Obama Administration To Hold Gun Policy Meetings With Goal Of Policy Changes

[rl6214]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/obama-gun-policy-meetings_n_835453.html

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has conducted informal discussions with groups from both ends of the gun-policy spectrum, including law enforcement and gun-rights organizations, and is set to hold formal meetings as early as this week in an effort to chart out a set of new firearms policies, administration officials say.

[Lost-in-FL]

1. Finally!!!111 He's going to take your guns!!!! nt

[jeepnstein]

2. He's off to a good start on it.

I strongly suspect he'll take the issue off the table for the 2012 election.

[Kolesar]

3. But, but, Jim Brady! It's called a magazine, not a clip!! There is no such thing as an assault

...weapon!! !! The crime rate is going down!!! Loughner was just insane !! !! !!

[DonP]

9. Correct on all points - congratulations on getting it right!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. You seem to have reached enlightenment

welcome to the pro rights side and good riddance to the racist and classist positions held by the anti gun crowd

[one-eyed fat man]

13. Even some anti-gunners are seeing the light

While the most virulent anti-gun partisans suffer apoplexy at the President stating, "Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms," indignant he didn't call for the immediate reinstatement of the failed assault weapons, and for draconian restrictions on magazines, some others paused to think!

“Actually, I like this,” emailed Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety. “There will be a knee-jerk reaction among some who will say, “Why no clip ban?” But I think on both substance and political grounds, a high-capacity clip ban is the wrong way to go. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicides last year, and I’ll wager that less than 10 were caused by bullets 11 through 30 in someone’s magazine. The problem is bullets 1, 2, and 3 –- not 11, 12, and 13."

Regardless of his past positions, the President is astute enough to call for the one thing "reasonable minds" both sides could possibly agree on, that criminals and lunatics should have their access curtailed. It won't appease many who are steadfast in their hatred...on either side. But he made that plain statement as well.

It will be funny to keep score and see if the 'professional left' vilifies him more for wasting a 'perfectly good tragedy' by not demanding more gun control or the 'tea partiers' accept that he recognizes that Heller and McDonald have assured an "individual right" to arms for lawful purposes.

Paul Helmke, before the Court granted certiorari, pleaded with Fenty and D.C. officials that the District modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court.

He understood that the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment was tenuous, at best. The foundation of most gun control arguments was that the Second Amendment only protected the States' right to arm militias. The very foundation, the most basic tenet of faith for every gun banner, has always been that the Founders never intended for the "people" to own arms. He clearly understood that by going to the Supreme Court, the District ran the risk of the court finding for an "individual right." That would drive a stake right through the heart of the most earnestly cherished notions of gun control proponents.

He ruefully admitted that after the court ruled that the door had been shut, "the path to a complete ban on gun ownership is now gone."

The most ardent of gun banners seem distressed that the President has publicly said as much.

[Kolesar]

19. I am probably a better shot than you

"anti gunner"

[cleanhippie]

20. You showed him! NOT! How childish you are.

[TheWraith]

4. Maybe they can find something that everyone can agree on.

A good start might be public awareness campaigns to tell people that straw purchasing a weapon is a crime, and IS prosecuted. Something else that would do even more good is laws to dissuade District Attorneys from using weapons charges as "packing peanuts," something that's disposable in a plea deal for a bigger charge.

[rl6214]

16. I haven't been to a gun shop in a while but

is there any such signage at shops that address straw purchases? That would be a perfect place to start with posters behind the counter, on the door at gun shops. Maybe even a simple question, are you buying this gun for yourself. No one ever accused criminals of being smart, might be able to trip a few up.

[DonP]

17. They have signs in all my local shops

It's right by the register and says something along the lines of "Don't do time for the other guy". I think it has a face behind bars for the visual.

[Euromutt]

18. Sure; the "Don't Lie For The Other Guy" campaign

I frequent a number of gun shops, and almost all of them have those posters up. The exception being the shop downtown in the city where I reside, but then, they're mostly a pawn shop-cum-used long guns dealership. There's not much there that your typical straw purchaser would be interested in.

[RSillsbee]

21. The don't lie for the other guy signs

are on literally every surface they can be taped to at the gunshows I go to

[one-eyed fat man]

22. Look at the 4473

"Maybe even a simple question, are you buying this gun for yourself...."

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf

That is precisely the VERY first question on the form after you fill in your name and address. Been that for quite a few years too!



http://www.dontlie.org/

[TheWraith]

26. Well, neither of the local shops I know of has anything like that up.

Mostly it's bumper stickers and a few product ads on the walls. And yes, simple posters would probably be a great start--at least, it would discourage people who don't know any better than to accept $100 pay for going and picking up a handgun for someone else.

[X_Digger]

5. NICS Improvements? Sure. Regulating private sales? Fuggedaboudit. n/t

[pipoman]

6. Beyond funding of law enforcement to enforce and investigate existing

law and hopefully replacing those LEOs who believe it's a good idea to be complicit in illegal activity, he will get nothing. Nothing from the Senate or Congress, Nothing from Dems or Pugs...

[DonP]

7. Well, if his letter to the Arizona paper is an indicator of where he's headed ...

... there are going to be a lot of very unhappy gun control fans out there. Now get the stupid Assault Weapons Ban language out of the platform now so it's a non-issue next year.


Obama's position, in his own words not Brady's, discussed here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x391072

[safeinOhio]

8. Will the NRA give him a B- now? n/t

[VoteProgressive]

10. There is no way Obama could get a B. Unless you caved on everything.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. They would give him an A+ if he did the correct things

[safeinOhio]

14. Sense elected President,

what has HE done wrong? If they gave Kasich a B-, he should get an A.
With their Board of Directors, he can't move up because he is half Irish.

[Pullo]

15. I'm more concerned with rational improvement in our gun policy......

than I am of Wayne LaPierre's or the NRA's opinion of Obama.



Sometimes I think some around here are more interested in tweaking the NRA or defeating the gun lobby than actually implementing and enforcing effective firearms regulations.

[RSillsbee]

23. Well Hell

You are absolutely right let's just give up our gun rights

[Hangingon]

25. I believe Brady has given the President an "F" for his 1st year.

[One of Many]

24. The fed cannot force ...

... states to regulate private face to face sales (intrastate commerce) though they can and do regulate sales across state lines (interstate commerce).

The fed can use a tactic similar to the seat belt initiatives. "Reward" states that comply with certain standards (i.e. NCIS check for all FTF transfers etc).