The New York Daily News has a controversial front page this morning blasting politicians and others who are offering prayers while opposing to take steps to curtail gun access in this country in the wake of the latest massacre in California. It is the same message sent by President Barack Obama who appears ready to use executive authority to restrict gun sales at gun shows. The problem with calls for such action is that Congress has declined to order such changes — raising yet another potential conflict over executive overreach in our system. Moreover, the right to own firearms is now recognized as an individual right under the Second Amendment, limiting the extent to which gun ownership can be meaningfully curtailed. Absent a constitutional amendment, many of the calls for banning gun ownership would fail as unconstitutional.
The action to be taken the Administration seems somewhat artificial as a response to the shooting in san Bernadino. Officials are saying that President Obama will close the so-called gun show loophole that allows people to buy guns each year without a background check. However, the police have confirmed that at least two of the weapons used by Syed Farook, 28, and his wife Tashfeen Malik, 27, were lawfully purchased. Thus, the response is like denouncing forest fires by passing a new law combating kitchen fires. It reminds one of the old story about a man who comes upon another man in the dark on his knees looking for something under a street lamp. “What did you lose?” he asked the stranger. “My wedding ring,” he answered. Sympathetic, the man joined the stranger on his knees and looked for almost an hour until he asked if the man was sure that he dropped it here. “Oh, no,” the stranger admitted, “I lost it across the street but the light is better here.”
This “loophole” is originally a creature of legislation not regulation. It has long been debated in Congress. Bills to close the loophole were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses. This legislation references gaps in legislation that goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act, which GCA mandated Federal Firearms Licenses for those “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. Private individuals were not covered, a major political accommodation. Then there was the 1986, Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which relaxed controls of the Gun Control Act. Then in 1993, Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to institute federal background checks on all firearm purchasers who buy from federally licensed dealers. The silence on private firearms transactions would seem a direct outgrowth of the past accommodation given private owners/sellers. The Administration can certainly argue that the silence created an ambiguity warranted deference to the federal agencies, but the record of legislation — including the repeated requests to close the gap — belie any claim of this was truly an omission or oversight of Congress.
There are certainly many good arguments to support closing this loophole, but it is something that must be done in conjunction with Congress. Indeed, President Obama has formally asked for such legislation and failed to succeed in Congress. That was three years ago. As with health care, immigration, and other fields, the President seems intent now on “going it alone” after Congress refused to give him what he demands. The question is not really one about gun control but constitutional authority. No president can become a government unto himself. He has to show leadership and either forge a consensus in Congress or seek to change the make up of Congress. There is no third option — no license to go it alone in our system.
Federal law requires gun stores and other regular sellers to get federal licenses and conduct background checks. This did not stop Farook or other criminals. However, it is certainly true that thousands of guns are sold in those private sales every year and gun shows create a massive loophole in that system. There is a legitimate debate to occur here, but the place for that debate is in Congress.
Whatever measures are sought in the aftermath of this shooting, one has to keep in mind that there are limits on the range of options after the rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). Last year, United States District Court Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. handed down a ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that overturned the city’s total ban on residents on carrying firearms outside their home. The Court has signaled that it will accept reasonable limitations on gun ownership, but has remained unclear on the scope of such laws. What is clear is that bans on gun ownership (which many are calling for this month) would not be seriously considered in light of Heller. That does not mean that certain types of weapons might not be limited or curtailed but the suggestion that we can “remove guns from society” is fanciful absent a constitutional amendment.
Closing the gun show loophole would seem likely to pass constitutional muster under the guidelines of Heller, so long as it is drafted narrowly and carefully. However, if the President again takes unilateral action, it will add a separation of powers challenge to the Second Amendment challenge. There is no evidence of intent to give the President such authority. This has long been a divine issue and Congress clearly considered closing this loophole and declined to do so. If legislation were written, it would need to be evaluated on how to define certain gun sales and private transactions. That is the type of balancing and tailoring that occurs in congressional committee.
There is a great desire to act in the wake of this tragedy, but our actions must occur within a carefully calibrated system established by the Framers under the separation of powers.
Source: LA Times
Please — Tell me again about Marshal Law — when does that become fact and how does that effect the presidency?
I would not be surprised if Obama limits the FBI regional offices Security Briefings, so they are not aware of any possible radical terrorist attack.
Then when it happens, Obama can continue to pound his anti-gun agenda. He wants to disarm us, to make Jihad easier for his Muslim terrorist brothers. Then he can become the Assad of America!
See if he can take the guns out there enough to arm every man woman and child in this country. We welcome the effort. Enough talk! MOLON LABE!
Obama definitely thinks just like a non-Christian Muslim. . . Prosecutes the victims and leaves them helpless.
I am aware of a few mass shootings that do not attract the attention of our so-called leaders. Wasn’t there a mass shooting involving two gangs at a New Orleans park? I recall reading there were hundreds of witnesses yet none would come forward. Finally one, just one, person was willing to identify some of the shooters.
The incident in N.O. is not unique, but it includes two elements not present in other mass shootings that draw our leaders’ attention. First, the incidents involve minorities, especially Blacks. Second, the incidents involve criminals who could care less about buying their guns legally. That is, they will get their guns regardless of President Obama’s BS, insincere bleating.
How could anyone not be troubled by plans for Executive decisions and summary actions that punish only the innocent for actions of criminals. This is way too often our every day life. Just try and do “too many” on line transfers amongst your household bank accounts.
Nor do I care for the dropping of huge coverage and political efforts connected with mass shootings when the actual crimes do not fit the prerequisite narrative. The D.C. sniper had to be an angry, working class Caucasian. The disappearance of attention when the shooters in Oregon and Roanoke turned out to be “outside” the useful narrative.
Guess what media jerks and political quasi-criminals, I do not care what color, race, religion, nationality, etc., of these murderers. I want to know what happened and why, and how to prevent it from happening again. Instead we get selective release of facts & crazy political statements that create loopholes through which wackos drive their conspiracy-nut ideas. Personally, I would prefer Leadership.
Number of TSA agents arrested since 2003: 400+
Number of terrorists caught by the TSA: 0
Interesting Numbers.
Last night the news showed the armored tanks with the battering ram that can go right through a door or wall while protecting the police inside. A gun certainly has no purpose any longer to hold off the government when it wants to come after citizens. The NRA now needs to insist that every citizen has a right to have an armoured tank with a battering ram or a defensive system to stop such an armored tank.
Terrorism has been around since Biblical times. James Madison and the Framers of the Constitution were well aware of war and terrorism when the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified.
That’s the real fraud here: there is no “Terrorism-Exemption” to the supreme law of the land without a constitutional amendment – period.
Judges have rewarded executive branch officials by not enforcing the U.S. Constitution if the term “Terrorism” is used. The net result is those officials mission-creeped the label – today they use “terrorism” authorities primarily for “non-terrorism” investigations to include legal First Amendment exercises (ex: Black Lives Matter protestors, Occupy Wall Street protestors, environmental rights groups, marriage equality groups, etc). The vast majority had absolutely no connection to the 9/11 terrorists.
The fraudulent labels must conform to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights – the Constitution doesn’t confirm to the fraudulent labels.
Beldar here: You Planet Earth two legged earthlings are about to go on a rapid war and holocaust against your Muslim Bretheran. You need to of course but at the same time you must start stomping out all so called “religions”. Its not fried chicken, its Shakin Bake. I hear that old commercials in America. It is kind of like Baptists selling their religion to Methodists. It is all based on Faith and Faith is dumb as a post. I would post more but the bar in New Orleans is opening up and I have to go in.
America’s shame, even those held in highest respect still can’t understand that the only guns should be in the possession of sane, non criminal, educated, responsible types. But we can’t guarantee this because the NRA and other nut cases keep throwing a fit every time regulations that might make that work are proposed. It’s the old “Well that won’t solve the problem so let’s do nothing.” mentality. America’s other shame.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What don’t these corrupt politicians get.
“A few cheering thoughts on terrorism … Terrorism by Moslems in America and Europe cannot be stopped. If attacks do not occur, it will be because nobody tried very hard. Stopping them would require excluding Moslems, deporting them, or controlling them by totalitarian methods. Or, improbably, minding our own business in the Middle East. What you think of the foregoing approaches doesn’t matter, since none of them will be used. In France the result would be a civil war. America is too divided to do anything about anything. The notion that the government can prevent terrorism suggests studied inattention to the obvious. – LewRockwell.com – See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36675/Fred-Reed-Government-Cant-Protect-Us-From-Terrorism/#sthash.UEp1usQz.dpuf
The Bill of Rights were designed to “restrict and restrain” government actions. Starting with U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the late 1960’s with the so-called “War on Drugs” and exploited further after 9/11 – America has lawless government agencies that routinely violate the U.S. Constitution and view the Constitution as optional to follow when convenient, instead of a real restraint on their authority. Judges have essentially become subordinate to these executive branch agencies at the local, state and federal levels.
The first priority should be making these officials start following their own oath of office before they are given additional nanny-state authorities. They have a 100% track record of abusing and exploiting every assumed power they acquire, why would we trust them with more authority?
I’m not sure why Turley and others keep referring to a gun-show ‘loophole.’ There is no loophole. The law doesn’t magically change once you enter through the doors of a gun show. The same law applies regarding the sale of firearms. Whenever you hear anyone refer to a ‘loophole’ you know you are dealing with either a liberal or someone who simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Go to google, put in the term “Three percent” then hit images. Go to facebook and do a search. Go to ebay and do the same. Enough said.
When the wealthy kill thousands in unjust wars throughout the world, they thank those individuals at sporting events for risking their lives for their faux patriotism for freedom fighting while they strip the Citizens of their freedoms and liberties. Not just here in America throughout all the nation states.
When a poor person(s) kill a few people in proportion, those same rich people want to immediately take the majorities guns away, even though they are protected by high security leaving us unprotected as the 14 dead people in California were.
The destruction of private property rights appears to be a result of the nation state. The legalization by the wealthy of the various methods of extracting money and usurping the rights of the majority for the alleged common good contributing to the advancement of war and the resultant terrorism. Religion fanaticism is blamed but anyone with half a brain knows it is much more complex then that. Seeing through this hypocrisy is self-evident to anyone who has their eyes open.
Don’t get me wrong, the dogmatic religions and their followers are a curse to our world, but the underlying evil is of a much greater concern. Allowing the wealthy to continue to steal from the majority through political means must stop or our world will forever be mired in conflict.
It is illogical to conclude that the legalizing of theft and coercion via any form of political means can promote an ethical society. The wealthy have always ended up raping, pillaging and even killing their own citizens under this scenario and it is always been the underlying cause of every atrocity through history. Political power does appear to corrupt our world. Thinking that it is the solution is beyond any logical realm.
Although a supporter of constitutional gun regulations, CENSORSHIP restrictions will immediately follow. How can we talk about gun regulations without censoring violent movies, violent video games and violent TV shows?
Not that some regulation is needed, but be careful when asking for a nanny-state instead of a constitutional “rule of law” model of government.
Government agencies at the local, state and federal levels have absolute contempt for their own oath of office and the constitutional rule of law – this is the nanny-state we are entrusting.
Gun sales are up for Xmas. Gun shops everywhere are thanking Obama and Hillary.
I am back from pooping in some Muslim’s yard. He made his kid wear some burka thing on her head and so I retaliated. One poop’s good for the whole day. But back on topic. Yes the President might be over reaching here. But Congress is lame. It is odd that you humans always talk about a “lame duck President” but never a lame duck Congress.
I have previously discussed the 1933 Parallels. For those of you who are new to the blog or have short memory my discussion focuses on the events of 1933 in Germany when the German Parliament which is known as the Reichstag was burned. The Nazi party blamed the Communists. Later at Nuremburg Trials after the war was over Goring bragged that he did it. But President von Hindenburg issued The Reichstag Decree. That Presidential executive order struck down civil liberties in Germany. The rest may be known to some of you humans. The nazi party took over in full force and began the war and the Holocaust. The parallel to America is the 9/11 bombings in New York and DC. What followed was the Patriot Act. What will follow after the terror attacks around the country remains to be seen.
This dog believes that the humans in America will respond to the Islamic State and the Islamic state of mind with some draconian measures. Trump is not wild enough on these issues. He is more like von Hindenburg. Your Hitler is laying in the wings. The answer is laying in the wind.
Get wind of it.
“The New York Daily News has a controversial front page this morning…”
It’s probably not as controversial as you think. The continued paralysis in Congress on issues like this is probably what angers most voters.