• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cheesehead9099

Neo Member
If you object to background checks, you shouldn't have a gun. There is quite literally no reason any law-abiding, sane citizen who has a clean record would object to a background check. And if your record isn't clean, then you should be allowed nowhere near a gun.
 
Closing straw/private purchases and requiring those to undergo background checks makes sense to me and am perfectly fine with that. Really mandating that every transaction gift or not must be part of a background check makes sense.

Just that an executive order, as the article states, will have limited effectiveness.
 
Genuine question, how much can an executive order really do? That has always confused me, can the president just say, "fuck congress" and create bills and laws with an EO? I don't think so, but I might be wrong. If not, then what can it really do?
 
I really don't understand why even idiots who are pro gun want sales to be unregulated, it's almost as if they want dodgy criminals and psychos to have guns just so they've got an excuse to use theirs in "self defence"
Not all of them. As a gun owner myself, I'd gladly welcome strict regulation on sales. Give it the full gamut. Intense mental tests, thorough background and history check, etc. Stop the sale of guns online, stop private purchases. Hell ban assault style weapons, perfectly fine with me.

There's really a lot of simple things that can be done to start improving this shit. Those on both sides of the extreme aren't helping.
 

iamblades

Member
Clinton won't toss this though

Courts are likely to though, as there is zero basis for this in the laws.

This isn't a loophole in the ATF's interpretation of the law, the background check law specifically only applies to FFLs, and the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce.
 
It's possible. There's a lot of republicans who are more centrist saying they'll vote Clinton if he runs and another group that just won't vote. If trump running suppresses the GOP vote but bolsters the DEM vote then it's possible. Though probably still really difficult. If trump runs 3rd party there's an argument to be made that this will actually increase GOP turnout and likely be bad for DEMS down ticket even though it would ensure a Hillary win.

If you assume most people who come out to vote will vote down the line - ie if you vote a republican president, you will vote republican everything else, and likewise democratic president then democratic everything else - its still really to early to figure out what Trump vs Hillary would be like.

I could counter that just as many people who decide to stay home if Trump is on the ticket, there would be just as many democrats who are un-enthusiastic about Hillary and stay home. Historically older, white voters tend to be pretty reliable voters and its harder to get minorities and young people to get out and actually vote. Obama definitely energized the young into coming out. I think Hillary will definitely energize many women to come out, but will she get young people to come out? End of the day you are going to go out and spend an hour or two of your time because you believe in something, not to vote against someone else.

Historically as well voters tend to split control of President/Congress, and stick with incumbents. The majority of seats up for grabs will be held by incumbents. Democrats would need to pick up 30 seats to gain control in the House. In 2012 Obama won 209 congressional districts, the democrats currently control 188 of those (they lost 21 so far). So they'd have to win all those back plus 9 more districts that have traditionally voted Republican. Not impossible, but fairly difficult.

Only twice have more than 30 House seats switched hands during a presidential election - Ronald Reagan in 1980 and LJB in 1964 (a year after the Kennedy assassination).

I don't really have a problem with Obama passing this executive order, almost certainly it'll get shot down in courts and even if it doesn't, it doesn't really change much. 82% of guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally by the owner and passed a background check. The gun show loophole is real for sure, but people will just agree to meet up afterwards to conduct the sale so not really sure what its going to change. Online dealers can't directly ship guns to people, they must send them to a local FFL dealer who then runs a background check. But the whole thing is going to rile up a lot of people, not sure if it helps or hurts Hillary but it definitely helps Trump and the Republicans.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Why would any sane person object to this? He's not taking your toys away.

There is sticky points to this.

Say I go shooting with my brother, and I pick him up. The guns are in my truck, and we go out in the woods to plink some targets. It's not my gun I'm shooting, it's my brothers. It's now technically in my possession.

Did my brother need to BG check me, did he give me the gun legally? If I'm in the state of Washington, then yes he would need to do that. I am not allowed to handle his weapon unless we were to get a background check from a licensed dealer, then transfer it, then do the same to transfer it back to my brother.

If the law is done in a way such as I594 then it's directly effecting an issue that should not be an issue, the sharing of a firearm while both parties are still present.

Hopefully if he does something it puts in provisions for such things as shooting on private land or in places that are federally or state legal to shoot firearms (such as hunting, targeting shooting on federal or state land, etc). The fact that technically someone is a criminal for being handed a gun from their friend isn't the point of the law, but with I594 it makes that a criminal activity.
 
Not all of them. As a gun owner myself, I'd gladly welcome strict regulation on sales. Give it the full gamut. Intense mental tests, thorough background and history check, etc. Stop the sale of guns online, stop private purchases. Hell ban assault style weapons, perfectly fine with me.

There's really a lot of simple things that can be done to start improving this shit. Those on both sides of the extreme aren't helping.

Hard to say "both sides" in this argument when one extreme is represented with government power and the other side actually proposes reasonable measures. The problem is some gun owners see any sort of regulation as an extreme position.
 
Hard to say "both sides" in this argument when one extreme is represented with government power and the other side actually proposes reasonable measures. The problem is some gun owners see any sort of regulation as an extreme position.
I just meant wanting a 'complete ban' on all guns, which, let's be honest just isn't going to happen and isn't reasonable.
 

Ultryx

Member
Sounds nice. But there is what, something like 325 million guns here? How would they go about rounding them up? Just doesn't seem feasible. They should ban assault weapons and limit clip sizes though.

Most present-day guns do not use clips, but instead magazines. Banning assault weapons? Which specifically?
 

Phased

Member
While there needs to be much tighter gun control, I'm not sure this is the right way to do it.

Our Democratic process is definitely flawed, but issuing executive orders isn't the way to expedite the process. I admit I have no clue how you'd get stricter laws passed in the current climate, but the system is in place so one person can't decide for themselves that things need to change.

I say all this as a very deep liberal who would absolutely be in favor of much more strict laws. Bypassing the Congress and Senate doesn't sit right with me, even if a law like this should be common sense.
 

FyreWulff

Member
There is sticky points to this.

Say I go shooting with my brother, and I pick him up. The guns are in my truck, and we go out in the woods to plink some targets. It's not my gun I'm shooting, it's my brothers. It's now technically in my possession.

Did my brother need to BG check me, did he give me the gun legally? If I'm in the state of Washington, then yes he would need to do that. I am not allowed to handle his weapon unless we were to get a background check from a licensed dealer, then transfer it, then do the same to transfer it back to my brother.

If the law is done in a way such as I594 then it's directly effecting an issue that should not be an issue, the sharing of a firearm while both parties are still present.

Hopefully if he does something it puts in provisions for such things as shooting on private land or in places that are federally or state legal to shoot firearms (such as hunting, targeting shooting on federal or state land, etc). The fact that technically someone is a criminal for being handed a gun from their friend isn't the point of the law, but with I594 it makes that a criminal activity.


You drive a car, hand it to an unlicensed driver, and they drive, that's also illegal. Don't see the problem here.

Everyone handling a gun should be required to, at minimum, pass a safety course. Even the rural states require you to do this before you can legally hunt.
 

Blader

Member
Sensible, responsible gun owners should be in favor of measures like expanded background checks/closed loopholes and mandatory safety classes/firearms training.

These are such common sense ideas that the only people who should be opposed to them are exactly the kind of people who shouldn't own a weapon in the first place.
 
I could counter that just as many people who decide to stay home if Trump is on the ticket, there would be just as many democrats who are un-enthusiastic about Hillary and stay home. .

I don't believe this is a good counter.

In any case, I wasn't looking for an argument. I was just responding to a person who asked how it would be possible for dems to take congress. It's possible if Trump suppresses the GOP vote while bolstering the DEM vote.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
While there needs to be much tighter gun control, I'm not sure this is the right way to do it.

Our Democratic process is definitely flawed, but issuing executive orders isn't the way to expedite the process. I admit I have no clue how you'd get stricter laws passed in the current climate, but the system is in place so one person can't decide for themselves that things need to change.

I say all this as a very deep liberal who would absolutely be in favor of much more strict laws. Bypassing the Congress and Senate doesn't sit right with me, even if a law like this should be common sense.

You have no idea how executive orders work do you?
 
I just meant wanting a 'complete ban' on all guns, which, let's be honest just isn't going to happen and isn't reasonable.

Yeah I agree. It's just those that want a complete gun ban have no representative power. They just suggest this idea on random message boards. Those that want no gun regulation have the entire republican party representing them.
 

alba

Little is the new Big
About freaking time though. If Congress won't do shit about it, I'm glad he's actually trying to do something about it.
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
It's a step in the right direction, but you know people are gonna blow it up into OMG SEE OBAMA IS COMING TO TAKE YER GUNZ.

But then they'll say that to *any* gun restrictions, so might as well get it over with and fucking do something.

He's exhausted all other options. He's talked about it over and over, come as close as is publically possible to yelling at the public to stop being fuckheads, and none of it has worked. Executive order it is.
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
You drive a car, hand it to an unlicensed driver, and they drive, that's also illegal. Don't see the problem here.

Everyone handling a gun should be required to, at minimum, pass a safety course. Even the rural states require you to do this before you can legally hunt.

One's a privledge. And one's a right. There's a major difference between the two.
 

SeanC

Member
qhwED21.gif


GOP is going to explode and I'm looking forward to the rhetoric. We already know what it'll be. "It's our right/an affront to liberty/Hitler comparisons/etc..."
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Isn't the "gun show loophole" just the fact that people tend to have make private transactions at these outside of the gunshow when they're not licensed dealers. But people can make private transactions without a background check any place. You can sell your neighbor a gun, or you brother, or whatever without doing a background check (in most states)

FFL holders and businesses already need to conduct background checks, it's private dealers who do not. Some states already require all dealers to do them, some just on handguns, some not at all.. but all FFL have too no matter what.

Any law wouldn't be aimed at gun shows, as that's just a way of making it sound good to the public, but truly be aimed at any private sale no matter where it is made.

It's an important distinction to make, but it doesn't matter much to pro-gun people as they know it's about private sale, and anti-gun people pretty much want to ban all guns. Those in the middle don't understand and just take the buzzword "gun show loophole" and think, yeah that's a good idea without understanding what it's really about.


>80% of mass shootings are done with legally purchased firearms.

Weren't most of those done legally with BGC though, meaning this law won't really effect that.. but what it could effect and help is with is tracking and reducing access to guns used in non-mass shootings.. it'll take awhile as there is so many guns on the streets already in criminals hands, but it will make some people more hesitant to private sell guns that can be tracked back to them and reduce straw purchases in the long run. Thus hopefully driving up the black market and making it harder to obtain.

Long run, should help somewhat reduce shootings, but it'd take awhile. Won't change mass-shootings.. as again.. most of those were already being done legally.
 

Phased

Member
You have no idea how executive orders work do you?

Do you?

Executive Orders are legally binding. You have to go to the Supreme Court to overturn them and they have almost universally never done that. While it isn't specifically a law, it's the President ordering the agencies under him on how to proceed going forward.

They've been used to justify sending troops to war zones and even starting the Japanese internment camps in WW2.
 
Why would any sane person object to this? He's not taking your toys away.

Because most people never read/hear the details of the order. They just hear "Obama's making a gun control law!" and it plays into their worldview. Then, Their preferred media outlets paint the executive order as executive overreach to take away your guns without ever going into detail about what the order actually does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom