Firearms Friday: Executive Orders

This past week was an interesting one to say the least as the President postured in front of the media looking to continue to falsehoods of a decades old failed policy. In a press conference filled with a flood of forced tears, the President announced a series of executive actions regarding gun control. And that last word is key to this whole equation as the posturing and proclamations are all about control which was again driven home by the “Guns in America” town hall that was held last night two days after his speech.

While the discussion that night was more evenly distributed between those on both sides of the issue… the highlight for many was the statements made and questions asked by Taya Kyle, widow of Chris Kyle, who, in part, said, “The laws that we create don't stop these horrific things from happening. That is a very tough pill to swallow," This was in addition to her additional statements stating that criminals would not be stopped from getting guns even if background checks were expanded. 

However, the moment when she truly shined, far brighter than the president, was when she posted her response to the town hall event the following day on CNN. The paragraphs that stood out to me are as follows:

Cars are tools that is involved in about as many deaths as guns. If you are a driver prone to drinking and driving, should we only allow you to drive an ultracompact car? Not an SUV which could kill more people? No, we take away the drunk driver's access to legally drive any car. This is about freedom to do as you like until you prove incapable of showing good moral judgment.

In this country, we give freedom and take it away once you prove to be unworthy of the freedom we have given you. Nobody suggests taking away cars or going through a battery of tests to determine whether or not you might be a drunk driver one day.

My congressman, Representative Joe Pitts, also made his thoughts known at the end of the week following the President’s statements and actions. A portion of his weekly email newsletter read as follows:

On Tuesday, President Obama announced a series of executive actions he would take, as well as proposals for Congress to consider, on the regulation of gun ownership. The President is proposing to spend more money on mental health, though he has not said where that money will come from. From now on, the background check system will be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, rather than normal business hours. Doctors will be allowed to tell law enforcement about mentally ill individuals, but only until they have completed treatment.

The largest change will be expanding the scope of federal background check requirements. Federal law requires a federal firearms license for firearms dealers.  Under the President’s new rule, you would need a license and must conduct background checks if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit, even if that’s not your livelihood.

I am a strong supporter of background checks, and I have voted that way. Two years ago, I voted to increase funding for the background check system by 20 million dollars. But I have also sworn an oath to support the Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. It is also important to note that these actions would not have actually stopped any of the most horrific mass shootings that have occurred in recent years.

The last paragraph is or particular note in this who smoke show by the White House. Funds to improve background checks in general and the NICS system in particular have been voted upon and passed many times over in Congress. This is a non-issue. The focus should actually be on two parts of the actions that the President would like to take… patient confidentiality should not be something that is breached. While I can see the need to know those who are mentally unstable this should also be seen in the same way that it is in the legal system… sane until proven otherwise.

However, here is the most troubling aspect of the announcements made on Tuesday night… restricting gun sales and requiring a FFL for those who sell firearms for a profit. In the end, the FFL requirement through the ATF can potentially be used as a means to restrict sales well beyond the broad brushstrokes that the president likes to paint. There is nothing happy about these trees:

Thanks to a carefully drafted statute enacted in 1986, the president had relatively little room to maneuver in this regard. Those reforms were part of the NRA-supported Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. They were enacted specifically in response to abusive practices by the ATF, which included treating occasional sales of personal firearms as unlicensed “dealing” or seizing private firearm collections, on the pretext that they were the “inventory” of illegal “dealers.” 

At the end of the day, the administration’s big move on background checks was, instead, a 15-page brochure or “guidance” which explains the relevant federal statutes and regulations concerning firearms dealing and summarizing its view of the controlling case law.  Even though the president cannot unilaterally expand the law, he can still instill fear in gun owners and intimidate them into believing that private transfers are now illegal.  ATF can take his directive push the envelope with marginal cases that would be ignored in a less agenda-driven administration. They may well be looking to “make an example” of somebody, especially in the realm of sales advertised online. 

Obviously, chilling otherwise lawful firearms transfers could be just as effective as restricting such activity with passage of a new law or regulation.  There can be little doubt the president knows this and why he and administration officials have repeatedly said, “even 1 or 2 sales” can make one a dealer.

Based on evidence from past practices, the administration will likely try to have it both ways – revoke licenses for “dealers” who don’t sell a “sufficient” number of firearms, but prosecute those who sell a small number of firearms without a license.  In the 1980’s for example, there was evidence of ATF revoking the FFL of a person because he only sold three guns during the year, while simultaneously prosecuting another person for selling three guns that year without a license. And during the Clinton administration, after ATF had forced low-volume private sellers to become FFLs, the agency then aggressively reduced the number of FFLs for lack of business activity. 

There is a lot of posturing by the President as he concludes his second term in office. It is almost as if he really doesn’t care about the facts or what is right, he just wants to feel the warmth of the spotlight for as long as possible and try to grab as much power and control as he can before heading out the door. Sadly, the events this week are only the beginning to a very long year… hopefully we can get things back on track by the time November comes around.

The State Of The Union Is…

It is many things but nothing that I would call strong. Actually, scratch that. The state of the union is strongly divided.

While the address by President Obama this year was annoying and, at some points, downright stomach churning it was still better than it was last year when the television barely escaped in one piece. In that regard, things have gotten better since this same time last year. That may be the only positive development that I can really see that this administration has made in the past twelve months.

Like many of the President’s pubic addresses when the prompter is working properly, his performance was excellent. That part is undeniable and many people enjoy hearing the President speak just like many people like the forced overdramatic performances in B movies. But, just like the fiction found on film, the promises and pledges made are theatrics and nothing more.

The state of the union is divided. Too many people are out of work and any have given up trying. While the jobless rate seems to be going down it leaves me questioning how many people stopped looking? How many people are no longer counted?

Many minutes were dedicated to the calling for equal pay, for helping the African American community find work, for a higher minimum wage, for amnesty, and for many other things. Is this really where we should be focusing our efforts? Is this where we should be funneling our dollars? I don’t see this as a means to equality, this is a road to complacency. We need to be a nation of equal rights, equal freedoms, and an opportunity to pursue our own happiness.

No one ever said that life is fair. This nation was not founded as a coop. Embrace opportunity and work hard to make your life better. Does that mean you will live like the Jones’? No. Some will have more than others but many have more than they need. Are you really going to be better off paying higher and higher taxes, having money taken out of your pocket, in order to fulfill the promises of a government that insists on supporting the weight of the nation under the false premise that we need to give unequal amounts of money to some in order to ensure equality?

However, the most dangerous phrase of the evening which was used on a few occasions was “with or without congress” when referring to the actions that ‘need’ to be taken. It is this statement that should ring loudly in the ears of all who are listening. This is a frightening action and a threat of unilateral action that has the potential to be more damaging to the state of our union than any external force which threatens our safety and our freedom. This is a phrase that no President, regardless of party, should be using especially one with approval ratings as low as they are at this point. And, given the status that the United States still has in this world, it is a statement that endangers the safety and security of our allies especially Israel.

The state of the union, our union, is many things but, at this point, it is not strong, it is not stable, it is not safe, and it is not prosperous. We are in a state of division with a chasm that is growing faster than the national debt. It is with this reality in mind that we need to focus on and fight for change in the political system. It is through our efforts and our voices that we can fulfill the opportunity for change that has been given to us by the Founding Fathers. We all have an equal vote and an equal opportunity. It all comes down to who wants to work harder to change the state of the union and restore the strength that was once present.