Seems a pretty bland list, overall. And some of them look like they might actually accomplish something useful. Can’t say that I’m particularly bothered by any of them, and I’m happy Obama used good sense and didn’t go for hype over substance.
As a pro-self defense person, and pro-gun person, I don’t see anything really onerous about the Executive Orders. They also seem to me like they will do little good, and some of them read as “start doing your jobs, guys.”
Missing (unless I skipped it) was a directive to start prosecuting the large number of people who attempt to buy guns and are denied due to their records. If a felon or mentally incompetant person goes out to buy a gun, knowing full well that they are a prohibited person…how is that not a crime? The cases should even be a slam-dunk:
- You filled out a 4473 to buy a gun and lied on it.
- You go to jail.
Note I wouldn’t prosecute people who tell the truth on the form and are denied - they may be honestly ignorant, and aren’t trying to hide anything. But I see no reason why a felon or insane person trying to buy a gun illegally by lying on the form isn’t worth a few years in prison.
It is a felony to lie to a federal agency. 18 U.S.C. 1001. Up to 5 years in prison.
…so why isn’t Obama, or any President before him, throwing into jail the tens of thousands who lie on the form 4473 each year? Here’s one example from some time ago, admittedly, but IIRC recent data was posted in one of these threads and it was along these same lines:
There should have been 115,000 attempts to arrest, but the Clinton Administration wasn’t that interested, I guess. I believe Obama could provide some money for prosecutors to do such by Executive Order.
My understanding is that GOP has essentially turned the ATF’s firearm enforcement functions into two guys sealed in a vault deep below D.C.
That’s not the full answer, but it’s probably a big part of it.
The article only mentions changes in 2006 and says nothing about “two guys” in a vault.
Please let’s not do this in GD. My post is factual and non-partisan. Both “tough on guns” Presidents and “tough on crime” Presidents don’t seem to be able to do a very simple and needed action.
And I’m saying the problem goes back at least to 1998.
Stop trying to blame the evil GOP for everything. Ask why over at least the last 14 years three different Presidents, 1 Republican and 2 of them Democratic, have been unable to enforce gun laws they pretend to be so concerned about.
Hyperbole notwithstanding, I suspect the words “lack of time and staff” in your quote are entirely the reason. They don’t prosecute these people because they use what resources they have on the more serious offenders. Why don’t they have more time and staff? Because nobody wants to vastly expand government spending on this particular problem. We can argue who it is in particular that doesn’t want to increase government spending to prosecute individuals who want guns, but that’s a different conversation.
Another article, also from Mother Jones, suggests the problem goes back even further, to the Reagan years. In addition to attempts to get rid of the BAFT altogether, attempts have been made since then to greatly reduce its ability to perform its tasks.
Other charges are made about similar attempts to destroy the effectiveness of the ATF. But certainly a relevant question is why presidents, as well as senators and congressmen, haven’t done more to rectify this situation long before the recent tragedies. Perhaps some of the executive orders issued yesterday by Obama will help get the ball rolling.
Don’t knee-jerk at me. I’m not “blaming the evil GOP for everything.” But I am sure as shit blaming them for gutting the ATF. Does it come as a shock to you that the GOP hates ATF? The Democrats decided it wasn’t worth fighting for, until now.
You’re the one who blatantly misreported a news article you linked to. I didn’t think that was allowed in GQ or GD. But I suppose you know best.
I don’t care if it’s Democrats, Republicans, or the motherfucking Bull Moose Party; it’s moral cowardice to claim you want to stop gun violence and not take substantive measures towards enforcing the laws already on the books.
You kind of have to care if it’s Democrats, Republicans, or the Bull Moose Party, or else you’re just mindlessly railing.
Really, you didn’t see the part of the article that talks about two guys in a vault under D.C.? Oh, hereit is.
That’s nice. Those of us who actually want to change the policies rather than labeling people moral cowards care about the forces actually shaping those policies.
What on earth are you talking about? I’m saying it’s not a partisan issue.
Is that another word for “I tried to be clever but it didn’t work?” Seems to me there’s now another word for that on this message board…
Let’s do both, cover all the bases.
It’s ever-so-simple, really - this pro-gun Obama voter says give Obama the funding and tools he needs to prosecute these shitheads who lie on 4473s to illegally buy guns. The only thing I really care to hear from you any more on this subject is “agree,” or “disagree.”
And I’m saying you’re wrong. The Democrats may be at fault for quietly wringing their hands but according to RP’s citations the Republicans actively worked to neuter the BATF.
I’ll take a mea culpa for the failed joke. But your characterization of my obvious hyperbole as an attempt to mislead is…I don’t know what. A reflection of the fact that you weren’t reading too closely? Forgivable error, if forgiveness were sought.
Well, then you probably won’t listen to this next paragraph:
The issue is not authority. Obama clearly has the authority to prosecute such people. The issue is resources. And if we want to get Obama those resources, we need the legislature to cooperate. And not just any part of the legislature, either. Specifically, we need the House GOP to cooperate.
The ATF was out of control before 1986. Go read some of the transcripts from the FOPA hearings. They needed to be handcuffed. In more recent news, the ATF decided to ship a bunch of guns to some of the worst people on the planet. We should be talking about abolishing the ATF, not giving them more power and money.
Not to defend the ATF or anything, but that mischaracterizes the nature of the operation. Basically, it was a sting that failed. Whether someone needs to be sacked over it is a different matter.
It was a sting designed to fail. In a typical sting, you would have some mechanism or plan for recovering the contraband. In Fast & Furious, it was more of a “lets turn all these guns over to the Mexican drug cartels and see where they turn up”. They made zero effort to track or recover most of the guns.
Or a reflection that I assumed you were discussing the topic seriously, and had perhaps read more on the issue on another link or had more information from elsewhere. It was not out of the bounds of possibility that staffing cuts had rendered that part of the ATF down to an X-Files level of staffing. I wasn’t playing “gotcha”, I honestly wondered if you had other information.
I’m not a bitchy, argumentative person any more. I just was wondering what you were talking about.
In my post I stressed “funding.”
Obama had a Democratic majority in both houses for 2 years.
The question is why are all Presidents, since Reagan so I read now, unwilling to enforce the laws? For example, Republicans claim they want to “enforce the existing laws” and so does the NRA, and yet in Republican administrations we see no effort either. This is all I’m saying - I would have liked to see Obama at least try to push for the resources in his directives to get the funding he needs. Why this has elicited such pushback and dispute here is beyond me, but I’ve obviously failed in making my point.