Is the White House losing the fight for gun control?

For those who think things aren't going to move forward...announced today:

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements.
Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips. But Biden, who has been leading Obama’s task force on the response, spent two hours briefing a small group of sympathetic House Democrats on the road ahead in the latest White House outreach to invested groups.

The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation.

The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said.
 
I think the Whitehouse is waiting to see how bad it goes on Cuomo. Let's try to make it at least a little scary. If I lived there I'd be looking to start a recall vote this afternoon yet. New York Isn't just a city. There's a state, some call it upstate New York. It's fun to hit, until someone hits back. I assure you, none of those politicians seek martyrdom for this cause. It's no fun winning, if they make you sitdown and shut up.
 
OK, there are a few things that need to be remembered about American politics when considering the issue. This may be mildly political and for that I apologize, but I think it's necessary to adequately explain the situation. Roughly 40% of people will always vote Democrat and roughly 40% will always vote Republican, it's the 20% in between that usually decides an election. In the case of the Democrat party, a good portion of their 40% base supports gun control, but the issue is much less popular amongst the 20% of "swing voters". This puts them in a somewhat precarious position because angering the swing voters will ensure losses in future elections, but they still need to motivate their base to get out and vote as well.

So, the question for the Democrat party is how to appease the base without stepping on the toes of everyone else. President Obama's base has not been very happy with him over gun control (he recieved an F rating from the Brady Campaign over the lack of gun control in his first term) and thus he runs the risk of damaging the party if he does nothing over Sandy Hook. On the other hand, gun control remains a poison issues outside of the Democrat base and thus anything too extensive on that front would also be damaging to the party.

Because of this, what the President needs to do in order to placate his base without angering the swing voters is to take symbolic action on gun control without forcing Democratic members of Congress to vote on it one way or the other. In essence, the President can "take the fall" on gun control because he cannot be re-elected again and thus is immune to the ire of swing voters.

Now, a sweeping executive order could potentially be just as damaging to Congressional Democrats as anti-gun legislation. This is for two reasons: first there would be a fair amount of guilt by association for being in the same party as a gun banner. Second, to do anything really sweeping the President would have to overstep the boundaries of his executive power which would almost certainly provoke a fight with Congressional Republicans. Like gun control legislation, a fight over executive orders would force Congressional Democrats to pick a side and neither position is likely to leave them unscathed.

The wise thing for the President to do, politically, is to issue executive orders that do not overstep his authority nor enact substantial new gun control. Examples of such would be ordering the ATF to more aggressively prosecute people to make straw purchases or false statements on 4473's. This would allow him, and by extension his party, to placate the base by doing something without forcing Congressional Democrats from moderate or conservative districts to take a stance on the issue one way or the other. Likewise, it would allow him to rally the base by blaming Congressional Republicans for preventing him from taking more substantial gun control measures. The wise thing for us to do is to keep pressure on our legislators, particularly Democrats, so that they remain of the opinion that gun control is a poison issue.
 
I think they will get something. About 60% of the population wants to see some action.
I agree with Obama "It should be as easy to get mental health care as it is to buy an assault rifle". Trouble is, that would cost real money.
 
pturner67, I think you are conflating executive orders and intended leadership attempts from the bully pulpit.

Obama can't EO an AWB or magazine ban. He can't EO background checks. He may try to push an agenda for Congress to consider, and do his best to sell it, but he can't do the things you suggest via EO.
 
I think they will get something. About 60% of the population wants to see some action.
I agree with Obama "It should be as easy to get mental health care as it is to buy an assault rifle". Trouble is, that would cost real money.
Click to expand...

While a fairly large number of people polled favor vauge proposals such as "stricter gun laws," when the pollster starts asking about more specific measures, such as an assault weapons ban, the number of people favoring it begins dropping off fairly dramatically. Likewise, the most reputable poll numbers on the issue are fairly old now (mid to late December) and the emotional reaction fades with each passing day.
 
Can this partly explain why he appeared to put Biden in charge of gun control?
Click to expand...
Yep. He wants to disengage himself from the issue while looking like he's doing something on the issue. The best way to do that? Appoint a panel.

Panels talk. Then they talk some more. A few months later, they publish a report, all nicely double-spaced with a pretty cover. By that point, the public is more concerned with other issues, so it gets forgotten. The point is, the President can say "I did something."

About 60% of the population wants to see some action.
Click to expand...
Actually, about 60% of people who actually answer the phone at dinner time and agree to talk to pollsters want to see some action. Those folks don't always indicate a general cross-section of the population.

That said, New York just gave us a very effective (if not morbid) argument not to give an inch. Their bill is very much in line with what Feinstein and others said they wanted, and it's a good indicator of what can happen when folks "just want to do something" without considering the consequences.
 
That said, New York just gave us a very effective (if not morbid) argument not to give an inch. Their bill is very much in line with what Feinstein and others said they wanted, and it's a good indicator of what can happen when folks "just want to do something" without considering the consequences.
Click to expand...

NY resident here. I'm sitting here, listening to the state assembly 'discuss' the proposal that's already passed the state senate.

The ramifications for this new legislation are mind-blowing. By making 8+ magazines (in my case, handguns) illegal, they don't NEED to confiscate anything. They're wiping out a whole class of handgun, by not allowing you to carry it due to the magazine restriction. Whether or not that flies in the face of the Heller ruling or not, THEY ARE TRYING IT.

In keeping with this discussion, keep in mind that Cuomo will be running for president soon. Imagine that? The insanity of this legislation would likely move to the national spectrum. Depending on what he drops on us tomorrow, Obama might look moderate by comparison.
 
Polls can easily be manipulated.

While people that are anti will voice their opinion, the pro crowd doesn't think there's much of an issue.... This happens with any debate, not just guns.

Imagine you love to play UNO with your family, it's a ritual every Thursday night. There's also a group that hates UNO and wants it banned and other people and celebrities share this feeling. All the while, you are unaware of this.

Many people never watch the boring ole news, so it is possible that there's folks out there that don't know this is going on.
 
Doing "something" will not necessarily have to be effective. If it sounds good that will be enough. We all know what kind of action would be effective (I will not list them here for good reason)
Excectutive action would just be either enforcing or strengthening laws already on the books. Still, it takes money to do this. You can pass all the laws you want but if you don't provide funding, nothing happens.
Obama has gone out of his way to avoid the gun issue. This hasn't made some on the left happy but Obama is a politician. He knows a loosing cause when he sees it.
So far it looks like three different parts to the new gun control legislation.
1. Background checks to include mental health issues. (good chance of this)
2. All gun sales to be background checked. (unenforcable, but it sounds good)
3. Ban assault rifles and hi-cap mags. (probably will not get through a Republican majority House)
That's what I see for the present. One more nut case shooting up a large group of people and all bets are off. I, for one, would be very pleased to never hear about a mass shooting ever again.
 
bird_dog...are they outright banning without any grandfather clause whatsoever?
Click to expand...

I'm just reading the actual verbage now. It's confusing (not surprisingly). It looks to grandfather, yes, but also requires magazines capable of carrying more than 7 to only be loaded with 7. And another part says magazines of 10 or more must be sold out-of-state or to a dealer within a year. Whether or not this is only referring to 'assault rifles' is very unclear. It appears to mean all semi-handguns, as well. So, my 1911 would be good to go, but my Ruger P345 (because it has ONE more cartridge capacity) would not?

It appears that NO semi-automatic handguns with a capacity of 8 or more will be legal to sell! I did a text-search to see if there was anything about not having this affect .22 rimfire handguns. There doesn't appear to be. There also doesn't seem to be any mention of revolvers that carry more than 7. Wonder how that will pan out? You can't squirrel hunt with a 9 shot 22 anymore?

I'm sure others are reading it in more detail and with a smarter eye than me but it sure looks bad at first pass-through.
 
Considering that the Republican majority Senate is willing take us to the brink of federal default over the debt limit (and will likely do the same thing again soon), and went to the final moment to kick the can down the road on the fiscal cliff, I tend to agree with dlb345. I think the mental health part could gain traction, depending on practicality (I cannot personally find a real world scenario that would work). Everything else would be a (too) steep hill to climb. Anything can happen. But a new gun control law that would actually pass into law wont likely involve high capacity mags or "assault weapons". He will introduce tough gun control legislation, but it is going to be more of a gesture.

I heard on the news a few minutes ago that one of the EO possibilities included allowing federal grant money to be used for improving school safety, which I feel is a good thing. Actually, all of the EO stuff sounds to me like the president cracking down on strictly enforcing current laws.

"The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said. "
 
Yes, but...

If the EO were promulgated, authorizing CDC to research firearm issues, all Congress would have to do is refuse to fund the CDC for any such program.

EOs can provide guidance and emphasis, but only Congress authorizes funding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top