http://dunlapnews.com/opinion.cgi
Tue Jan 5 16:12:28 2016
Since the inception of the Republic, American presidents have used their office as a bully pulpit to sway public opinion in their favor on their pet issues. Today, however, we watched something new. Barack Obama held a meeting to announce his planned actions to restrict access to firearms in the United States. He did not try to sway public opinion, or influence Congress to cooperate with him on the issue, he actually set about to make law.
From the beginning, the event was orchestrated to give Mr. Obama the appearance of overwhelming support for his initiative: The presence of the press was reduced to cameras only, and the audience was populated with Obama's supporters and those passionate to increase gun control. As a result, there was abundant applause, and no difficult questions asked, such as How, exactly, does the executive branch take it upon itself to write law, when the Constitution reserves that authority to the legislative branch?
Some of the key provisions of Mr. Obama's new "law" include:
o The hiring of more than 230 new employees by the FBI to assist with background checks.
o Authorization for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE) to spend $4 million to enhance its database of gun purchases.
o Allocation of $500 million in federal funds to improve treatment of mental illness (this would require Congressional approval).
o Prohibiting the purchase of firearms by people with a medical history of mental instability (ever taken Prozac, or told a doctor you have been depressed?), or if their name appears on the government's no-fly list.
o Expanding the definition of "firearms seller" to include a lot of people currently free to sell firearms to individuals, at gun shows and through sites like http://www.gunownersclub.com/listings/ammunition/rifle/ This means that if you want to sell one of your firearms, you would now have to secure a federal firearms license to advertise it on a site like that one and run a background check on the buyer.
This last provision is the most troubling, because it actually makes a law.
Many people are understandably concerned about the violence of our present day, but -- contrary to Mr. Obama's assertions at his announcement today -- that violence is not confined to just the United States. Mass murders happen in many countries, most of them with much more restrictive gun laws than we have in this country. The Islamic terror attack in Paris is still fresh in the minds of people around the world. And the attack on a Norwegian youth camp in 2011 took the lives of over 80 people.
Also noteworthy is the fact that none of the perpetrators of mass killings in the United States in recent years would be stopped from buying guns by Mr. Obama's proposed new law. Some of the guns were stolen, most of the killers could pass a background check.
The only reason Americans in most states can obtain firearms easily is because the right to "keep and bear arms" is written into our Constitution. It is often said that the Second Amendment enforces the First Amendment:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
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.
In 1791, when these Amendments to the Constitution were ratified, popular understanding held that the "militia" was every able-bodied man. The founding fathers saw the right to keep and bear arms as insurance against tyranny.
They were not particularly concerned about the ability to go hunting, or even to defend your family from robbers; they were concerned about the government getting out of hand, and the people needing to set it straight. An unarmed citizenry has had that option taken away from them. They have been emasculated.
The problem with Mr. Obama's proposition today is not only that it "infringes" further on the people's Second Amendment right but that it improperly extends the executive branch's power, infringing on the Constitutionally mandated powers of the people's Congress. And that division is not in the Amendments, but right there in the main body of the Constitution.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, in comments following Mr. Obama's announcement, postulated that this conflict will be settled in the courts, when someone arrested under this unconstitutional edict has the money, the support, and the legal representation to challenge it to the Supreme Court.
Too bad our Congress can not find it in themselves to stand up and challenge such an act and put the office of the president back in the place it is supposed to be -- in balance as one of three branches of government, and not the greatest among equals.
Tue Jan 5 16:12:28 2016
Since the inception of the Republic, American presidents have used their office as a bully pulpit to sway public opinion in their favor on their pet issues. Today, however, we watched something new. Barack Obama held a meeting to announce his planned actions to restrict access to firearms in the United States. He did not try to sway public opinion, or influence Congress to cooperate with him on the issue, he actually set about to make law.
From the beginning, the event was orchestrated to give Mr. Obama the appearance of overwhelming support for his initiative: The presence of the press was reduced to cameras only, and the audience was populated with Obama's supporters and those passionate to increase gun control. As a result, there was abundant applause, and no difficult questions asked, such as How, exactly, does the executive branch take it upon itself to write law, when the Constitution reserves that authority to the legislative branch?
Some of the key provisions of Mr. Obama's new "law" include:
o The hiring of more than 230 new employees by the FBI to assist with background checks.
o Authorization for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE) to spend $4 million to enhance its database of gun purchases.
o Allocation of $500 million in federal funds to improve treatment of mental illness (this would require Congressional approval).
o Prohibiting the purchase of firearms by people with a medical history of mental instability (ever taken Prozac, or told a doctor you have been depressed?), or if their name appears on the government's no-fly list.
o Expanding the definition of "firearms seller" to include a lot of people currently free to sell firearms to individuals, at gun shows and through sites like http://www.gunownersclub.com/listings/ammunition/rifle/ This means that if you want to sell one of your firearms, you would now have to secure a federal firearms license to advertise it on a site like that one and run a background check on the buyer.
This last provision is the most troubling, because it actually makes a law.
Many people are understandably concerned about the violence of our present day, but -- contrary to Mr. Obama's assertions at his announcement today -- that violence is not confined to just the United States. Mass murders happen in many countries, most of them with much more restrictive gun laws than we have in this country. The Islamic terror attack in Paris is still fresh in the minds of people around the world. And the attack on a Norwegian youth camp in 2011 took the lives of over 80 people.
Also noteworthy is the fact that none of the perpetrators of mass killings in the United States in recent years would be stopped from buying guns by Mr. Obama's proposed new law. Some of the guns were stolen, most of the killers could pass a background check.
The only reason Americans in most states can obtain firearms easily is because the right to "keep and bear arms" is written into our Constitution. It is often said that the Second Amendment enforces the First Amendment:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
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.
In 1791, when these Amendments to the Constitution were ratified, popular understanding held that the "militia" was every able-bodied man. The founding fathers saw the right to keep and bear arms as insurance against tyranny.
They were not particularly concerned about the ability to go hunting, or even to defend your family from robbers; they were concerned about the government getting out of hand, and the people needing to set it straight. An unarmed citizenry has had that option taken away from them. They have been emasculated.
The problem with Mr. Obama's proposition today is not only that it "infringes" further on the people's Second Amendment right but that it improperly extends the executive branch's power, infringing on the Constitutionally mandated powers of the people's Congress. And that division is not in the Amendments, but right there in the main body of the Constitution.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, in comments following Mr. Obama's announcement, postulated that this conflict will be settled in the courts, when someone arrested under this unconstitutional edict has the money, the support, and the legal representation to challenge it to the Supreme Court.
Too bad our Congress can not find it in themselves to stand up and challenge such an act and put the office of the president back in the place it is supposed to be -- in balance as one of three branches of government, and not the greatest among equals.