WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.
White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review "in short order." She says the recommendations will include measures to expand background checks.
Jarrett spoke Wednesday night at a vigil for the victims of the Newtown shooting, according to a summary provided by the White House.
After the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, Obama said his team was looking for ways to tighten gun laws without a vote in Congress. White House officials have said they're exploring closing the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.
I just saw this on FB from a DC friend. But that shooting in Roseburg was awhile ago. I hadn't even heard of it. I had to look it up. What does that have to do with this?
eta: Oh, now I remember this one. Jesus, there are so many, I couldn't keep it straight. Got it.
The White House is finalizing a new executive action that would expand background checks on gun purchases, according to one of President Obama’s top aides.
Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Wednesday the president has asked his team to send him a completed plan “in short order,” according to The Associated Press. She spoke at a vigil for victims of the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 28 dead.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday refused to elaborate on the timeline to issue the unilateral proposals.
“At this point, I still don’t have an update on the progress the administration is making on scrubbing the rules," Earnest told reporters at his daily press briefing.
Still, Jarrett’s comments are an indication that Obama could soon roll out a proposal that would set up a major battle with Republicans in Congress and gun rights groups.
Stymied by Congress on new gun control measures, Obama has been weighing a number of executive actions on guns following an October mass shooting at an Oregon community college.
The effort took on even more urgency after last month’s attack in San Bernardino, Calif., which left 14 dead.
Obama has been holding meetings with gun control advocates to gauge their support and solicit ideas. He met last Friday with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who survived a gunshot to the head during a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson.
A proposal Obama is reportedly considering would classify more sellers as high-volume dealers, which would close a legal loophole that allows many sales conducted online or at gun shows to skirt existing background check provisions.
But such a measure would surely prompt a legal challenge from gun rights groups, which say Obama lacks the authority to tighten background checks alone. The National Rifle Association and GOP lawmakers have blasted the idea as executive overreach.
Actually, I don't think I'm comfortable with this. I'm not sure how executive action works, but what would stop a Republican President from using it to limit abortions or not enforce discrimination laws in some way?
Oh dear, people are going to be pissed. Even if he doesn't actually go through with anything they are going to be pissed. Why do people have to suck so much, because this sounds great.
ETA: Can someone explain how this could be used to not enforce discrimination laws/limit abortion? Because I think I'm missing something/not understanding.
Of course the GOP will blast him. They blast every single executive order as "government overreach." That doesn't mean it is. I'm sure he's going to do what he can to pass something that will sustain constitutional muster, though with the Roberts court, you never know.
Actually, I don't think I'm comfortable with this. I'm not sure how executive action works, but what would stop a Republican President from using it to limit abortions or not enforce discrimination laws in some way?
I'm so NOT a legal scholar, but many discrimination laws and abortion access have come up before SCOTUS. SCOTUS has, for example, ruled that abortions are a right, backed by the constitutional right to privacy, prior to viability. They have since allowed some further restrictions on abortion. However, passing a law (or executive action) that goes against SCOTUS's decision on the subject would be unconstitutional, since SCOTUS has determined that not allowing abortion at all IS unconstitutional. Of course, SCOTUS could reverse course, but I feel like going directly against an explicit court ruling saying, "this law is unconstitutional" and then passing that exact law AGAIN is... not okay? Like when SCOTUS declared that the death penalty, as it existed at the time, was unconstitutional, they basically overrode every death penalty law in the US, but then said, "try again." So states passed death penalty legislation that was in line with SCOTUS's ruling. They didn't just pass the same law they previously had, even though it was in violation of the ruling. I think that's one reason states have turned to really severe limits, but not usually outright bans on abortion.
Of course, I think in order to reverse it, the courts would have to be involved again. I'm not sure if that would have to be appealed up to the SCOTUS or what, though.
Post by jdnotbyrider on Dec 10, 2015 15:39:24 GMT -5
If he could pull this off, I'd be strutting around my house all day long with a playlist that would be playing every single version of Hallelujah ever created one by one.
.... Unfortunately, the shitstorm from both The Republican Party and Gun Nuts would be the equivalent of a volcano erupting, a 9.0 Earthquake, and a giant ass tsunami happening at the exact same place at the exact same time.
I just want to know what the argument is against expanding background checks. The real, intelligent, researched argument against it, not the "Shall not be infringed upon!!!!11!" argument I usually see.
If it's for background checks at gun shows, I have no problem with it, but I still have s problem with no congressional approval.
how would you propose getting congress to act?
ETA: This is not snarky. Ok, maybe a little bit. I am genuinely curious though. The gun lobby appears to be the farthest up congress' collective ass and the head puppet master sooo...
I just want to know what the argument is against expanding background checks. The real, intelligent, researched argument against it, not the "Shall not be infringed upon!!!!11!" argument I usually see.
If it's for background checks at gun shows, I have no problem with it, but I still have s problem with no congressional approval.
how would you propose getting congress to act?
ETA: This is not snarky. Ok, maybe a little bit. I am genuinely curious though. The gun lobby appears to be the farthest up congress' collective ass and the head puppet master sooo...
This has been making the rounds on FB again though it's 2 years old. I think this really weighs on him and he has often said gun control was the most frustrating issue he faced during his terms.
The White House is not supposed to be a place for brokenness. Sheer, shattered, brokenness. But that’s what we experienced on the weekend of December 14, 2012.
I was sitting at my desk around midday on Friday the 14th when I saw the images flash on CNN: A school. A gunman. Children fleeing, crying.
It’s sad that we’ve grown so accustomed to these types of scenes that my first thought was I hope there are no deaths, just injuries. I thought, Maybe it’s your run-of-the-mill scare.
And then the news from Sandy Hook Elementary School, a small school in the tiny hamlet of Newtown, Connecticut, began pouring in. The public details were horrific enough: Twenty children murdered. Six staff. Parents searching a gymnasium for signs of their kids.
But the private facts we received in the White House from the FBI were even worse.
How the gunman treated the children like criminals, lining them up to shoot them down. How so many bullets penetrated them that many were left unrecognizable. How the killer went from one classroom to another and would have gone farther if his rifle would’ve let him.
That news began a weekend of prayer and numbness, which I awoke from on Saturday only to receive the word that the president would like me to accompany him to Newtown. He wanted to meet with the families of the victims and then offer words of comfort to the country at an interfaith memorial service.
I left early to help the advance team—the hardworking folks who handle logistics for every event—set things up, and I arrived at the local high school where the meetings and memorial service would take place. We prepared seven or eight classrooms for the families of the slain children and teachers, two or three families to a classroom, placing water and tissues and snacks in each one. Honestly, we didn’t know how to prepare; it was the best we could think of.
The families came in and gathered together, room by room. Many struggled to offer a weak smile when we whispered, “The president will be here soon.” A few were visibly angry—so understandable that it barely needs to be said—and were looking for someone, anyone, to blame. Mostly they sat in silence.
I went downstairs to greet President Obama when he arrived, and I provided an overview of the situation. “Two families per classroom . . . The first is . . . and their child was . . . The second is . . . and their child was . . . We’ll tell you the rest as you go.”
The president took a deep breath and steeled himself, and went into the first classroom. And what happened next I’ll never forget.
Person after person received an engulfing hug from our commander in chief. He’d say, “Tell me about your son. . . . Tell me about your daughter,” and then hold pictures of the lost beloved as their parents described favorite foods, television shows, and the sound of their laughter. For the younger siblings of those who had passed away—many of them two, three, or four years old, too young to understand it all—the president would grab them and toss them, laughing, up into the air, and then hand them a box of White House M&M’s, which were always kept close at hand. In each room, I saw his eyes water, but he did not break.
And then the entire scene would repeat—for hours. Over and over and over again, through well over a hundred relatives of the fallen, each one equally broken, wrecked by the loss. After each classroom, we would go back into those fluorescent hallways and walk through the names of the coming families, and then the president would dive back in, like a soldier returning to a tour of duty in a worthy but wearing war. We spent what felt like a lifetime in those classrooms, and every single person received the same tender treatment. The same hugs. The same looks, directly in their eyes. The same sincere offer of support and prayer.
The staff did the preparation work, but the comfort and healing were all on President Obama. I remember worrying about the toll it was taking on him. And of course, even a president’s comfort was woefully inadequate for these families in the face of this particularly unspeakable loss. But it became some small measure of love, on a weekend when evil reigned.
And the funny thing is—President Obama has never spoken about these meetings. Yes, he addressed the shooting in Newtown and gun violence in general in a subsequent speech, but he did not speak of those private gatherings. In fact, he was nearly silent on Air Force One as we rode back to Washington, and has said very little about his time with these families since. It must have been one of the defining moments of his presidency, quiet hours in solemn classrooms, extending as much healing as was in his power to extend. But he kept it to himself—never seeking to teach a lesson based on those mournful conversations, or opening them up to public view.
Jesus teaches us that some things—the holiest things, the most painful and important and cherished things—we are to do in secret. Not for public consumption and display, but as acts of service to others, and worship to God. For then, “your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you,” perhaps not now, but certainly in eternity. We learned many lessons in Newtown that day; this is one I’ve kept closely at heart.
I just worry that whatever he does won't amount to a hill of beans, and will be used as fodder to disrupt government throughout the election year. CO is a prime example of this. They passed some weak-ass restrictions that literally did NOTHING, and now we have a defunded teen pregnancy program that was highly successful at curbing pregnancy rates.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
I just want to know what the argument is against expanding background checks. The real, intelligent, researched argument against it, not the "Shall not be infringed upon!!!!11!" argument I usually see.
This is really what I want to know too.
I personally would vote for doing away with the second amendment entirely - so that's my position.
But if I had to guess? It would be that there are not preconditions placed on other rights. No background check to exercise freedom of speech, etc.
Not that I know an single iota about it but there's my best guess. Anyone else know the talking points?
I just want to know what the argument is against expanding background checks. The real, intelligent, researched argument against it, not the "Shall not be infringed upon!!!!11!" argument I usually see.
...I don't think there is a legitimate argument against background checks. At least, I haven't seen one.
I just want to know what the argument is against expanding background checks. The real, intelligent, researched argument against it, not the "Shall not be infringed upon!!!!11!" argument I usually see.
The argument I always hear is that background checks won't keep criminals from obtaining guns anyway so we shouldn't pass laws that don't do anything except make it harder for good law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
I just worry that whatever he does won't amount to a hill of beans, and will be used as fodder to disrupt government throughout the election year. CO is a prime example of this. They passed some weak-ass restrictions that literally did NOTHING, and now we have a defunded teen pregnancy program that was highly successful at curbing pregnancy rates.
This is exactly it. It's a feel good measure that's not going to do anything useful.
What if it stops a handful of people from buying guns at a gun show because they know they will be subject to a background check. What if it gives the ATF some ability to suss out shady dealers who skip this step and are selling to felons on parole anyway? What if it makes it harder for a depressed 19 year old kid to commit suicide? What if it stops an abuser from having a deadly weapon in addition to emotional abuse?
We won't know if it works. It might be as useless as waiting periods for abortions, or it might make the rules more clear across states and keep people from getting guns as easily.
Basically it's a start and may also raise the cost of a gun if that cost is passed on to a buyer. I'm actually excited that our president is doing what nobody else has the courage to do - start some changes to gun violence in the U.S.