Source: Obama to act next week on gun background checks

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Source: Obama to act next week on gun background checks

KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to take executive action next week to expand background checks on gun sales, according to an individual whose gun control advocacy group has been briefed by administration officials about the timing.

The person was not authorized to discuss details before the announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity. White House officials wouldn't confirm the timing. Spokesman Eric Schultz said the president would prefer that Congress act, but he knows that prospect is unlikely.

"That is why he has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there's any additional action we can take administratively," Schultz said Thursday. "The president has made clear he's not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon."

White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said earlier in December that recommendations being submitted to Obama will include measures to expand background checks.

The president has consistently expressed frustration after mass shootings, saying it shouldn't be so easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.

Currently, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to seek background checks on potential firearm purchasers. But advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing a gun.

The source familiar with the administration's efforts said the executive action is expected to set a "reasonable threshold" for when sellers have to seek a background check. That person didn't know whether it would be based on the number of guns sold or revenue generated through gun sales.

The National Rifle Association opposes expanded background check systems. The organization's Institute for Legislative Action says studies have shown that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, the black market or family and friends.

Also, many purchases by criminals are made from straw purchasers who pass background checks. "No amount of background checks can stop these criminals," says the group's website.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-01

[brewsterbudgen]

Too little too late!

[ggt]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

[IAMHERE]

More red tape and hassles for the law abiding citizens. No problem for the criminals.

[khwaibah]

The red neck crackers will love this.

[Publicus]

President Obama will order new rules and regulations on firearm purchases based in existing laws already on the books.

NRA has always maintained existing laws do the job just fine, that no new laws are needed.

New laws are in fact needed but for the time being existing laws have provisions in them seldom used or developed. The only actual criticism that could be made is that POTUS should have taken this tact sooner.

[NeverSure]

Obama and the Clintons hate each other. He appointed her as Sec State to keep her from running against him in his second term. She was the anointed to be POTUS in 2007 but Obama the unknown came out of nowhere and knocked her off. You don't see them having lunch together.

Obama is trying to undercut Hillary's campaign by getting gun owners pizzed at the Democrats in general. Obama the narcissist couldn't care less if the Dems win this time. He has his.

Even a novice knows that 10% of the voters, when voting as a block, can often swing an election, especially an otherwise close election. This is why the Dems pander to blacks and Hispanics.

65% of Americans are strongly in favor of gun rights. Gun owners are politically active and are very likely to vote. Many will also vote as single issue voters if they think their gun rights will be taken. Obama is deliberately messing with the 100 million adult Americans who own guns. He doesn't care about America. He wants to hurt Hillary.

Hillary must be pulling her hair out about him pulling this shit during an election. Many liberal Democrats are avid 2A supporters and this will just remind everyone that Hillary has been soft on 2A.

This isn't what it might seem to be and Trump must be doing handsprings while Hillary chokes on her beer.

Cheers.

[Pinot]

Obama and the Clintons hate each other. He appointed her as Sec State to keep her from running against him in his second term. She was the anointed to be POTUS in 2007 but Obama the unknown came out of nowhere and knocked her off. You don't see them having lunch together.

Obama is trying to undercut Hillary's campaign by getting gun owners pizzed at the Democrats in general. Obama the narcissist couldn't care less if the Dems win this time. He has his.

Even a novice knows that 10% of the voters, when voting as a block, can often swing an election, especially an otherwise close election. This is why the Dems pander to blacks and Hispanics.

65% of Americans are strongly in favor of gun rights. Gun owners are politically active and are very likely to vote. Many will also vote as single issue voters if they think their gun rights will be taken. Obama is deliberately messing with the 100 million adult Americans who own guns. He doesn't care about America. He wants to hurt Hillary.

Hillary must be pulling her hair out about him pulling this shit during an election. Many liberal Democrats are avid 2A supporters and this will just remind everyone that Hillary has been soft on 2A.

This isn't what it might seem to be and Trump must be doing handsprings while Hillary chokes on her beer.

Cheers.

Thank you for the wingnut interpretation. I enjoy knowing what the thinking is, way out there. You were able to work in Obama and Hillary hating each other, pandering to blacks and hispanics, a bogus statistic of 65% of American support of guns, ignoring the stat that Americans favor increasing gun control laws and Hillary's frustration with any gun laws hurting her chances. Extra point for a conspiracy of Obama undermining HRC. I liked that one.

Good job. I give it a 8.5 on the Cruz/Trump insanity scale. Points off for not working in fear and Islamic terrorism.

[bangon04]

More red tape and hassles for the law abiding citizens. No problem for the criminals.

That's right. Guns held legally by careless moronic citizens exercising their right to buy guns in Walmart - these guns never ever ever become illegally held guns used by criminals... no siree.

Edited January 1, 2016 by bangon04

[up-country_sinclair]

You don't see them having lunch together.

It was widely reported that they had lunch together just 3 weeks ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-lunch/

And a google image search provides photos like these from previous lunches/meals:

Obama is trying to undercut Hillary's campaign by getting gun owners pizzed at the Democrats in general. Obama the narcissist couldn't care less if the Dems win this time. He has his.

This is simply ridiculous.

I have no idea how friendly they are or aren't, but you can be certain that they are working together to ensure her election. If a Democrat is not elected, many of President Obama's initiatives, policies and legislative victories will be rolled back.

Viewing the political landscape through a hyperpartisan lens causes the sort of simplistic and misinformed "analysis" found in your post(s).

Edited January 1, 2016 by up-country_sinclair

[NeverSure]

More red tape and hassles for the law abiding citizens. No problem for the criminals.

That's right. Guns held legally by careless moronic citizens exercising their right to buy guns in Walmart - these guns never ever ever become illegally held guns used by criminals... no siree.

And, your post has exactly what to do with the topic which is background checks?

[connda]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Executive Orders are simply dictatorship wrapped in a pleasant sounding package.

The Congress and Senate are the institutions created to pass legislation in the United States. Executive Order was never meant to usurp the power of the Congressional Branch of government. Gun control legislation should rest with the duly elected representatives sent to Washington by each State's constituents.

Sad that the Executive seat has become almost Imperial in it's scope.

[Publicus]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Executive Orders are simply dictatorship wrapped in a pleasant sounding package.

The Congress and Senate are the institutions created to pass legislation in the United States. Executive Order was never meant to usurp the power of the Congressional Branch of government. Gun control legislation should rest with the duly elected representatives sent to Washington by each State's constituents.

Sad that the Executive seat has become almost Imperial in it's scope.

Whiners and wingers never get weary of the same old thumping accompanied by the standard boilerplate rhetoric.

So let's look at the actual and factual record from credible sources linked below. The reference is to the American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

As of December 20th 2015 President Obama had issued 227 executive orders.

As 44th POTUS, Barack Obama's numbered sequence of his EOs are 13489 through 13715.

That's in the thousands.

From EO Number 1 by President George Washington to EO number 13715 by Pres Obama, as of December 20th a couple of weeks ago.

Lord, Clifford L., ed. 1944. Presidential Executive Orders, Numbered 1-8030, 1862-1938. Prepared by the Historical Records Survey, New York City. New York: Books Inc. (emphasis added)

Lord, Clifford L., ed. 1943. List and Index of Presidential Executive Orders (Unnumbered Series, 1789 – 1941). New Jersey Historical Records Survey, Works Progress Administration, Newark, NJ

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

The chronic complainers are the usual suspects of rightwhingers who if they voted at all did not vote for Barack Obama. They have their own myth narrative which they type recite with their eyes closed. Forever.

[2fishin2]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Executive Orders are simply dictatorship wrapped in a pleasant sounding package.

The Congress and Senate are the institutions created to pass legislation in the United States. Executive Order was never meant to usurp the power of the Congressional Branch of government. Gun control legislation should rest with the duly elected representatives sent to Washington by each State's constituents.

Sad that the Executive seat has become almost Imperial in it's scope.

Guess you dont know that the constitution of the US gives the president the authority to use it. Also, guess you dont know that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves with it....

Sad to see that people dont understand their own constitution....

[Shot]

You don't see them having lunch together.

It was widely reported that they had lunch together just 3 weeks ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-lunch/

And a google image search provides photos like these from previous lunches/meals:

Obama is trying to undercut Hillary's campaign by getting gun owners pizzed at the Democrats in general. Obama the narcissist couldn't care less if the Dems win this time. He has his.

This is simply ridiculous.

I have no idea how friendly they are or aren't, but you can be certain that they are working together to ensure her election. If a Democrat is not elected, many of President Obama's initiatives, policies and legislative victories will be rolled back.

Viewing the political landscape through a hyperpartisan lens causes the sort of simplistic and misinformed "analysis" found in your post(s).

The pic above is from July 2013. I wonder why they each have their own S&P shakers? Sort of an evil smirk as BO grasps the knife. I wonder what he is thinking?

[Srikcir]

Too little too late!

Never too late for the still living.

Not everyone believes in reincarnation.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Srikcir

[Publicus]

You don't see them having lunch together.

It was widely reported that they had lunch together just 3 weeks ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-lunch/

And a google image search provides photos like these from previous lunches/meals:

Obama is trying to undercut Hillary's campaign by getting gun owners pizzed at the Democrats in general. Obama the narcissist couldn't care less if the Dems win this time. He has his.

This is simply ridiculous.

I have no idea how friendly they are or aren't, but you can be certain that they are working together to ensure her election. If a Democrat is not elected, many of President Obama's initiatives, policies and legislative victories will be rolled back.

Viewing the political landscape through a hyperpartisan lens causes the sort of simplistic and misinformed "analysis" found in your post(s).

The pic above is from July 2013. I wonder why they each have their own S&P shakers? Sort of an evil smirk as BO grasps the knife. I wonder what he is thinking?

We know what the far out extreme right are thinking.

[chuckd]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Executive Orders are simply dictatorship wrapped in a pleasant sounding package.

The Congress and Senate are the institutions created to pass legislation in the United States. Executive Order was never meant to usurp the power of the Congressional Branch of government. Gun control legislation should rest with the duly elected representatives sent to Washington by each State's constituents.

Sad that the Executive seat has become almost Imperial in it's scope.

Guess you dont know that the constitution of the US gives the president the authority to use it. Also, guess you dont know that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves with it....

Sad to see that people dont understand their own constitution....

I'm curious to know where, exactly, the use of Presidential Executive Orders is authorized in the Constitution.

Would you please provide the Article or Amendment that says this action is authorized?

Thank you in advance.

[Publicus]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Executive Orders are simply dictatorship wrapped in a pleasant sounding package.

The Congress and Senate are the institutions created to pass legislation in the United States. Executive Order was never meant to usurp the power of the Congressional Branch of government. Gun control legislation should rest with the duly elected representatives sent to Washington by each State's constituents.

Sad that the Executive seat has become almost Imperial in it's scope.

Guess you dont know that the constitution of the US gives the president the authority to use it. Also, guess you dont know that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves with it....

Sad to see that people dont understand their own constitution....

I'm curious to know where, exactly, the use of Presidential Executive Orders is authorized in the Constitution.

Would you please provide the Article or Amendment that says this action is authorized?

Thank you in advance.

Allow me....

The U.S. Constitution does not specifically mention executive orders, but presidents argue that the power to issue them is implied in the following statements in Article II of the Constitution:

• "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States"
• "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"
• "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

To be lawful, Executive Orders must derive their authority from a power granted directly to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, or must be made in pursuance of Constitutional Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power. EOs are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by the Constitution or statute.

http://www.theamericanview.com/q-where-are-executive-orders-authorized-in-the-u-s-constitution-2/

By requiring presidents to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed," the Constitution prohibits the president from picking and choosing which laws to enforce. A blanket policy of nonenforcement would amount to an abdication of the immigration agency’s responsibilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/obamas-constitutional-authority-on-immigration-is-well-recognized

The Constitution also gives the president “executive power,” which has always been understood to include the discretionary power to allocate resources among enforcement efforts. The significance of this power has grown over the last century, as Congress has created vast regulatory agencies and given the president control over them.

The only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/the-constitutional-authority-for-executive-orders-on-immigration-is-clear

[Pinot]

" We know what the far out extreme right are thinking. "

No we don't. It always surprises me! The hate, the hypocrisy, the fear, the craziness...fascinates me. Predictable, yet always surprising.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton drive the wingnuts crazy.

Talk of gun control laws drive the right into a lather. Obama in his last year should go pedal to the metal with anything he can do to stop guns from getting in anyone's hands. Buddha knows we don't need any more. He's done Hillary a favor here. All she has to do is support Obama's initiatives.

I don't hold out much hope for America with the gun control disaster. The NRA owns the Republican party. Massacres are just common place at this point. I don't see a possible tipping point. Anything goes. It's excused as a second amendment right (as interpreted by the right).

[Publicus]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Executive Orders are simply dictatorship wrapped in a pleasant sounding package.

The Congress and Senate are the institutions created to pass legislation in the United States. Executive Order was never meant to usurp the power of the Congressional Branch of government. Gun control legislation should rest with the duly elected representatives sent to Washington by each State's constituents.

Sad that the Executive seat has become almost Imperial in it's scope.

Guess you dont know that the constitution of the US gives the president the authority to use it. Also, guess you dont know that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves with it....

Sad to see that people dont understand their own constitution....

I'm curious to know where, exactly, the use of Presidential Executive Orders is authorized in the Constitution.

Would you please provide the Article or Amendment that says this action is authorized?

Thank you in advance.

No problem.

Always glad to help out.

After all, sometimes it's easy for some to ignore established constitutional provisions since 1789, the body of SCOTUS case (common) law since then, and the fact of the total (large) number of Executive Orders issued by all 44 POTUS. I'd mentioned some of this before btw.

The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara records this stuff. In California. On the record. The public record.

For instance, as of December 20th 2015 President Obama had issued 227 executive orders.

As 44th POTUS, Barack Obama's numbered sequence of his EOs to date are 13489 through 13715.

These are ordinal numbers. In the thousands. For your edification, if I may state it in that way, that would be EOs 13,489 to EOs 13,715. Those are the numbers they have at UCSB.

So that would be from EO Number 1 by President George Washington to EO number 13715 by President Barack Obama.

http://www.presidenc...data/orders.php

[Publicus]

" We know what the far out extreme right are thinking. "

No we don't. It always surprises me! The hate, the hypocrisy, the fear, the craziness...fascinates me. Predictable, yet always surprising.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton drive the wingnuts crazy.

Talk of gun control laws drive the right into a lather. Obama in his last year should go pedal to the metal with anything he can do to stop guns from getting in anyone's hands. Buddha knows we don't need any more. He's done Hillary a favor here. All she has to do is support Obama's initiatives.

I don't hold out much hope for America with the gun control disaster. The NRA owns the Republican party. Massacres are just common place at this point. I don't see a possible tipping point. Anything goes. It's excused as a second amendment right (as interpreted by the right).

Landslide elections produce change. Radical manifestations of change.

Barack Obama's election in 2008 carried with it a huge number of Democrats into the Congress, in both the Senate and the House. So after 75 years of trying to enact some sort of a national health care system we got the Affordable Care Act of 2009. Obamacare. Unlike FDR's New Deal, which the conservative Supreme Court reversed in case after case, the current conservative Supreme Court examined Obamacare --twice-- and declined to reverse it. Barack Obama did not have to fight a conservative Supreme Court at all, which FDR had to do every step of the way (in his own unusual approach).

LBJ won the landslide election of 1964 to carry with him record numbers of Democrats into the Congress, in the Senate and in the House. This occurred after LBJ had already used the existing Democratic party majorities in the Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the election landslide of that year, the USA got the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Fast forward to 2008.)

President Obama has been the successful champion of numerous long lost causes, from GLBT equality to stopping war to driving the radical racist right to expose itself for exactly and precisely what they are; from Trump and his fellow crackpot Birthers to the fascists who accuse President Obama of being a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood among their proliferation of other nutcake beliefs.

We've now entered the quadrennial election year 2016 where new horizons present themselves. The time of the Second Amendment Jihadists will come to its end too. Probably as suddenly as everything else I've pointed out along with much else that almost overnight got reversed in the society, the culture, the laws, the Constitution.

Ye of so little faith and belief.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Publicus

[sirineou]

More red tape and hassles for the law abiding citizens. No problem for the criminals.

I thought back ground checks were there to cause problems for the criminals and those who should not have them. Law abiding citizens should be able to endure some red tape and hassles toward that goal

But criminals will get them anyway

Yes some criminals will, but it will be more difficult for them to do so, and some will not get them or it will cost then more.

Here we go again same old boring debate.Just do it and let the unreasonable gun owners cry, Enough already.

Edited January 1, 2016 by sirineou

[Ulysses G.]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

[GinBoy2]

I've had guns most of my life, indeed I've have a gun here if they weren't so darn expensive.

But I've always been perplexed by the virulent opposition to background checks. It just seems common sense.

If I have seizures, my Doctor is required to report it to the DMV, since it has an impact on my ability to drive.

If I apply for a job, the prospective employer can run a background check to see if I have a felony conviction which would make un unsuitable for the job.

But the argument seems to go; if you have mental condition, a convicted felon, when it comes to guns somehow that persons suitability to purchase a lethal weapon without any check is OK

With this logic I assume the same people who object to firearm background checks are equally opposed to an epileptic being able to apply and obtain an unchecked drivers license, or a convicted pedophile applying for a teaching position without any kind of background check.

Seems logical, in a bizzaro kind of world doesn't it

Edited January 1, 2016 by GinBoy2

[seedy]

one Racist post removed

Edit: And a reply.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Scott

[up-country_sinclair]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

President Obama has not issued as many executive orders as his two most recent predecessors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Did you refer to their presidencies as dictatorships?

It's just more of the empty, hyperpartisan rhetoric that is all too often passed off as "analysis".

[chuckd]

Here is another "analysis" of executive actions taken by Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama is making record use of 'presidential memoranda'

December 17, 2014

A review by USA Today shows that the president has issued 198 "presidential memoranda," more than any U.S. president in history.

Presidential memoranda are quite similar to executive orders — in fact, they're almost identical in that they both allow a president to manage and govern the actions of the departments and agencies under the executive branch of government. The convenient difference? Obama can avoid being accused of overusing executive orders if he technically issues a memorandum.

The president has issued 195 (sic) executive orders from his White House, and the review reveals that when the memos and executive orders are combined, "Obama is on pace to issue more 'high-level executive actions' than any president since Harry Truman." Teresa Mull

http://theweek.com/speedreads/440427/obama-making-record-use-presidential-memoranda

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is dated through 2014 and reflects 198 Presidential Memoranda were issued through the end of 2014.

Obama issued an additional 71 decrees in 2015 bringing his total to 269 Presidential Memorandums through 2015.

When added together his Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda totals 495.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/presidential-memoranda

[stillbornagain]

What's even better is that it's by and large the same people who get their knickers in a twist over Muslims immigrating into the USA actually oppose denying access to guns for people on the FBI's terrorist watch list. http://abcnews.go.com/US/individuals-fbis-terrorist-watchlist-allowed-legally-purchase-firearms/story?id=35264669

Apparently when it comes to this civil liberty, their hearts do bleed figuratively. Whether our physical hearts will end up bleeding is immaterial to them.

[stillbornagain]

I didn't notice any right-wingers protest George W. Bush's use of signing statements which basically say that he's not going to enforce or live portions of a law he disagrees with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

Controversy over George W. Bush's use of signing statements[edit]

George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (over 700 opinions, although President Clinton actually issued more^[14]) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements — for example, his signing statement attached to theNational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.^[15]

Wikinews has related news:Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges.^[11][16]

The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:

"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."

The use of signing statements that fall in to the constitutional category can create conundrums for executive branch employees. Political scientist James Pfiffner has written:

"The president is the head of the executive branch, and in general, executive branch officials are bound to follow his direction. In cases in which a subordinate is ordered to do something illegal, the person can legitimately refuse the order. But if the public administrator is ordered to refuse to execute the law ... because the president has determined that the law infringes on his own interpretation of his constitutional authority, the public administrator faces an ethical dilemma."

[17]