Braced for a fight, President Barack Obama on Wednesday unveiled the most sweeping proposals for curbing gun violence in two decades, pressing a reluctant Congress to pass universal background checks and bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.
A month after that horrific massacre, Obama also used his presidential powers to enact 23 measures that don’t require the backing of lawmakers. The president’s executive actions include ordering federal agencies to make more data available for background checks, appointing a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and directing the Centers for Disease Control to research gun violence.
But the president, speaking at White House ceremony, focused his attention on the divided Congress, saying only lawmakers could enact the most effective measures for preventing more mass shootings.
“To make a real and lasting difference, Congress must act,” Obama said. “And Congress must act soon.”
The president vowed to use “whatever weight this office holds” to press lawmakers into action on his $500 million plan. He is also calling for improvements in school safety, including putting 1,000 police officers in schools and bolstering mental health care by training more health professionals to deal with young people who may be at risk.
Even supportive lawmakers say the president’s gun control proposals — most of which are opposed by the powerful National Rifle Association — face long odds on Capitol Hill.
House Speaker John Boehner’s office was non-committal to the president’s package of proposed legislation, but signaled no urgency to act. “House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. “And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said ahead of Obama’s presentation that he didn’t know whether an assault weapons ban could pass the Senate, but said there are some measures that can, such as improved background checks.
“There are some who say nothing will pass. I disagree with that,” Leahy, D-Vt., told students at Georgetown University Law Center. “What I’m interested in is what we can get.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Obama’s package “thoughtful recommendations” and said the Senate would consider legislation addressing gun violence early this year.
“The tragedy at Sandy Hook was just the latest sad reminder that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens – especially our children – from gun violence and a culture of violence, and all options should be on the table moving forward,” he said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus dismissed Obama’s measures as “an executive power grab.”
“He paid lip service to our fundamental constitutional rights,” Priebus said of the president, “but took actions that disregard the Second Amendment and the legislative process.”
Acknowledging the tough fight ahead, Obama said there will be pundits, politicians and special interest groups that will seek to “gin up fear” that the White House wants to take away the right to own a gun.
“Behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever,” he said. “The only way we will be able to change is if their audience, their constituents, their membership says this time must be different, that this time we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.”
The president was flanked by children who wrote him letters about gun violence in the weeks following the Newtown shooting. Families of those killed in the massacre, as well as survivors of the shooting, were also in the audience, along with law enforcement officers and congressional lawmakers.
“This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe,” Obama said. “This is how we will be judged.”
Seeking to expand the impetus for addressing gun violence beyond the Newtown shooting, the president said more than 900 Americans have been killed by guns in the month since the elementary school massacre.
“Every day we wait, the number will keep growing,” he said.
The White House has signaled that Obama could launch a campaign to boost public support for his proposals. Nearly six in 10 Americans want stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, with majorities favoring a nationwide ban on military-style, rapid-fire weapons and limits on gun violence depicted in video games, movies and TV shows, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
A lopsided 84 percent of adults would like to see the establishment of a federal standard for background checks for people buying guns at gun shows, the poll showed.
The president based his proposals on recommendations from an administration-wide task force led by Vice President Joe Biden. His plan marks the most comprehensive effort to address gun violence since Congress passed the 1994 ban on high-grade, military-style assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004, and Obama wants lawmakers to renew and expand it.
Other measures Obama wants Congress to take up include limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring background checks for all gun buyers in an attempt to close the so-called “gun-show loophole” that allows people to buy guns at trade shows and over the Internet without submitting to background checks.
Obama also intends to seek confirmation for B. Todd Jones, who has served as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives since 2011.
The president’s plan does little to address violent images in video games, movies and entertainment, beyond asking the CDC to study their impact on gun crimes. Some pro-gun lawmakers who are open to addressing stricter arms legislation have insisted they would do so only in tandem with recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment.
The president’s long list of executive orders also include:
— Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks and requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
— Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands.
— Requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
— Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers.
— Giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
(AP)
4 Responses
I wonder how many criminals and insane people will turn in their guns (in Connecticut, none, since they weren’t allowed to have guns to begin with).
If Obama were serious, he would start by discussing the right of law abiding (and sane) citizens to be armed – and then discuss restrictions in relation to the 2nd amendment rights, e.g., if the common law militia would give a musket to the village idiot when he showed up for the muster, we therefore can act to keep mentally ill from having guns. But Obama is not serious, and it will hurt his relationships with everyone whose support he needs on other, more important, issues – such as the budget and the pending default on the national debt.
Akuperma – The law enforcement community in the United States, which includes me, disagrees with you…the widespread availability of firearms in this country is by far the single most serious cause of gun violence. No other factor comes close. And the rest of the educated, western world, even Israeli law enforcement professionals, looks at us with confused bewilderment over this.
The Second Amendment, no less than the First and Fourth Amendments, needs nuanced limitations. Ideologues will always play all sorts of intellectual games in support of their absolutist positions…without any real regard for the impact of their positions.
YonasonW- #1 It is irrelevant what the law enforcement community has to say about the gun issue, the only thing they should do is their job to uphold the constitution. (and your statement about law enforcement is false)
#2 well Duh! if there were no guns there will be less gun crimes you mean like the UK they have no guns so their crime rate involving guns is very small, but you forgot to mention that the UK’s violent crime rate is much higher that the USA per capita instead of using guns they are using knives and bats so will guns stop violent crimes? no just the method being used might change many horrible mass murders happened without guns Google bath school massacre you cant legislate crime sorry to say there will always be crime and good people need the best tools available to protect themselves from criminals and against a government who becomes tyrannical (which was the intent of the 2nd amendment) , and i couldn’t give 2 hoots how the rest of the western world looks at us because they dont have a constitution and we do
#3 I thinks its highly irresponsible for you to say that the constitution written by the greatest minds of our time needs nuanced limitations Absolutely not what limitations are you referring to? like all the liberals “well you cant scream fire in a movie theater” thats not a limitation on free speech every person has rights and those rights end when they infringe on the next persons rights. Yes and the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed what exactly does that mean to you “should be infringed”
I am not a lawyer or a constitutional expert, but he Second does not give people the right to:
> Shoot deer after the deer shooting season is over;
> Shoot a person who is jay-walking on the street;
> Arm them self with a nuclear weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank artillery, chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc., etc., etc.
> Felons should have the right?
> Demented people? How ‘demented?’ Says who!
> Blind people? How bad does the vision have to be to be “blind?”
> Children? 21? 18, 16, Bar Mitzvah? Bas Mitzvah? Upshernish?
I know some of these are ridiculous, but the Second Amendment IS constrained and some people do have their rights impinged.
As it should be.