Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 30, 2013 in Politics | 4 comments

President Obama Signs Two New Executive Orders on Gun Control

The White House issued a press release detailing two more executive orders President Obama signed off over gun control. Of course, the right wing is none too pleased that he is flexing his muscles. As expected, the National Rifle Association freaked out. NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said “prohibiting the re-importation of firearms into the U.S. that were manufactured 50 or more years ago does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.” Yeah, whatever.  Here’s an excerpt from President Obama’s executive order:

Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands

  • Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns.  These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.
  •  However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation.  At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run.  ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.
  • Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole.  The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually.  By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets

  • When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval.  Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.

  • Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums.  This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The Moderate Voice
  • dduck

    Although this is another end run around congress, I say about FT.

  • sheknows

    I agree dd. Any action to limit the number of guns is good action.

  • slamfu

    “prohibiting the re-importation of firearms into the U.S. that were manufactured 50 or more years ago does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.”

    I really love the logic behind that kind of thinking. Apparently the people who utter such nonsense don’t seem to realize that outlawing anything doesn’t keep criminals from doing those activities. Criminals who murder still murder so we might as well just legalize that right?

  • zusa1

    It seems we are trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands, same as Sudafed.

    “Meth users now buy drugs imported illegally from Mexico, according to a recent report in The Economist.”

    “The policy failure reminds me of a concept from statistics: Type I vs. Type II errors. Typically with an intervention of any kind, and this can include a government regulation, both kinds of errors should be minimized.

    Type I error is when you fail to accomplish what you’ve set out to do. So if you make Sudafed hard to buy but it does not have a lasting effect on meth abuse, that would be Type I error.

    Type II is less intuitive–but it happens when the test fails to distinguish between causes. Type II would be if the intervention fails to distinguish meth users buying Sudafed from those who have colds. In medical parlance it would be a false negative. Every time an ordinary sick person get carded for buying cold medicine, she is a victim of this second kind of policy error.

    It’s not uncommon for a public policy to fail for one reason or another. It’s rare for failure to occur so dramatically from both directions.

    Politicians love to get on their soap boxes and rail against drug abuse. But few have learned from past tactical mistakes.”

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :