White House Plans to Release New Gun Safety Measures ‘in the Near Future’

[MikePapa1]

White House Plans to Release New Gun Safety Measures ‘in the Near Future’ | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Wonder if the new safety plan will forbid federal law enforcement agencies selling weapons to gangsters?

[1gewehr]

To me 'common-sense gun control' involves disarming most Federal agencies. Get real! Why does the FDA need armed agents? Protecting themselves against a chicken uprising? Oh, I forgot, 'Cows with Guns'

[mikegideon]

Cool! Looks like Obama's fixin' to kick off a new buying frenzy. Congrats to our friends in the gun and ammo business. Can't all this pending stuff be reversed when Obama moves back to Illinois?

[Kenstaroni]

Cool! Looks like Obama's fixin' to kick off a new buying frenzy. Congrats to our friends in the gun and ammo business. Can't all this pending stuff be reversed when Obama moves back to Illinois?

I hope a lot of things can be reversed when he exits the office he never deserved.

[Guest Arch]

What gets me even more is how he kept his office even after the fake birth certificate came out and was summarily dismissed by everyone even though it was proven to be a forgery. I guess those in high places can pretty much cover anything up these days. That being the case, we are already doomed to what we and those before us have allowed to happen. Our forefathers would be terribly embarassed by this. That being said, get them while they are hot and buttered because we may not be able to very soon.

[Worriedman]

Reading the full article, and the tags, which brings up a question:

Glaze says there are steps the president could take that would make a difference now, without waiting for Congress to act.

For example, military and federal agencies are required to report people with mental health and drug problems to the criminal background check system, but they often don't. That's something gun control advocates say the president could fix.

To the point that the Giffords shooting is the driver for this new push to do "Something", why are they not drilling down to the local level? Pima County Sheriff Dupnik's department was confronted with several calls from his college, yet they did nothing. I have seen nothing about holding Dupnik accountable for having fore-knowledge about Loughner's instability. As the Sheriff is the most powerful LE officer in any County, should he be held to account for failing to act on information that his department had in hand?

[bigwakes]

They should make a law that murder is illegal. The only way to stop crazy people from killing is to have everyone in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. Would we be having this discussion if Laughner stole a dump truck and ran it into Giffords and the crowd? The article makes a good point about enforcing the laws already on the books. That would have stopped Laughner too if you see all the police reports about this kid. He should have had a record that would have prevented a sale. But he would have just stolen a gun from his dad or uncle and would have prompted a different kind of legislation.

[Defender]

I'm starting to get a little bit concerned that he may be somewhat successfull at this...

[RobertNashville]

Cool! Looks like Obama's fixin' to kick off a new buying frenzy. Congrats to our friends in the gun and ammo business. Can't all this pending stuff be reversed when Obama moves back to Illinois?

+1

[bajabuc]

That part about the tax hike and the lady saying...We the People have the Guns and the tax hike failing to pass...wonderful

[RobertNashville]

Reading the full article, and the tags, which brings up a question:

To the point that the Giffords shooting is the driver for this new push to do "Something", why are they not drilling down to the local level? Pima County Sheriff Dupnik's department was confronted with several calls from his college, yet they did nothing. I have seen nothing about holding Dupnik accountable for having fore-knowledge about Loughner's instability. As the Sheriff is the most powerful LE officer in any County, should he be held to account for failing to act on information that his department had in hand?

With regards to Loughner and the Gifford's shooting in AZ, I can't help but wonder what kind of outcry would be heard about "overreaching/overreacting LE" and violation of constitutional rights, etc., etc. had the sheriff acted preemptively? What would be the reaction of gun owners (like those of us on TGO) if Loughner had been denied his Glock purchase because of "reports" the sheriff had received?

I don't know what evidence the sheriff had in front of him nor how confirmed/legitimate it was; certainly it looks VERY legitimate AFTER Loughner's the shooting rampage - I'm not at all saying the sheriff was "right" here but I can see why the sheriff or any other LEO would be loath to act too quickly because of something someone "might" do.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't think there would have been much outcry denying the purchase on someone as obviously crazy as Loughner.

A few months ago was the news story of the confused TN or KY man who was shooting at imaginary assailants who were imaginarily following him along the road. He even called 911 for help against the imaginary foes.

The 2nd is a fundamental right, but on the other hand there are at least 5 percent of people who really ought not to have guns due to mental illness.

[Defender]

I think Loughner had enough of a history that I wouldnt have a prob with denying him, but how do you keep track of these people? Who would decide who goes into the dont arm database? Might be a slippery slope, but could be worked out. I worked with areally really smart older lady a few years ago that was finally diagnosed with senile dementia...some time before that tho she came to me asking if I would train her on how to shoot a pistol...she said she lived alone in a rough nieghborhood and was afraid. I was actually thinking about trying to help her, when she went on to say that there was a man bothering her, and that she never saw him, but she knew he was in her home because he would leave dirty drinking glasses in her sink and she heard him sleeping one night under her bed. After a couple trips to her house with a co worker, of course I saw she had lost her mind...I know I digress here, but it really brings to light the fact that people who are freaking nuts are often not diagnosed...cant see how to weed out those folks without also weeding out many more of us who might not fit the mold of what some see as normal...In any event, wed better be writing our reps in DC and mobilizing things cua they ARE gonna try to do some gun control....and the way to get it thru is to make it small, but with the possiblilities of more down the road...once they get their foot in that door...look at the ATF now...running rampant over our rights...

Edited July 10, 2011 by barewoolf

[mikegideon]

I think Loughner had enough of a history that I woul;dnt have a prob with denying him, but how do you keep track of these people? Who would decide who goes into the dont arm database? Might be a slippery slope, but could be worked out. I worked with areally really smart older lady a few years ago that was finally diagnosed with senile demntia...some time before that tho she came to me asking if I would train her on how to shoot a pistol...she said she lived alone in a rough nieghborhood and was afraid. I was actually thinkinmg about trying to help her, when she went on to say that there was a man bothering her, and that she never saw him, but she knew he was in her home because he would leave dirty drinking glasses in her sink and she heard him sleeping one night under her bed. After a couple trips to her house with a co worker, of course I saw she had lost her mind...I know I digress here, but it really brings to light the fact that people who are freaking nuts are often not diagnosed...cant see how to weed out those folks without also weeding out many more of us who might not fit the mold of what some see as normal...In any event, wed better be writing our reps in DC and mobilizing things cua they ARE gonna try to do some gun control....and the way to get it thru is to make it small, but with the possiblilities of more sown the road...oncve they get their foot in that door...look at the ATF now...running rampant over our rights...

And, what if the same old girl jumps into a car? There are only so many laws you can write before you have the mess we're living in today.

[Worriedman]

With regards to Loughner and the Gifford's shooting in AZ, I can't help but wonder what kind of outcry would be heard about "overreaching/overreacting LE" and violation of constitutional rights, etc., etc. had the sheriff acted preemptively? What would be the reaction of gun owners (like those of us on TGO) if Loughner had been denied his Glock purchase because of "reports" the sheriff had received?

I don't know what evidence the sheriff had in front of him nor how confirmed/legitimate it was; certainly it looks VERY legitimate AFTER Loughner's the shooting rampage - I'm not at all saying the sheriff was "right" here but I can see why the sheriff or any other LEO would be loath to act too quickly because of something someone "might" do.

He had been suspended from his school:

Ariz. shooting suspect's teacher: I felt he was a 'threat' - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

"He was one of the last kids to come in and he sat down and almost immediately started laughing to himself in a way that was just kind of creepy," recalls Alex Kotonias, 20, who sat behind him. "And then, as soon as the teacher started going over the syllabus, he had this outburst out of nowhere, didn't even raise his hand, and started asking the teacher some sort of weird questions about whether he believed in mind control."

It was the sort of disruptive behavior that led officials at the college to send a pair of campus police officers to the home of Loughner's parents in September with a letter suspending him from the school. Based partly on an Internet posting in which Loughner asserted that the school had no constitutional authority to exist, he was told that he could not return without providing a letter from a mental health professional to show that "his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others," according to a statement issued by the college.

Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office « The Cholla Jumps

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system.

Man linked to Giffords shooting rampage called 'very disturbed'

The suspected shooter has made death threats before and been contacted by law-enforcement officers, but the threats weren't against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Dupnik said. The suspect is unstable, Dupnik said, but the sheriff would not say he is "insane."

Seems to me there was plenty of information in the hands of the Sheriff to make a notification on this person that would have kept him from legally purchasing a weapon.

As far as outcry over moves to keep unstable persons from enjoying Constitutional gun rights, seems to be the general consensus supported here that our own Leonard, while having done nothing illegal, is a danger that our State has determined should not have a HCP.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

I don't think there would have been much outcry denying the purchase on someone as obviously crazy as Loughner.

A few months ago was the news story of the confused TN or KY man who was shooting at imaginary assailants who were imaginarily following him along the road. He even called 911 for help against the imaginary foes.

The 2nd is a fundamental right, but on the other hand there are at least 5 percent of people who really ought not to have guns due to mental illness.

It's easy to say his problems were obvious after the fact; I don't know that is was all THAT obvious beforehand that law enforcement should stepped in.

There is difference between someone taking random pot-shots at imaginary bad guys and someone who some "think" may be a danger to others....most of our laws are predicated on punishing people AFTER they actually do something and I think for good reason...I doubt that many of us would want to be judged based on something we haven't done and may never do.

[RobertNashville]

He had been suspended from his school...

All of which looks pretty damning after the fact but; until someone invents a machine that can predict an individual's future actions with 100% accuracy and can monitor everyone 100% of the time, I'm not prepared to force a person to give up his rights because someone "thinks" he may be a danger or because someone is afraid of what he might do.

[mikegideon]

He had been suspended from his school:

Ariz. shooting suspect's teacher: I felt he was a 'threat' - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office « The Cholla Jumps

Man linked to Giffords shooting rampage called 'very disturbed'

Seems to me there was plenty of information in the hands of the Sheriff to make a notification on this person that would have kept him from legally purchasing a weapon.

As far as outcry over moves to keep unstable persons from enjoying Constitutional gun rights, seems to be the general consensus supported here that our own Leonard, while having done nothing illegal, is a danger that our State has determined should not have a HCP.

I would think that law enforcement could act on documented death threats without violating any rights. At least investigate it.

[RobertNashville]

I would think that law enforcement could act on documented death threats without violating any rights. At least investigate it.

What do we do when the AMA/APA "votes" to declare that simply wanting to own a firearm is a mental illness?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It's easy to say his problems were obvious after the fact; I don't know that is was all THAT obvious beforehand that law enforcement should stepped in.

There is difference between someone taking random pot-shots at imaginary bad guys and someone who some "think" may be a danger to others....most of our laws are predicated on punishing people AFTER they actually do something and I think for good reason...I doubt that many of us would want to be judged based on something we haven't done and may never do.

It is a tough issue and also runs afoul of medical ethics and medical law regarding confidentiality.

The APA list of mental illness diagnoses is so large that most folks could be diagnosed with some nameable mental malady. Depends on the shrink. Some shrinks are pretty crazy as far as that goes.

On the other hand a solid diagnosis of schizophrenia might be one reasonable dividing line. Done by a panel of shrinks. I've seen even panels of shrinks make crazy-looking decisions, but only a few percent of the population would get a fair diagnosis of schizophrenia. Your screws have to be seriously loose or missing before you would get an impartial fair diagnosis of schizophrenia. It usually doesn't get better with time or treatment, though sometimes it might.

From the little I've heard about Loughner's behavior pre-shooting, my armchair diagnosis would lean toward early-stage Hebephrenic Schizophrenia. Have winessed young people who behaved in similar fashion earn that diagnosis. It starts out just slightly odd and progresses to seriously odd.

Disorganized schizophrenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This fellow apparently never got forced into an evaluation, or if he did, he never got "registered" in a database for confidentiality or other reasons.

[mikegideon]

What do we do when the AMA/APA "votes" to declare that simply wanting to own a firearm is a mental illness?

They're gonna declare millions of people crazy? That's the way to win friends and influence people. :-) I'm only suggesting that death threats could be investigated. If somebody threatened your life, and you believed them, you might call the cops. You might even expect them to look into it.

[DaveTN]

I truly don’t think Obama cares about any issue other than getting elected again so he can have four years of doing what he likes without his decisions having consequences.

He can make a lot of noise about background checks without getting either side upset. I don’t look for him to do anything until after the election.

I just hope he doesn’t get reelected so we don’t have to go through another jump in gun/ammo prices because of overreaction by gun owners.

He has to be laughing at the fact that he created turmoil in the gun community and cost gun owners millions of dollars just by being elected; and then did nothing.

[Worriedman]

What do we do when the AMA/APA "votes" to declare that simply wanting to own a firearm is a mental illness?

That is kind of what I was obviously doing a bad job of trying to communicate, giving credence and power to groups like the AMA, or the Federal Government, for what should be local issue resolution is ridiculous. The Federal Gov. is charged with NOT infringing on the ability to keep and bear arms.

I'm not prepared to force a person to give up his rights because someone "thinks" he may be a danger or because someone is afraid of what he might do.

Documented death threats to multiple people in the hands of LE, and a resulting refusal to act on such information smacks of malpractice (or whatever legal term may apply). He (Loughner) made actual, multiple death threats, that is outside the pale of "think" and moves into "plans". As far as I am concerned Dupnik should be prosecuted as and accessory, as he had knowledge of the instability of the suspect and did nothing to cure the problem. It is patently obvious he was aware of the situation.

My entire premise here is that there is no need to get the Feds more involved, especially if Obama's view of firearms ownership is to be used as a benchmark:

From the Oct. 21, 2004 Illinois Senate Debate:

"I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban"

His positions stated in the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998:

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

From the 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008:

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007:

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcing and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. (emphasis mine) This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“

It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

I am just concerned what might be in the offing of letting the Office or President via Executive Order as has been postulated, especially with this man in charge, with no Congressional oversight, decide what is "common sense". As the issue they are using is the Giffords shooting, I contend that the situation is one that should be dealt with on a local level, and not be used to place further restrictions on the Right to keep and bear arms, when the 2nd Amendment precludes the Federal Government from doing so.

[Worriedman]

I truly don’t think Obama cares about any issue other than getting elected again so he can have four years of doing what he likes without his decisions having consequences.

He can make a lot of noise about background checks without getting either side upset. I don’t look for him to do anything until after the election.

I just hope he doesn’t get reelected so we don’t have to go through another jump in gun/ammo prices because of overreaction by gun owners.

He has to be laughing at the fact that he created turmoil in the gun community and cost gun owners millions of dollars just by being elected; and then did nothing.

He has done nothing so far, because he does not have the votes in the Congress to do anything. So he will use his Executive Order power to satisfy the Liberal base he has alienated to a large degree. If his actions are too far reaching, there is always the Supreme Court to possibly correct them, but how long will that take? Just like we see with the Health Care, till SCOTUS "gets around to it" the illegal orders will be law, and even if eventually they are set aside, he gets his brownie points for trying, and as you say, getting elected is what he is after.

I doubt he is laughing about the gun buying frenzy his election caused, it moved a lot of people who otherwise would not have purchased weapons off their duffs and got them busy, now they are part of a growing number of people that might possible be active with regards to gun Rights issues. I know several folks who purchased weapons that otherwise would not have, that puts them in the "concerned" ranks where they were on the sidelines before.