Obama weighing executive action on guns

WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps that could be taken through executive action alone, congressional officials said.
Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
Obama is expected to unveil his proposals as early as Wednesday, barely over a month since the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., thrust the gun issue into the national spotlight after years of inaction by Obama and lawmakers.
At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing - including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks - despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," Obama said at a news conference Monday.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," he said. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works."
The president said he would unveil a comprehensive roadmap for curbing gun violence within days. His plan will be based on recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's gun task force and is expected to include both legislative proposals and steps Obama can implement by himself, using his presidential powers.
White House officials believe moving swiftly on gun proposals at a national level, before the shock over the Newtown shooting fades, gives Obama the best chance to get his proposals through Congress.
Officials said Obama and Biden met Monday afternoon to discuss the vice president's recommendations. Ahead of that meeting, Biden huddled with a dozen House Democrats who have formed their own gun violence task force and whose political muscle will be needed to push legislation through Congress.
Biden told those lawmakers that he and his staff had identified 19 steps Obama could take without help from Congress, according to Jenny Werwa, communications director to Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., one of those present. Biden didn't indicate which of those Obama would adopt.
Among other steps, advocacy groups have been pushing Obama to order the Justice Department to crack down on those who lie on background checks; only a tiny number are now prosecuted. Such a step has support from the National Rifle Association, which has consistently argued that existing laws must be enforced before new ones are considered.
Obama also could take steps ordering federal agencies to make more data on gun crimes available and conduct more research on the issue, something Republican congressional majorities have limited through language in budget bills, advocates said.
The president's proposals are also expected to include steps for improving school safety and mental health care, as well as recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment and video games.
A Democratic lawmaker who met with Biden on Monday said the vice president was likely to have given Obama proposals for allowing schools flexibility in spending federal grant money so they could take steps toward safety, including hiring school resource officers, instituting mental health intervention or making repairs like putting locks on doors. Grants could also go to communities to institute programs to get guns away from people who shouldn't have them, said the lawmaker, adding these were steps the president could take without Congress.
The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposals hadn't been announced publicly.
But the most sweeping and contentious elements - including an assault weapons ban - will require approval from Congress. The NRA has vowed to fight any measure that would limit access to guns and ammunition, a hardline position that could sway some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The assault weapons ban, which Obama has long supported, is expected to face the toughest road on Capitol Hill. Congress passed a 10-year ban on the high-grade, military-style weapons in 1994, but supporters didn't have the votes to renew it once it expired.
Obama will also need congressional help to limit high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used by the Newtown shooter, and to require background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a gun. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
Parents of the slain Connecticut children added their voices to the national dialogue Monday. Members of the newly formed group Sandy Hook Promise called for an open-minded discussion about a range of issues, including guns. And lawmakers in New York state pressed ahead with what would be the nation's first gun control measure approved since the school shootings.
Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
Obama is expected to unveil his proposals as early as Wednesday, barely over a month since the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., thrust the gun issue into the national spotlight after years of inaction by Obama and lawmakers.
At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing - including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks - despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," Obama said at a news conference Monday.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," he said. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works."
The president said he would unveil a comprehensive roadmap for curbing gun violence within days. His plan will be based on recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's gun task force and is expected to include both legislative proposals and steps Obama can implement by himself, using his presidential powers.
White House officials believe moving swiftly on gun proposals at a national level, before the shock over the Newtown shooting fades, gives Obama the best chance to get his proposals through Congress.
Officials said Obama and Biden met Monday afternoon to discuss the vice president's recommendations. Ahead of that meeting, Biden huddled with a dozen House Democrats who have formed their own gun violence task force and whose political muscle will be needed to push legislation through Congress.
Biden told those lawmakers that he and his staff had identified 19 steps Obama could take without help from Congress, according to Jenny Werwa, communications director to Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., one of those present. Biden didn't indicate which of those Obama would adopt.
Among other steps, advocacy groups have been pushing Obama to order the Justice Department to crack down on those who lie on background checks; only a tiny number are now prosecuted. Such a step has support from the National Rifle Association, which has consistently argued that existing laws must be enforced before new ones are considered.
Obama also could take steps ordering federal agencies to make more data on gun crimes available and conduct more research on the issue, something Republican congressional majorities have limited through language in budget bills, advocates said.
The president's proposals are also expected to include steps for improving school safety and mental health care, as well as recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment and video games.
A Democratic lawmaker who met with Biden on Monday said the vice president was likely to have given Obama proposals for allowing schools flexibility in spending federal grant money so they could take steps toward safety, including hiring school resource officers, instituting mental health intervention or making repairs like putting locks on doors. Grants could also go to communities to institute programs to get guns away from people who shouldn't have them, said the lawmaker, adding these were steps the president could take without Congress.
The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposals hadn't been announced publicly.
But the most sweeping and contentious elements - including an assault weapons ban - will require approval from Congress. The NRA has vowed to fight any measure that would limit access to guns and ammunition, a hardline position that could sway some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The assault weapons ban, which Obama has long supported, is expected to face the toughest road on Capitol Hill. Congress passed a 10-year ban on the high-grade, military-style weapons in 1994, but supporters didn't have the votes to renew it once it expired.
Obama will also need congressional help to limit high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used by the Newtown shooter, and to require background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a gun. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
Parents of the slain Connecticut children added their voices to the national dialogue Monday. Members of the newly formed group Sandy Hook Promise called for an open-minded discussion about a range of issues, including guns. And lawmakers in New York state pressed ahead with what would be the nation's first gun control measure approved since the school shootings.
Yeah, lets make new laws and NOT enforce the ones already in place. Good call, clown.
What obozo is doing by surrounding himself with children for this news conference, is to play the peoples emotions like a fiddle, keep stirring the pot while the stirring is good.  Do not be swayed, do not be taken in by obozo's apparent show of 'concern'. He could care less. This is nothing more than political grandstanding by obozo and the democraptic party.
Almost all the shooting happened with a stolen weapon. Not a legal optained weapon. How is gun contral going to keep the nut jobs or gang bangers from guns???? How about this: Enforce the Laws that are already there. Improve on some and increase the fines and punishment for those that are caught breaking the law. Remeber the Federal Gov. is guilty of breaking thier own laws and getting away with it. Look up the Fed gun walking programs. There was a couple but there is one that let over 1800 assault style weapons walk accross to Mexico. The U.S Gov has know Idea where these firearms are. Except for the ones that have been linked to a few murders right now. Includding an American Boarder Agent. R.I.P Brain.. Lost but not forgottin...
 @cpt.iceman 'Almost all the shooting happened with a stolen weapon. Not a legal optained weapon. How is gun contral going to keep the nut jobs or gang bangers from guns????'Â
It won't.Â
Okay! Let's say I have an assault rifle or more. Lets also say I haveb a dozen or more hi-cap mags. What are you going to do about It?
@The Resistance Nothing. Cant. They can try, but will fail.Â
@MrAchilles --- When I die my relatives aren't going to turn in my guns either.
I wonder why politicians don't want to look at the source of guns used in school shootings? Â They didn't come at the time from gun shows, but from homes. Â If people would lock guns up, they would be non-usable. Â Make it a felony if you don't lock your gun up and its used in a murder. Â Kids will take what they want if its available or steal it.
IMPEACH OBAMA!!!!!!
This is my last post on the "Gun" issue, or any other article related to this madness.  My head is going to explode if I hear or see another "My constitutional rights" "Civil War" "Law abiding citizen" "the government is taking my guns"  "Obama is a dictator/Hitler"  Hey, I'm a law abiding citizen...I'm all for the 2nd amendment...but, guess what, Obama is not Hitler and he ain't taking your guns from you folks.  This issue will never have a happy medium...there will never be a "be all, end all with this issue".  It will go on and on and on.  This is about making us, the citizens of the United States of America safer and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals/mentally ill and gun owners who are not responsible with their firearms.  I read some of these posts on  here and I really worry about some of these..."Law abiding citizens", who own firearms.  They are the ones who carry everywhere and end up shooting at three kids who steal a cell phone from an AT&T store in Gresham...(it happened, look it up) He said he tried to shoot out the tires??  WTF?  We can sit here and argue...what is an assault rifle...or what is considered an assault weapon all day long with different opinions and beliefs....does that make me wrong if I disagree?  One thing that I know for certain and is a fact, that there are two types of gun owners out there...responsible ones and the paranoid ones.  Which category do you fall into?  Do you lock em' away and secure them?...or do you keep a loaded pistol in your night stand or under your pillow?  Now, I will sit back and enjoy the responses...negative or positive...it will be a treat.
@PD1202 --- You are not paranoid if they are actually trying to take you guns. The right to bear arms (not privilege) shall not be infringed. End of is discussion.
@PD1202 Thank you I agree with your sentiment.
Just Say No to obama gun "control"
Â
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507
@TimBurr---Man I like it! Let's see now, when was it that the government wanted to tell the states what they were to do? Time to tell the Feds that if they try any monkey business in our jurisdiction we've gonna mess ya Up!
The democRats govern out of fear, not reason. Â There's no new gun law, EO, or politician that is going to protect you and your family. Â That's why we have the 2nd, and it ain't about hunting.Â
Go ahead and call in favors, twist arms, and burn up what political capital you have left. This is one issue that isn't strictly D or R, a lot of union members are also gun owners and don't think the nation needs Chicago's gun laws, as effective as he might think they are.Â
Â
EO's would only lead to court challenges and maybe a USSC ruling finally about how far those can go. They've been abused several times over the years, with attempts to blur the line between the executive and legislative branch. I see only upside for the gun lobby on this one.
On July 2, 2008,while campaigning in Colorado,a (then) Senator Obama called for the creation of a "Civilian National Security Force." He said it would need to be "just as powerful,just as strong,and just as well funded as the U.S military." Again,on June 10, 2010. AS PRESIDENT,he reiterated the need for a "Civilian Expeditionary Force." He said the Force CAN be used to help in nation building.Obviously,funding was a problem,and to do this would require CIVILIANS to be armed with all of the same type of weaponry our military has access to ???? The anti-war web sites were extremely concerned with these statements.WAKE UP PEOPLE !! I don't care what side of the political isle you're on.This guy is the poster boy for HYPOCRISY ! !
@angry1 http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/
@JTesla....Ah,yes ,the left leaning,Annenberg Foundation's, "Factcheck.Org." The problem here, is the writer basing his "facts" on the comments of just one Rep Paul Broun.It sounds as if one person's comments triggered the whole controversy.The fact is ANTI-WAR.COM's web site reported concerns on both the 2008 and 2010 statements from Obama.Retired Special Forces Commander William Boykin was/is just as concerned.When people think of a Security Force as powerful as the U.S. military,they don't think of an unarmed Peace Corps or Americorps.
@JTesla..And,to be honest as well,I read the "relevant" portion of text. It sounds harmless enough,but is that what he really meant? Whatever ridiculous plan he had in mind, the country was,and still is ,in no condition to fund such an endeavor.It wouldnt be the first time Obama says one thing and means another.Obama has backtracked on way too many issues to be taken seriously.Just one example.....Remember when he was against a troop surge before he was for it?
@angry1 To be honest, I don't care about the writer, or "Factcheck.org" what I liked about the link is that it had the full text of what was said. Reading the full text indicates that you'd need a tinfoil hat in order to twist it to the degree with which it's been twisted.
It seems to be more and more like "Freedom Lovers" being attacked by "Power Seekers"! Now Jessi Jackson thinks it could be dangerous to homeland security, "that guy in Colorado was so close to the airport, he could have shot down an airliner"............what a tool!
It ifs funny that that that the POTUS is using the Lincoln Bible for his last swearing in he will ever have.
Â
Considering if he does  do an E.O. to address this problem , he swill bring us the closest to a Civil War since the Democratic South thought it was a good idea to fight for the right to enslave humans.
Â
 Hence the Irony of using the Lincoln Bible to swear he will uphold and protect the constitution ( What a joke that will be).
The Bible means nothing to this d-bag. Â
 @Civ Civil War huh?  Time for a reality check Civ....this is the 21st century...times have changed my friend...(and so has the Democratic party)....too bad the South and some of you on here can't seem to get with the times.
 @PD1202  @Civ
If this idiot of a president tries to infringe on the constitution under the guise of an E.O. that even come close to any gun bans , see what happens. And your right this is the 21st Century and the south is still the south , the democrats are still Democrats.
Â
Are you saying the Civil War was about  , what ,the Federal Government  trying to impose their  rule on states that did not want it or about ending Slavery?
Â
Kind of sounds familiar. Like when we declared Independence in 1776  because of the oppression and taxation from the British?  Or now , instead of enforcing law already on the books( Fast and Furious not withstanding as one of the most disgusting use of Executive powers I have ever seen ,  even Nixon faced up to what he did without trying to cover it up) the consensus is to ban lawful firearms ,  and come up with illegal registration requirements .
Â
So yes this country is as close to being split up as it did back in the 1860s. But instead of righting a wrong the Feds are creating one.Â
Yeah lets make new laws and NOT enforce the ones already in place. Â
"If Odummer only had a brain"... while the way the hours... making more plans for golf... Taking your tax dollars... for more vacations ahead.
@Civ Thanks for the answer. I also find the "research" portion to be the one I have the most questions on, but then I'm not a fan of government spending and research tends to be just that.
 @JTesla  @Civ Well since those laws are already on the books, it is a wash isnt it??? As far a school grant flexibility, I am all for it if it will be used to arm the teachers and administrators.
Â
As for the limits on gun research , what exactly will the be researching, our firearms serial numbers? nope that is in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Â
Anyways we saw how well this idiotic administration  researched  the rifles that killed the border patrol agent in AZ, so I would guess they would screw that  E.O. up to.....
@Civ Civ, do you have a problem with any of the following if issued as Executive Orders: "ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety"?
 @PD1202  @Civ Ok then, let's proceed with that train of thought. Since, as you pointed out "times have changed", perhaps we ought to consider partitioning this country and go our separate ways. Consider it a friendly divorce. I mean, after all "times have changed"...
@NotAChance @PD1202 @Civ I for one hope that the south secedes. Across the board Republican leaning parts of the country pay far less in federal dollars, and get more back, than the Democratic coasts.  Even the biggest economic engine in the conservative movement, Texas, is turning Democrat. And because it has a resource extraction biased economy instead of a 21st century knowledge biased one they will continue to be on a long term downward spiral. Good luck wingnuts!Â
 @Civ The only joke is your (mis)understanding of history.
For a dictatorial President a population that is less armed would be a good thing when Martial Law occurs.
@TimBurr Delusional.
 @JTesla  @TimBurr Everything he said has historical precedent. It's a statement of logical and strategic fact that dictators do this.
Â
Whether President OBAMA intends to disarm the population is another statement, but not one that was included in his statement which you summarily condemned anyway.
@TimBurr I've read enough of TimBurr's comments over the last year to know that he wasn't making a simple statement regarding dictators and history, and you know that too.
 @JTesla  @TimBurr Realistic.
Â
BaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaa
Actually the realist here outnumbers the Kool-aid drinkers. Not even close! Â
 @PD1202  @TimBurr  @JTesla So many sheep on this forum. Add you to the list.
 @TimBurr  @JTesla No...sorry Timmy...you are very delusional.  We as a Nation are more stable and rational, than you and some of your end of the world cohorts on here think to believe.
I was raised around guns and taught their proper use, and they fed us many times. I still feel guns don't kill people but people kill people. It's keeping them out of the wrong hands that's the number one issue. Unstable people are capable of anything. One used a car to kill herself and took 4 people I love with her. Cars are more dangerous if you really look at it. Especially when people don't know how to operate them properly. Honestly I can keep going on what could pose a threat to people. It all comes back to the unstable ones every time. Assault rifles have no purpose except for killing people. That's why they were created. Personally, I don't see how they could serve a hunter well. If you need to fire 60 rounds per second then maybe you shouldn't be hunting in the first place. Whatever happened to being proactive instead of being reactive? Nobody wants to work together to end this problem. It's just sad.. Judging by these posts, there is obviously a clear difference between a hunter and a gun enthusiast.
@PDXBEAR 60 rounds per second? A mini gun perhaps? Only a class 3 weapons license holder can have anything like this after laws passed in 1939. You are drinking the kool-aid of the uniformed media, and truly doubt you ever fed your family by hunting, as anyone with knowledge of weapons should know better than make a rediculous statement like that. I hunt with an AR, and use a five round magazine as required by law, and went to the range and scored better at 800yrds than a neigbor that had the same ignorant view of Armalite style rifles, and he had a $3000 bolt gun. Corvettes have 500hp, which is no way needed on the highway and could be considered dangerous in the wrong hands, should we ban these as well?
 @flyroy  @PDXBEAR Why are you buying that axe? Are you a lumberjack? If not, explain your need for such a tool and how it will be stored.
I can see a myriad of opportunities for federal inspectors and regulations.
More people die by Auto's then Guns!!!! Time to have Auto Contral...
 @flyroy I just think that it's unnecessary to own a high powered rifle unless you're hunting elephants. That's my personal opinion. As for hunting, yes.. I have hunted all my life. You don't have to believe it. I'm just worried that it's going to be ruined for everyone. If your re-read my post, you can't say that I am berating gun owners. I'm trying to see an even medium here. I just wish that more people would proact and not react the way they have. Whatever happened to working together, or did it ever exist? ..and the men who passed a law  in 1939 clearly didn't foresee what is happening now. It's an abuse of rights when things like this (massacres) happen. We need to focus more on the carriers than the guns themselves. Just my 2 cents.
PDXBEAR in you're statement you said"..and the men who passed a law in 1939 clearly didn't foresee what is happening now. It's an abuse of rights when things like this (massacres) happen." FYI they had Bonnie&Clyde with BAR's robbing banks and killing people along with Babby Face and Capone that had Tommy Guns. That is why the 1939 law was passed. Thay had to deal with FULLY Auto guns not Semi-Autos. Don't forget they also had people running around with TNT untill they regulated that also(A person blew up a school with TNT killing alot of people includding himself). Instead of making new laws just enforce what is on the books. Crazy will allways find a way to do what crazy does.
 @PDXBEAR  @flyroy "Whatever happened to working together, or did it ever exist?"
Â
The issue is, the phrase "working together" now means "you must move my way" to many. And many of us do believe there are absolutes.Â
Â
And no, I'm not a Sith...
 @PDXBEAR "If you need to fire 60 rounds per second then maybe you shouldn't be hunting in the first place"
Â
I respect your posts here, typically, so I'm simply going to tell you that there's no such thing as a hunter who is firing 60 rounds per second. The reason people are being reactive is because we're reacting to ridiculous, insane opinions by people who have no idea what in hell they're even talking about. Hales doesn't know the Oregon gun laws but he presumes to represent Oregon?Â
Â
It's like telling equestrians that you're going to restrict horse ownership because people who need to ride unicorns don't belong in the saddle.
 @PDXBEAR "there is obviously a clear difference between a hunter and a gun enthusiast."
Â
It doesn't even have to be a gun enthusiast, simple wanting one for self-defense is good enough. There is a reason that the police use Glock pistols and AR rifles, with their normal 17 and 30rnd capacity magazines, and the reason is that they are necessary. As the defender is always at a disadvantage to the aggressor who has the luxury of foresight, planning, and ultimately choosing the time and place for their attack.
Â
The regular person (cops are actually civilians too) needs these type of arms even more than the police do, because they're the ones that have to survive to summon the police.