assault Weapons Ban called for

The Whitehouse also issued a 15-page plan entitled ominously "Now is the Time" that outlines other measures it is calling for from Congress.

Falling short of actually decreeing a ban, which would be certain to find immediate legal challenges filed across the country, the White House called for a reinstatement of the sunsetted 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Officially known as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act), this act was in effect for 10-years without much of an effect on either gun violence or the firearms industry. This regulated guns on their cosmetic properties and banned magazines over 10-rounds.

White House Makes its Gun Control Push - christophereger - gun-control-explained-964.jpg

(Photo from Strait Forward in a Crooked World )

"Now is the Time" also asks for all firearms transfers to go through the NICBCS system ran by the FBI as a requirement.

Strangely, the plan asks for 'armor-piercing bullets' to be taken off the streets without providing a basis in fact as to how these things have become a problem in the first place.

What this all means

Unlike New York State's drastic new firearms law enacted just 24-hours before the White House's announcement, the vast majority of the actions taken in the President's stand are social issues and not outright bans or restrictions.

Of course there is the move to 'close the gun show loophole' that can quickly be interpreted into an incremental means to prevent transfers without federal government documentation involved, and the inevitable push for turning the AWB switch back to the 'on' position. Overall, it seems that the White House has taken a strong social stand but has not pulled the trigger, excuse the pun, on an actual ban.

You can expect that to come from Congress. There even CNN reports that, "more than a dozen vulnerable Democrats from conservative states will probably resist much of what the president is pushing." Meanwhile some Republican congressional representatives are openly calling for impeachment .

Call, write, and email your representatives at all levels and let them know where you stand.

White House Makes its Gun Control Push - christophereger - rights-3175web-966.jpg

Posted in
  Email   Print
January 17, 2013  •  11:08 AM
Very nice article you have written up here; it puts everything in an easy to understand way.
January 17, 2013  •  01:04 PM
I found the call to remove "armor piercing" ammunition quite ominous...depending on the definition of "armor" that could include just about every modern hunting carriage on the market!

I not aware of a singe rifle cartridge that will not penetrate a level II Kevlar vest. Please correct ms if I'm wrong but i believe that amongst officers who wear vests, level II is the most common because it provides the best balance of protection vs weight and stops most pistol cartridges and buckshot.

I see this as an attempt to once again fool the public, "like they've done with the term assault weapon" by calling anything that can punch through Level II "armor piercing". Laymen will not understand that "armor piercing" is a technical term already used to restrict bullet construction and the antis will use this misunderstanding to ban rounds based on "velocity" rather than bullet materials.

IE...it's already illegal, none of us can go down to Wal Mart and get a box of depleted uranium rounds.
My suggestion is that we all educate ourselves on current armor piercing restriction and the differences between velocity and bullet construction so WE can intelligently debate this topic because this will be missunderstood and exploited just like the BS regarding Black Tallons and the magical Teflon coating that earned them the inaccurate title of "cop killers" back in the 80's.

January 17, 2013  •  01:55 PM
My observation on "closing gun show loophole": this is a carefully disguised and very dangerous proposal.
In reality, it is the nationwide gun owner registry that the gun confiscation crowd has been aiming for, the last step before the actual confiscation.
Think it through: if every sale is registered by the government, they know everyone who owns a gun -- except those who have bought nothing since the new setup went into effect. Right now, they don't know that. They know you've bought a gun at a store, but they can't tell if you've sold it privately since then. If you tell them you have no guns, they can't prove otherwise, short of getting a search warrant and taking your house and back yard apart. Put in place a "universal background check" and that is all gone -- they will know exactly who to visit to steal all our guns.
January 17, 2013  •  03:36 PM
On the back ground checks, yes, future registration is a concern. The immediate concern is the instant criminalization of anyone who ever sold a gun private party or had a gun stolen.

The current system only allow a trace back to the last FFL purchaser so any crime gun would bs traced back to that person. It would then fall on them to prove they parted with it before "universal checks" went into effect.

The whole notion is designed to prosecute law abiding citizens because they "once" owned a gum that was later used in a crime. It would not take too many Grandpa's being dragged off to Federal Prison for MANY gun owners to decide that it's simply not worth the risk.

The goal is to reduce gun owners numbers and influence through the threat of prison...and I don't take kindly to threats.

January 17, 2013  •  06:49 PM
The "armor-piercing" bullets that are being talked about are those that are already illegal for the average Joe Citizen to possess: The kind that can put a hole in a 2"+ steel plate.
I have yet to see, read or hear about anyone actually using those in a crime of any kind.
January 20, 2013  •  10:07 PM
The troube with ANY government restrictionn regarding weaponry is that each restriction opens the door for the next..what starts with one type of rifle will lead to one type of shotgun and one type of pistol.....until we're back to slinging rocks. We need a ban on "gun control"...that's what is risking our lives and freedom.
January 23, 2013  •  11:25 AM
The problem is people in urban areas and a lot of women have no knowledge of firearms. They have this notion that the government can wave a magic wand and all the violence will go away. We have seen how well any type of prohibition works. a gun ban would actually increase violence and put more police officers in harms way. You would have the gun runners shooting each other and the police. the whole idea is ludacris.
January 23, 2013  •  11:34 AM
In his inaugural address, Barack Obama made the statement that other people have a right to live, therefore, we do not have a right to own a firearm.

This statement suggests that all firearm owners are guilty and should be stripped of this right - which goes hand in hand with Barack Obama quotes of old saying he does not believe we the people ought have that right (look it up, it's out there)

Distance yourselves from those who would side w/ this kind of non sense. Don't shop in their businesses, visit their homes, or let your kids play with their kids.

These people are sick in the mind and it WILL do you harm
January 25, 2013  •  11:30 PM
@Tackleberry1 you couldn't be more correct. Winchester actually just rebranded the Black Talon rounds, and they are still being sold. Lol... I love it.