Executive Order - New Firearm Restrictions

Mosher

Mushroom dad
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
6,088
Location
New England
The White House announced two new executive orders to curb gun violence on Thursday, building on the 23 executive orders President Obama signed in the aftermath of the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The first order closes a loophole that allows felons and other people who would be prohibited from owning guns to circumvent the law by registering their guns with a corporation or trust, which would exempt them from the requisite background check. A fact sheet distributed by the White House notes that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) "received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations" in 2012 alone.

The new executive order requires individuals associated with trusts and corporations that acquire weapons to undergo background checks just as they would if they registered the guns in their own name.

At the ceremonial swearing-in on Thursday of Todd Jones, the new director of the ATF, Vice President Biden said the loophole provided felons and others prohibited from owning guns an "easy way to evade required background checks." With the new executive order, he added, that "artful dodge" would be a thing of the past.

The second executive order announced Thursday aims to keep military-grade weapons off the streets by prohibiting private entities from re-importing firearms that the United States previously provided to foreign allies. Currently, the law requires U.S. government approval before these weapons can be re-imported. According to the White House, over 250,000 such weapons have been brought home since 2005.

Biden noted that, prior to 2005, that re-importation wasn't occurring. The new executive order, he said, would end the "practice of allowing countries to send back to the United States these military weapons to private entities. Period."

The executive order institutes a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back to the United States. A few private entities, like museums, are exempted from the new restriction.

Biden on gun reform: "We're not going to back down"
2014: The next frontier in the gun control battle?
After his show of support for the new gun restrictions, Biden, who has spearheaded the administration's push to curb gun violence throughout 2013, ceremonially swore in Jones, who became the first permanent director of the ATF since 2006.

Thursday's swearing-in was a "long time in coming," Biden said, and it put the ATF "fully back in business."

Jones, who has been the acting director of the ATF since 2011 as he awaited Senate confirmation, thanked Biden and the rest of the administration for the "privilege" of leading the bureau, promising to take the ATF's enforcement activities to "the next level" in his stead as director.

The executive orders, while sure to be greeted with open arms by gun control advocates, are a mark of just how paralyzed the politics of gun violence have become in America. In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, President Obama unveiled a raft of proposals, including an expansion of background checks, a limit on the size of ammunition magazines, and a ban on military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. Many of the proposals required congressional approval, but within months, the legislative machinery had stalled, leaving executive action as the administration's only recourse.

On Thursday, Biden said he and Mr. Obama remain "committed" to legislative action to reduce gun violence, promising, "If Congress won't act, we'll fight for a new Congress. It's that simple. But we're going to get this done."

Basically, President Obama has closed a previously open loophole that allowed felons to purchase and own firearms through trusts and corporations (from what I've heard is a loophole seldom used as it does not bypass all the paperwork and restrictions you have to go through, but I'm not sure on that)

He also banned the import of American weapons that our government has given to any of our allies in the past - this being the more noteworthy thing. This mostly effects military surplus collectors - mostly people who buy old M1 Garands from South Korea, American Mosin-Nagants, and M16s abandoned in Vietnam after the pullout.

The last remark leaves a bad taste in my mouth - "If Congress won't act, we'll fight for a new Congress. It's that simple. But we're going to get this done." His slew of gun control legislation was shot down by Congress, but he's deciding to go ahead with it with Executive Orders anyways.

Anyways, thoughts?


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600613/white-house-announces-new-gun-restrictions/
 
He's giving a big middle finger to corporations and other private entities (and the people employed by them) that would make use of those weapons as part of their business operations.
 
The corporation and trust loophole closing makes absolute sense.

The import ban on guns previously given to non US parties. I don't know. It seems like there's a more basic issue to address, like why are we giving guns to arms dealers in the first place?
 
What's there to say really? Finally we're safe from the scourge of M1 Garand violence! Who do they think they're kidding with this idiocy? A lot apparently...

None of these two things are even remotely connected to even a tiny minuscule fraction of American crime and violence. Literally.

Basically they picked the most obscure and inconsequential "issues" that very few people will miss or complain about and go after them. Then they run their press releases and ignorant people will believe that Obama is "doing something" about school shootings.
 
The corporation and trust loophole closing makes absolute sense.

The import ban on guns previously given to non US parties. I don't know. It seems like there's a more basic issue to address, like why are we giving guns to arms dealers in the first place?

We don't give them to arm dealers; we usually give or sell them to foreign militaries who, afterwards, put them in a warehouse until someone comes along and buys them up, in which case they're usually then bought by a company in the United States and sold to a private collector - they're surplus and sold off to cut down on maintenance costs.
 
Basically they picked the most obscure and inconsequential "issues" that very few people will miss or complain about and go after them. Then they run their press releases and ignorant people will believe that Obama is "doing something" about school shootings.

You know what they say about baby steps.
 
In this case steps that can only be measured with a micrometer. Of course Obama can only do so much with EOs to begin with.

He's giving a big middle finger to corporations and other private entities (and the people employed by them) that would make use of those weapons as part of their business operations.

And giving the finger to countries with loads of outmoded surplus guns that as of now aren't even worth their weight in scrap. I imagine the notice they sent out read something like this:

Dear Foreign Country

Years ago our government saw fit to fuel violent proxy wars in your country. We supplied your corrupt dictatorship's death squads with thousands upon thousands of guns. Today these old rifles are lying around your warehouses taking up space and security resources and are utterly useless to you.

We could allow you to keep selling them to legal private American collectors for hefty profits to spend on roads, schools, hospitals etc. However, this just isn't convenient for us because those things are dangerous! Please consider the following options; melt them down for a loss and/or sell them to criminal/terrorist elements.

Either way, the guns are your problem now. No taksies backies.

Best Regards
John Kerry
US Secretary of State
 
What's there to say really? Finally we're safe from the scourge of M1 Garand violence! Who do they think they're kidding with this idiocy? A lot apparently...

Seems like a loophole is being closed. What's so good about loopholes?
 
We don't give them to arm dealers....

Sure we do. We gave arms to Ghorbanifar for resale to Iran during the Iran Iraq War.

It is also too broad to say we give arms to just overseas militaries insofar as military implies an arm of the state. We supply plenty of arms to non-state actors, some of which are non-state militaries, many of which are paramilitary, and some of which are non-military.
 
Of course we do. We gave them to South Korea and a few years ago, I bought one back.
Military surplus =/= arms dealer.


Seems like a loophole is being closed. What's so good about loopholes?
Most of the weapons being bought back are antiques and not particularly suited for the mass shootings we've experienced (the M1 Garand had an 8 round magazine and was only semi-automatic). Not really a loophole, it's just closing down something that shouldn't be closed down.
 
Most of the weapons being bought back are antiques and not particularly suited for the mass shootings we've experienced (the M1 Garand had an 8 round magazine and was only semi-automatic). Not really a loophole, it's just closing down something that shouldn't be closed down.

I think you're talking about the 2nd order, because the first was:

The first order closes a loophole that allows felons and other people who would be prohibited from owning guns to circumvent the law by registering their guns with a corporation or trust, which would exempt them from the requisite background check.

So I guess I missed the 2nd point when making my initial post.
 
I think you're talking about the 2nd order, because the first was:

You quoted a post deriding the second point so I assumed that was what you were talking about. :p
 
What's there to say really?
Apparently not that closing loopholes is a good thing.

So, do you think closing the loophole is a good thing, regardless of the effect on gun-violence?

None of these two things are even remotely connected to even a tiny minuscule fraction of American crime and violence. Literally.
Probably true. Especially since the scope is narrower than that. It's "gun violence".

Do you think there should be more decisive measures taken to decrease gun violence?

I would think you would welcome the orders to be so limited in scope.
 
I still don't understand how one can support a ban on possession by felons without resorting to gun grabber "logic".
 
Top Bottom