What did the President Do and What Did He Not Do

The first thing to realize is that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, did not take anyone's guns away.  The private citizen still has a right to own a firearm.  So all the pro-gun people can calm down, if you are of legal age, and have not been convicted of a violent felony or have other restrictions, you can still buy a handgun or rifle.  What exactly did the President do then, you may ask.  Here is a list of 23 proposals that the President made on January 16, 2013:

1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system." 

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

The list nowhere mentions taking away any guns from private citizens.  The President did ask Congress to pass laws, including ones that would:

a)       require universal background checks (background checks on anyone who would buy a gun,  whether in stores or at auctions and conventions)

b)      restore a ban on "military-style assault weapons" (the ban expired in 2004)

c)      ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds

d)     tougher penalties on people who sell guns to people who aren't allowed to have guns

Now, the pro-gun people will say that the President is trying to take their guns away.  He is not.  What he is trying to do, in an effort to curb gun violence, which has become an increasing problem in the face of several high-profile incidents where guns were used to kill large amounts of people, including children, is to restore the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.  This included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which passed both the House of Representatives and Senate in 1993 and was signed into law in 1994by President Bill Clinton.  The thing to remember about this law, which was designed to have a lifespan of 10 years, is that it received support from former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan.  Yes, even Ronald Reagan, the man that many Republicans try to point to during the build up to President Obama's recommendations as the man who had his life threatened by an attempted assassination and who never tried to take guns away was in support of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. 

In fact, even though Ronald Regan left the Presidency in January 1989, when the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was struggling for support in Congress, Reagan came to its defense.  The Act, known as the Brady Bill, was named for James Brady, the former Reagan press secretary that was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan's life.  In a 1991 opinion-editorial for the New York Times, former President Reagan voiced his support for the legislation that would create a national background check and mandatory waiting period for handgun purchases citing statistics suggesting 9200 murders being committed each year using handguns in the U.S.  Reagan said, "This level of violence must be stopped.  Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them".  Reagan also joined Gerald Ford & Jimmy Carter in a letter published in the Boston Globe that called for Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons (the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994).  In a letter to Rep. Scott Klug, a Wisconsin Republican, Reagan said the limitations proposed by the Assault Weapon Ban "are abolutely necessary" and that it "must be passed".  Klug would vote in favor of the ban.  The assault weapon ban passed by a vote of 216-214, in addition to Klug voting for it after Reagan's last-minute plea, Rep. Dick Swett, D-N.H. also credited Reagan's support of the bill for hleping him decide to cast a favorable vote.

Reagan also signed into law in 1986 the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners, it also banned, however, ownership of any fully automatic rifles not already registered on the day the law was signed. When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, had signed into law legislation requiring a 15-day cooling-off period for gun ownership, and he stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.  Even the great Republican himself saw that the obligation of the government was plain and that laws should be put into place to prevent gun violence. 

Today, President Obama gave his proposals to try to stop gun violence.  These same proposals were made by previous Presidents.  They were also supported by still other Presidents not in office at the time.  There have been plenty of statements from the National Rifle Association and law enforcement officials across the country, along with every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there about how the Federal Government will not take their guns.  The regulations the government is proposing are no different than those instilled in 1994 and are no different from the recommendations made by plenty of other politicians.  Today, however, everyone cries out against President Obama, reducing their arguments to name calling like "King Obama" or "Heil Obama", instead of agreeing that the decisions are being proposed in the best interest of the people, especially the children, who have often been the victims in mass shootings. 

 

Believe What You Will

Since the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut much has been written about gun control, this is not about gun control.  Let me begin by stating as a matter of record that I am not in favor of increased gun control.  Most individuals what legally own firearms are relatively sane people that use those firearms for their intended purpose; hunting, collecting, or target practice.  The individuals that illegally own firearms, well we all know what they want to use them for or that they have legal impediments keeping them from legally owning firearms, impediments put in place by a government elected by the people.  My main purpose in this blog post is the fact that I cannot get on Facebook any day without seeing tons of posts from those in favor of guns spouting about their 2^nd Amendment rights.  I sympathize with them.  I am a big fan of social media and believe it has changed our nation, and the world.  Some of those changes have been good and some have been bad, but that is not the purpose of this posting.  Instead I want to focus on these posts, posts made or shared by my friends, my circle of internet social media friends.  I respect these people, first off, or I would not have them in my circle of friends.  However, I am disheartened at times, by their adherence and mimicry of facts that they either do not investigate or do not fully understand. 

The main point is this, most of those will state that the owning of firearms is their right, secured by the 2^nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, so that they can keep the government in check.  If the government gets out of hand, in their opinion, the right to keep guns is our way of protecting ourselves against an unjust government.  They even look back to Nazi Germany and the taking away of guns by the government and fear that if such a move was made in this country we would fall into a dictatorship.  Their thinking is flawed, seriously flawed.  For my argument here I refer all those to Article Three, Section Three of the United States Constitution. 

What is Article Three, Section Three of the United States Constitution you ask?  For those of you unfamiliar with the Constitution or that have been out of school too long to remember, let me refresh your memory:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Do you understand now?  The way for the American people to make certain the government does not get out of control is through voting and taking an active part in that government.  It is not by taking arms up against the government.  This little portion of the Constitution, these three sentences, makes it clear that going to war against the United States or aiding the enemies of the United States is an act of treason.  So, for those hoarding weapons in the fear that one day they will have to rise up against the government, be careful…if you ever do, you would be guilty of treason, a crime that could carry the death penalty. 

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution put this section in because they were very concerned about the definition of treason.  Be glad that they did.  Under the prevailing English law at the time there were five different acts that could be considered treason, including imagining (or conspiring) the death of the King (or Queen), "violating" the Queen or other female member of the royal family, certain types of counterfeiting, along with the two definitions used by the framers of our Constitution.  Those that wrote the Constitution thought the English laws were too broad, and wanted the American people to have dissenting views and opinions.  That is the great thing about our nation, especially today when Republicans are constantly speaking disparagingly about our President; if the English views of being a traitor were put into the Constitution then you would not be able to do that without being subject to trail and death.  The last portion of that section, for those confused, mean that a person's children or relatives (the "corruption of blood" part) of a traitor are not to be considered traitorous just by relation and that the "no forfeiture" part means that once the traitor dies then payment for their crimes has been complete and no further payment is required.  This section requires the confession in an open court of the accused or the testimony of two different witnesses to the same act of treason.  In Haupt vs. United States (1947), the Supreme Court ruled that two witnesses were not required to prove intent or that an act is treasonable, only that two witnesses were required to prove the act occurred, and those could be eyewitnesses or federal agents investigating the crime, for example. 

So, in short, those who take up arms against the government could be considered traitors.  They would be tried by the courts and Congress would determine their punishment.  Before a person claims that their weapons are to protect them from the government, be careful and be lucky.  Be careful you don't actually pick up that weapon against your government and be lucky that the original writers of the Constitution did not include that bit about conspiring or imagining the death of our elected leaders.