Another Gun Grab Attempt by an ‘Imperial Presidency’

September 4, 2013

270x300By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold – 

On Wednesday, April 17, of this year, the U.S. Senate rejected a bipartisan plan to expand background checks for gun buyers, dealing a crippling blow to President Obama’s campaign to “curb gun violence” in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre. It is noteworthy that the guns involved in the Newtown Massacre were legally purchased by the gunman’s mother, subject to some of the strictest regulations in the nation, including background checks.

An angry Obama said of the vote: “All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington, adding the effort is not over.”

Fast forward to Tuesday, August 27, when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder held a closed-door, private meeting with a group of mayors to talk about ways to reduce youth violence in U.S. cities. President Obama promised mayors that he would continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action and to press Congress to pass common-sense reforms like expanding the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking.

Although 18 large city mayors attended from all over the nation, noticeable absent was Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  Is not Chicago know for its high crime rate irregardless of its strict gun control laws?

Only two days later, August 29, the Obama administration made a surprise announcement through Vice President Joe Biden, when Biden,looking resolute and puffing his lips while standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Attorney General Eric Holder and U. S. Director of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Todd Jones, declared the Obama administration would take two new steps to curb American gun violence.

If Congress won’t act, we’ll fight for a new Congress, Biden said in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.  It’s that simple.  But we’re going to get this done.

But has Obama put politics ahead of people on Guns?  According to a report commissioned by his own CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), which dovetails with a recent study in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, neither banning nor reducing the number of firearms would reduce the number of murders or suicides.

A CDC report, ordered by President Obama, came to the following conclusions:

  • Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse.
  • Handguns, not so called assault weapons, are the weapons of choice by criminals.
  •   Mass shootings aren’t a growing problem, and constitute a tiny fraction of all homicides
  • Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide.
  • Guns are successfully used for self-defense more than twice asoften as for crime.
  •  It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers.

Upon evaluating the effectiveness of Obama’s two new executive gun orders, it becomes apparent that neither would do anything to prevent criminals from using firearms. They are deceptive and ineffective gun control measures enacted unilaterally by the President through executive mandates that bypass Congress and the will of the people.

As such President Obama seems intent on trumping fundamental rights based on political calculations that rely on the public’s emotional reaction, and not on a reasoned assessment of the facts.

Order one:  Ends the import of military surplus weapons — not machine guns — but military looking semi-automatic rifles.  More than 250,000 of these weapons have been imported and sold since 2005 and not a single one has been linked to a crime.

Through this mandate the re-import of military weapons the US donatedto foreign countries in the past would be banned.  We have given thousands of Garand (semi-auto) and Springfield bolt action rifles, even 30-40 Krag rifles from the 1890s, to our allies over the last century. Once returned, these rifles are sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program as an inexpensive way to train our youth. That program paid off big time in advance of WW2, the Korean Conflict and others to follow, not to mention training tens of thousands in marksmanship and gun safety. Perhaps Obama thinks firing a few dozen cruise missiles will replace an army of riflemen. However our experience at the beaches of Normandy, shores of Iwo Jima and more recently, Kosovo, shows that aerial bombardment alone is never a winning strategy.

Other guns banned from import include old Soviet Nagant rifles, which have been an inexpensive way for people to acquire center fire rifles for target shooting and hunting.  The thought that these rifles end up “on the street” is preposterous. They are uniformly large and heavy, hardly attractive to street thugs. How do you carry an eleven pound, four foot rifle in your “ride”? Under your hoodie? In short, the ban doesn’t need a purpose, it just needs to bypass Congress.

Order two:  Forces corporate board members and officers to undergo background checks if a gun was to be registered to the corporation, foundation or trust.  When is the last time anyone has heard of a foundation trustee or CRO using a gun registered to a corporation in the commission of a crime.  Of course the answer is never.

As such the thought of changing the way trusts and corporations are treated is even more devious. People buying NFA weapons (National Firearms Act of 1936, including short barreled rifles and machine guns) often set up a trust so that the weapon can be transferred to another qualified individual, upon death for example, with a longer grace period.The vetting process is exhaustive, including rules for transfer, as are rules for use and transportation.

The President’s proposals would simply make this process impossible to execute. Rules governing corporations go even further to the ridiculous. Can you imagine if General Motors needed to subject each employee to fingerprints and a background check if they bought weapons for their security staff?

The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws.  Enforcing the laws would reduce crime.

The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009, but the justice department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.… This is yet another example of how the Obama administration chooses which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The Emperor, after all, is above the law.

Just how else is the Department of Justice helping reduce gun crime?  Most of the “gun” offenses in Chicago, for example, constitute a crime under Federal statutes, which carry long prison terms. These offenses include possession of a firearm by someone under 18 (21 for a handgun), a felon, altered serial numbers, and a battery of civil rights offenses. Rather than put these gang-bangers away for years, their average sentence under state law amounts to 3 months plus probation. (The man who shot 15 year old Hadya Pendleton was on probation for a felony.) Fewer than 1% of qualified offenses are prosecuted under Federal law. Apparently street crime is an acceptable alternative to facing the protests of parents deprived of their criminal offspring, rogue priests and community organizers. You don’t stop crime by taking guns from honest citizens. You stop crime by stopping criminals who use guns.

Emily Miller, senior opinion editor at the Washington Time wrote these choice and true words:…

The biggest fight in history over Americans’ right to keep and bear arms is being waged today. There were attacks on the Second Amendment in the early 1990s with the passage of the Brady bill and the “assault weapons” ban.

The gun control battle of 2013, however, could easily see the greatest losses of Second Amendment rights ever.

There are two key factors that make this assault more serious: billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is willing to spend anything to win, and a longtime anti gun fanatic Barack Obama, who is applying the full power of the presidential bully pulpit for the gun grabbers’ cause.

Do the American people have the will to fight back before more and more or their rights are stolen from them by one who lack respect for the fundamental truths upon which this nation was founded? How long do we tolerate an administration which proposes ineffective solutions to problems, in order to deflect attention from “phony” scandals?

Wednesday, September 04, 2013 at 12:01 PM | Permalink



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s