No President has the authority by the use of an Executive Order to limit the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, and that includes gun control. Why is it that there are more thousand regulations (federal, state, and local) impacting the Second Amendment but almost no laws regulating the right to “freedom of the press” in the First Amendment?
If an Executive Order is the answer to gun violence and murder, why not issue an EO that outlaws all gun violence and murder? If a law will change things, go for the big score. Of course, there are already laws against violence and murder, and yet people still commit acts of violence and murder.
These EOs of President Obama only affect law-abiding citizens. They’re not the problem. People who want to murder people or commit suicide with a firearm by definition don’t care about the law. They will get a firearm any way they can, and the law be damned.
People who want to kill themselves with a gun — 20,000 each year — don’t care about laws. If they’re successful with their suicide, they’ll be dead, and no law can touch them at that point!
“In 2014, firearms were the most common method of death by suicide, accounting for a little less than half (49.9%) of all suicide deaths. The next most common methods were suffocation (including hangings) at 26.7% and poisoning at 15.9%.”
This means that 50.1% of all suicides are by other means.
Then there’s abortion — killing unborn babies by government protection. Regulations? Control? Not hardly. Obama has never shed a tear of the willful execution of tens of millions of unborn babies.
It’s all been said before. The question is, what will Congress do? I suspect nothing. The governor of Idaho has taken a Tenth Amendment step:
“Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.
“S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.”
The following is from Caleb Howe’s article “Five Things to Know about Obama’s Executive Action on Guns” at Red State.
- The Gun Show Loophole
Obama: “Anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks or be subject to criminal prosecutions.”
Truth: There is no gun show loophole. What people mean is that you have to sell a certain amount of guns before you cross over from private citizen to a dealer requiring a license. A private sale is when a person who owns a gun sells that gun to another person. Some private sales take place at gun shows. But people who are dealers that go to gun shows and sell lots of guns have to be licensed. The sales are legal, and there is a background check on the buyer. This is already the law. There’s no loophole.
- The Online Loophole
Obama: “A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked.”
Truth: There is no online loophole. Exactly as with the gun show, what happens is that a person might privately sell something. Let’s say you own a gun. You have a friend on Facebook who wants to buy a gun. You sell your friend the gun. Because you are not a retailer, you do not have to be licensed as a dealer, and are not required to conduct a background check. That’s it. Otherwise, online sales are already covered. Retailers that sell guns and have an online presence where you can buy them are licensed and therefore, the sales are legal and there is a background check on the buyer. And you simply can’t sell a gun over the internet and ship it over state liunes without restriction or background check even if it is a private sale. That’s right. Even private online sales cannot transfer the weapon without a check. There’s no loophole.
- Universal Background Checks
Obama: “We know that background checks make a difference.”
Truth: There are already background checks. So this statement is a straw man. What the controllers are pitching is who is required to conduct them and under what circumstances. This idea is sold in the press as simple common sense. The idea is that every time a person becomes the owner of a gun, they are vetted by the government. This would even mean temporary transfers of ownership, like say you give your gun to your mother while you are on deployment. Some states, like recently-in-the-news Oregon, have passed laws that are versions of this. That is, a criminal and mental health background check for all gun sales. (In Oregon’s case, even the new law still allows transfers of ownership among family members without a check.) But the requirement for a background check on all private sales of guns is one of the objectives of the gun control lobby and their media allies. So now you know what they mean by this. They mean that you can’t sell your rifle to your Facebook hunting buddy unless a criminal and mental health background check is conducted.
Read the rest of the article at Red State.