“Obama uses executive power to move gun control agenda forward”
President Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control.
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.
The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts.
Note the rhetorical move here: giving federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners is, by way of sentence structure, equated with keeping guns away from criminals, for which future legislative efforts are being prepared. The extant legislative efforts having been exhausted, of course.
Privacy? That’s not a right or a concern we need worry about — unless, of course, you want to have a baby scraped from your uterus, or bang a man in the ass in front of Texas law officers. Then its sacrosanct.
It is unclear whether the National Rifle Association (NRA) will challenge any of the executive actions in court. A spokesman for the NRA did not return a request for comment.
Obama’s steps began the same day he unveiled his 23 gun control proposals in January, when he issued a memorandum requiring all nine federal law enforcement agencies to submit guns they confiscate to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing.
According to a notice sent by Attorney General Eric Holder last month, the agencies will have to submit a report to the Justice Department (DOJ) within the next month showing they are compliant.
The move, and several more like it, is aimed at strengthening the quality and quantity of records contained within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to a DOJ spokeswoman.
For years, federal law enforcement officials and gun control advocates have complained that the NICS gun records are not complete, making it easier for people with criminal records and mental illnesses to buy guns.
A key factor in strengthening the NICS database, they say, is getting states to report more information on mental health and criminal history records.
Earlier this month, the DOJ announced a $20 million grant program aimed at incentivizing states to submit more mental health and criminal history information into the NICS database.
— in case you were wondering what the going price was for your medical privacy —
Also this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget said it would consider changing rules to make it easier for states to share mental health records with the NICS.
Through these moves, [Mark] Glaze[, the director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group] said the administration has addressed two of the main reasons for incomplete trace data: a lack of money and privacy concerns.
“By taking direct aim at the two biggest problems inhibiting the database, they are taking a significant chunk out of 50 percent of the system’s weaknesses,” said Glaze.
In January, Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to begin studying the causes of gun violence for the first time since Congress, at the behest of the NRA, began blocking funding for such research in 1996.
As geoff B notes in an email to me, “privacy concerns” here, with respect to the 2nd Amendment, are characterized as a kind of obstacle, a second obstacle being heretofore a lack of bribe money available to “incentivize” states to sell out the privacy of their citizens. King Obama, blessed be He and His Name, has fixed that, however. By executive fiat.
Moreover, the article suggests, the NRA has been standing athwart common-sense anti-privacy measures yelling stop!— and as a result, bad people have done evil things. Liberty being well and truly overrated if what comes along with are concerns over security, particularly, the government being out of every conceivable monitoring loop to protect us from ourselves.
Yet, the reason the NRA and other civil liberties groups don’t want to give the government access to an inventory of our private property, or details of our health — particularly with respect to our weapons — is not, as this article intimates, that they are pro-crazy people with guns, but rather because they know, as do we, the government to be political, and so its aims and motivations and policy are always going to be driven by ideology and expedience, two dangerous threats to rights that are supposedly out of the purview of man, especially once the checks and balances are removed from the equation.
As with “global climate change,” gun control will soon be billed as a matter of medical necessity, and when you live in a system where the government controls health care, your choice may soon be that you can choose between maintaining that “free” universal health care, or surrendering your weapons, which pose a (statistically-manipulated) “outsized danger”. That is, you’ll be free to choose which “right” you value more, the right to your arms or the new “right” to have health care.
Thanks, John Roberts!
Too, what comes to count as mental illness — and a potentiality for violence such that “we” must “act” to “take away the threat” — will be greatly expanded, and will reach into (I predict) such things as prescription drugs, and (as we’ve already seen written about in government documents and studies) the kinds of sociopathology that can be inferred, supposedly, from, say, a distrust of federal government, a desire for limited government, activism within the TEA Party movement, and other markers of potential domestic terrorism.
If the ACLU were in any way the organization they claim to be, they’d be standing alongside the NRA, proposing joint lawsuits to stop this kind of executive overreach and police state tactic.
Time will tell.
But for the Rick Morans out there who continue to pretend we’re living in a status quo world of dueling political parties within an inviolable constitutional framework that promotes and protects a republican system of representative government wherein the citizen is the sovereign, here’s a newsflash: we ain’t, and your failure to acknowledge that fact as it’s become increasingly more apparent makes you complicit in our collective repositioning as subjects.
That you’re wrong is bad enough. But that you argue vehemently against reality for a pay check and some prestige just makes you a whore — and not one of those “with a heart of gold”-kinds, either.
(h/t GeoffB and JD)