Even the liberal New York Daily News has described Obama’s pending background check expansion as “meaningless,” saying, “the last 15 mass killers all passed… background checks” to acquire firearms.
A January 4 White House executive order fact sheet previews the executive gun controls Obama will announce Tuesday.
The five most offensive aspects of those controls:
1. The main policy would not have stopped any recent mass shootings.
The controls expand background checks to cover more private sellers, although private sellers are not the source of guns used in mass shootings and high-profile shootings–the very kinds of incidents Obama claims he wants to reduce.
Every mass shooter and high profile shooter in recent memory–with the exception of those who stole their guns–bought their guns via background checks. For this reason, even the New York Daily News described Obama’s pending background check expansion as “meaningless,” saying, “the last 15 mass killers all passed… background checks” to acquire firearms.
2. 225 years of precedent, destroyed–without any legislative due process.
The expansion of background checks is an affront to freedom in general, because it brings private sellers under the purview of the government regardless of whether those sellers sell one gun a year or 100. Americans have been selling guns privately since 1791–that’s 225 years–and now, with a swipe of his pen, Obama is saying a portion of those sales must be handled federally and conducted via background checks.
This is a not-so-subtle slide toward universal background checks–the kind of background checks they have in California and France–and it will eventually require a gun registry database in order to be enforceable–like the registry they have in France and the one they are building in California.
3. You can be denied a gun for purely financial reasons or if you are on Social Security.
The attempt to bar certain Social Security beneficiaries from owning or buying guns because they are unable to manage their own finances.
On July 18 Breitbart News reported on Obama’s push to ban gun-possession for Social Security beneficiaries who are believed incapable of handling their own finances. On that same day the Los Angeles Times reported that a ban was being put together “outside of public view,” but the details that were known revealed the ban would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”
This ban has been brought under the auspices of Obama’s executive gun control.
4. It adds more burdens to gun dealers who are already following the law.
Obama is also using executive gun control to place even more reporting requirements–read, regulations–on the backs of Federal Firearms License holders (FFLs), who are federally recognized firearms dealers. Contrary to mainstream media reports and the talking points of gun control groups, FFLs are already highly regulated and monitored by the ATF. Obama’s executive action adds one more hoop through which FFLs must jump.
5. Tax dollars for “smart guns” that nobody wants.
Obama’s executive action instructs the “Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security” to sponsor research into the “smart gun” technology and explore ways to further its use. This means using tax-payer money to pay for something the private sector has no interest in funding.
Broad interest in “smart guns” is absent because they have yet to be demonstrated trustworthy. Such guns are either fitted with biometric readers–through which they are activated by the palm or finger print or their owners–or they are paired with a bracelet or watch that emits a radio signal which activates the gun when in close proximity with it.
To date, the biometric readers raise concerns that they will fail to read the correct palm or finger print if that palm or finger is caked with blood. This means the gun is useless for self-defense. As for “smart guns” paired with watches or bracelets, even if these guns worked the result would be that thieves would simply steal the watch or bracelet along with the gun, therefore outsmarting those who designed the gun for a new level of safety.