Obama Going After Gunsmiths

Last week's eBullet included an article from NRA's America's First Freedom that detailed the effects of a new directive from the State Department that essentially means gunsmiths must now register as gun manufacturers and pay a fee of over $2000 each year.  On Monday, Frank Miniter wrote about the new directive in Forbes and how Obama is using the bureaucracy to target gun rights:

Imagine a gunsmith getting up from his bench, where he was busy tweaking a gun’s stock for a customer, to answer a call from the State Department demanding he pay $2,250 every year or face the legal consequences, and you see why this is outrageous.

As there is no known reason for burdening gunsmiths with this large annual fee, and because doing so requires a strange and expansive redefinition of the word “manufacture,” it seems clear this is just more gun-control politics from the Obama administration.

Miniter mentioned in the article that the National Shooting Sports Foundation is lobbying Congress to step in and fix this problem with legislation.   Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation appeared on NRANews.com on Monday to discuss the issue and how it is causing confusion for gunsmiths and gun owners, and what NSSF is doing to fix the problem.

Rigged Polling Helps Drive Gun Control Narrative

Today's New York Times continues the narrative started with last week's congressional gun control "sit-in" by declaring the wall protecting us from new gun ban laws may cracking:

A widely publicized sit-in by House Democrats. A bipartisan compromise proposal in the Senate. Neither is very likely to lead to any legislative action in Congress on gun safety this year. Election Day is too close, and most of the Republican opposition is too dug in.  

But the fact that a legislative response remains elusive does not mean there has been no movement on the issue. Members of both parties say they sensed a shift in the gun debate after the mass killing in Orlando, Fla., a notable difference in attitude from the reaction on Capitol Hill after previous horrific shootings.

Eight Senate Republicans joined with 44 Democrats on a Republican-proposed compromise that would deny people on two different federal watch lists the ability to buy weapons unless they could successfully appeal that decision. Several other Republican senators showed some willingness to accept new restrictions on gun purchases if they could be structured in an acceptable way. A bipartisan companion measure also was introduced in the House.

These are incremental steps, but in the gridlocked world of gun control politics, they count for something..

This is all part of Obama's, and the Department of Justice's efforts to do everything they can not to mention the words Islamic Terrorism, taking the opportunity instead to push gun control.  They are aided by the media which pushes out poll results that are rigged, as Frank Miniter wrote last week in Forbes, using wording in such a way that most people will say yes to the questions asked.  For instance:

The deception begins with polls. A CNN/ORC poll conducted June 16-19, is a good example. Its asked participants if they “generally favor or oppose … preventing people who are on the U.S. government’s Terrorist Watchlist or no-fly list from owning guns”?

Given how this question is worded, it should be no surprise that 85% of respondents said they are in “favor” stopping terrorists from legally owning guns. Who can blame them? Any reasonable person must want law enforcement to investigate, watch and, when necessary, prevent possible terrorists from getting guns.

Notice it uses the word “prevent” not “ban” or “stop.” “Prevent” implies a more nuanced approach than the U.S. Government using secret (as they must be) black lists, like the “no-fly list,” to not just take away a person’s Second Amendment right to bear arms away, but also their Fifth Amendment right to due process under the law.

Actually, the 15% of the respondents who said they “oppose” … “preventing people who are on the U.S. government’s Terrorist Watchlist or no-fly list from owning guns,” likely knew this was a loaded question and then stubbornly refused to go along with the premise that the government should be able to take the U.S. Bill of Rights away from U.S. citizens without even having its power checked by the judicial branch.

This allows the media and Obama to run with the false narrative that the NRA doesn't care if terrorists can buy guns.  It's about demonizing the NRA. Doesn't seem to be working as a poll released earlier this week showed the NRA is more popular than both political parties and Hillary Clinton, and viewed negatively by less people than view Obama negatively.

Miniter appeared on NRANews.com last Friday to discuss his article in more detail and why all of this is hypocritical.
One last note, U.S. Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine were among the Senators that walked down the hall to join their gun ban cohorts in the House.  It looks like Warner has completely reverted to his pre-Governor campaign positions on guns.

Coalition of Police Chiefs Back "Expanded" Background Checks Ahead of Obama Speech

A coalition of nine police organizations announced yesterday that they are calling on Congress to require background checks on all firearm purchases.  From USA Today:

Leaders of nine national law enforcement groups made the call at the annual International Association of Chiefs of Police conference the day before hundreds of police chiefs and sheriffs are to hear from President Obama, who has vowed to be more forceful in his push to bolster U.S. gun laws.

The coalition called on Congress to specifically expand background checks to cover all gun purchases. It also asked Congress to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that all states and federal agencies include disqualifying records in the system.

The coalition also called for increasing the current time that the FBI has to complete a background check before a sale is automatically completed.

Currently, background checks only cover gun purchases made through licensed gun deals, not private sales or purchases made at a gun show.

Chicago police superintendent Garry McCarthy claims that the spike in his city's crime rate is due to the "easy access to guns."  But that is not what FBI Director James Comey told those gathered at the IACP conference yesterday.  From NPR:

....Well, he's doubling down on this notion that he's already floated before in smaller venues that there's - really is what's called a YouTube effect. This is something police chiefs and police talk about quite a bit since Ferguson - this feeling of being under scrutiny that if you make a wrong move or a move that looks wrong, it'll end up as a viral video, and you're going to lose your career - that that fear is driving police to look past potential problems, to not get out of their cars as much and not have the kind of contact they need in communities that good police work depends on.

And here's the contentious thing that he raised. He believes that there's no other explanation that he can see for the current spike in violent crime in big cities around this country. The overall crime rate doesn't necessarily seem to be going up, but big cities are seeing spikes in violent crime - places like Chicago, where I am right now. And he thinks it's the only real explanation here for this simultaneous rise in crime.

Don't look for Obama to talk out the "Ferguson Affect" in his remarks to IACP today.

Katie Pavlich: Yes Obama Does Want to Take Your Guns

Katie Pavlich has this Op/Ed at The Hill that explains exactly what President Obama means when he says America should pass laws like Australia and Great Britain, "countries like ours, our allies" to address mass shootings.

The so-called “common-sense” and “modest” laws in Britain and Australia Obama refers to aren’t common-sense or modest at all, but rather require extreme confiscation and bans.

In 1996, the Australian government confiscated hundreds of thousands of personally owned firearms as part of their new “common-sense” gun control laws. In 1997, British citizens were forced to turn over their handguns for destruction. The prettier and more expensive versions were confiscated and placed in museums. Is this what Obama is suggesting should happen to the estimated 300 million firearms owned by American citizens? Is that what he means by “common sense,” “modest regulation” and “changing our laws?”

Of course it is.

Pavlich is not the only commentator to point out what Obama really means when he constantly points to those two countries as examples of great gun laws.  Last week Charles C. W. Cooke wrote over on National Review Online:

This is remarkable. Customarily, Democratic politicians react to mass shootings by calling for pointless around-the-edges reforms: “universal” background checks, hard limits on the size of commercially available magazines, rules that determine how certain rifles may look, etc. In fact, since 2012 Obama has tended to take this approach himself. Now, however, the president is openly praising two countries that confiscated — yes, confiscated — firearms. That matters — and a great deal.

Why? Well, because the president’s defenders like to mock those among his critics who argue that he wants to “take their guns away.” As of today, they will no longer be able to do so.

This is not “hysteria” or “a matter of opinion.” This is a cold, hard fact. If you praise Great Britain or Australia, you are praising confiscation. Before yesterday, Obama has always alluded to Australia in passing. Now he is praising it directly and adding Great Britain into the mix. That’s a significant change.

And Jonah Goldberg, also at National Review:

One can forgive the average American, not to mention the typical White House correspondent, for not knowing how Britain and Australia dealt with gun violence. But Obama knows. Both countries employed massive gun-confiscation programs (programs that depend on national gun registries so the government can find them). The British in effect banned handguns. Obama may consider that a reasonable, common-sense approach, but he knows full well that millions of Americans don’t.

Freed from having to run for re-election, Obama is making his true colors on guns known, yet the average American probably doesn't understand what he is pushing.  As long as he has the mainstream media to cover for him, most Americans probably won't know what Obama means when he points to Great Britain and Australia as perfect examples of gun control.

Update: On Tuesday, Pavlich spoke with NRANews' Cam Edwards about her article in The Hill.

House GOP Uses Power of the Purse to Address Obama Gun Restrictions

The Hill reports this morning that House Republicans did as promised and attached multiple amendments to HR2578, the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill, to stop Obama's regulatory end run around Congress to impose restrictions on our firearms freedom.  From The Hill article:

Under the measure, the ATF would be prohibited from banning certain forms of armor-piercing ammunition or blocking the importation of military-style shotguns. Another provision would block federal agents from creating what critics say is a gun registry.

Critics of the administrations efforts to impose new federal firearm restrictions see the GOP Congress’s power of purse as their best chance to block new rules.

“We need to stop the Obama administration from making end-run around Congress on gun control,” National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said.

The bill, approved in the House by a 242-183 tally, would prohibit the Justice Department from using any of the money to enforce certain gun regulations.

Among them is the ATF’s proposed — and later withdrawn — ban on certain forms of armor-piercing ammunition used in AR-15 rifles. Gun control advocates cheered the agency for moving forward with the rule in February.

Obama previously threatened a veto of the House version of the bill emerges from the Senate and Democrat New Yok Congressman echoed that threat:

But Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said the move was irresponsible, since it could derail the bill in the Senate, imperiling all Justice Department programs.

“Once again, the Republicans are governing dangerously by offering a poison pill amendment that jeopardizes the safety of our law enforcement and first responders,” Israel said. “Congress should be passing common-sense gun safety laws to save lives and keep our men and women in uniform safe — not caving to the reckless demands of the gun lobby.”

It is very possible that many if not most of the amendments will indeed emerge from the Senate with the pro-rights majority currently in place.  While Republicans have been loathe to use their power of the purse in other areas, it appears that a solid number of them are ready to do just that on the issue of Second Amendment rights.

Washington Spectator Editor Calls For Obama to Follow Action on Illegal Immigration With Same Move on Gun Control

Today, The Hill web site has an op/ed from John Stoehr, editor of the Washington Spectator, urging President Obama to follow the model he used giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and go around congress to move gun control.  Exactly how could he do this?  Stoehr calls for a "recess appointment" of Vivek Murphy to the post of Surgeon General:

Obama needs to change the context. He can do that by appointing a surgeon general.

Vivek Murthy is a doctor at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital with degrees from Harvard and Yale. He founded Doctors for America, researched AIDS in Africa and hoped, as Obama's pick for surgeon general, to focus on obesity. Senate Republicans filibustered him last spring, with assistance from five Southern and Western Democrats, because Murthy threatens the NRA's control of the gun debate. And he threatens the NRA's control of the gun debate because he believes guns are not an issue of constitutional liberty or natural law, but an issue of public health and safety. He is right. Eight people die every day in gun-related deaths, according to one study. The annual total of deaths will surpass vehicular deaths some time next year.

The left (the Washington Spectator is a left leaning publication of The Public Concern Foundation) just won't let go of the Murthy thing.  While Stoehr, focused on the NRA's opposition to Murthy in making his case for a recess appointment, there have been real concerns about rather this is just another appointment of a campaign supporter:

At the ripe old age of 36, Murthy would not even come close to being picked to run any medical department, in any academic medical center in this country. This is not because he is a bad doctor, but simply because he has not contributed enough, published enough or healed enough to qualify him to be a medical leader.

Since 2008, Murthy has dedicated his career to achieving a political agenda, forming groups like Doctors for America, which has lobbied heavily for ObamaCare. Miraculously enough, that political campaign seems to have now paid off and earned him this nomination.

To me, health care should be 80 percent science and 20 percent politics – not the other way around. I hope that the president reconsiders this nomination and instead chooses a doctor who better personifies the greatness of America’s medical and scientific achievements. After all, the healing power achieved in America’s hospitals is mimicked by hospitals around the world, and sought out by patients everywhere.

The question is, does Obama want to use what little political capital he has left to take Stoehr's advice?

Gun Control All But Vanishes From Obama Agenda

Politico has the story here.  As Sebastian said on the subject, there wasn't, much meat to his comments. 

We'll see if Obama goes the route of "Executive Actions" but it appears there will be no further congressional pushes in the near future.