Four Reasons Why the Administration May Have Gone To Such Lengths to Release Such a Nothing Set of Actions

Jonathan Adler has a good piece at the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy offering several possible reasons why the Obama Administration went to such lengths to issue actions on what constitutes a firearm dealer that many believe really don't do or change a whole lot.  Of the four listed, this one is likely the real reason:

A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant. (And insofar as Republicans complain and caterwaul about the administration’s actions, this purpose is more fully achieved.)

There is this incessant need in Washington to appear to be doing something.  Nothing illustrates that better than this graphic from National Journal:

The 114th Congress by the numbers https://t.co/Rv7eHioFh7 pic.twitter.com/QG6xtb5ElK

— National Journal (@nationaljournal) January 6, 2016

Most Americans are probably glad Congress only passed 100 bills last year. 

Adler also reinforces that the announcement dealt with guidance, not a new regulation. This is because it takes a lot more effort to put a new regulation in place and it is possible new regulations could not be completed before the end of the administration.  But guidance has no force in law, so, is the announcement meant to have a "chilling" effect (another possible reason offered by Adler) on private people selling their privately owned firearm to another private individual?  A way to control activity that they have so far been unable to do by law?  Is that the reason Attorney General Lynch mentioned there is court precedent for considering the sale of one firearm as being in the business?

Obama Continues to Collect Pinocchios From Washington Post Fact Checker on Gun Comments

Anyone still questioning the impact that social media has had on the information available to the public need only look at today's Washington Post Fact Check on one comment that President Obama made during his executive actions announcement yesterday:

“The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules.  A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked.”

—President Obama, remarks on gun proposals, Jan. 5, 2016

The Fact Checker’s inbox just about exploded after the president made this comment in introducing new guidance for background checks and gun-safety proposals.  Here’s just a sampling:

Can’t wait for “fact” “checkers” to go to town on this one! https://t.co/CErTynLsb4

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 5, 2016

@GlennKesslerWP wow what a lie from the whitehouse https://t.co/zxV9sf6fZW

— Steven (@ArlingtonSteve) January 5, 2016

Waiting for the fact check on this whopper … @PolitiFact @GlennKesslerWP https://t.co/jikK1niOWa

— kelley currie (@mackiesmama) January 5, 2016

While watching the speech, I had the VSSA Twitter feed open and folks like Katie Pavlich, Dana Loesch and Bob Owens also called out the President.  So, Kessler wasted no time in looking at what the President said and whether it was true.  After parsing Obama's use of the word "Internet" and what people may understand him to mean (recall Clinton's famous "depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is) the final verdict was Two Pinocchios:

We agree that Obama’s language is slippery and could be confusing to the average person who doesn’t know anything about FFLs and interstate requirements. There is nothing unique about the Internet; the laws governing private transactions and interstate sales are exactly the same. It’s the same as offering to sell a gun on a bulletin board, except the bulletin board is significantly larger. The Internet, and eletronic payment systems such as PayPal and Bitcoin, have certainly facilitated transactions that in the past would have been more difficult to arrange.

Obama erred in saying the rules are different for Internet sellers. They face the same rules as other sellers — rules that the administration now says it will enforce better.

Yesterday's speech was full of out right lies.  Even with Kessler's parsing what Obama may have actually meant by the word "Internet" it was nice to see the mainstream media point out the fact in this case.

Is This All There Is?

The National Shooting Sports Foundation's Larry Keane was on the Bill Bennett show this morning and confirmed what Sebastian wrote last night, that today's announcement will pretty much be for "public consumption" but not much substance.  Keane said NSSF is still pouring over what has been released but it does not appear to be much more than what is already being done or had already been proposed.  He also confirmed what was written here yesterday, that it is a reversal of the Clinton era of trying to reduce the number of FFLs.  He said the announcement is just "window dressing" that will do nothing to address the issue the President claims to want to address - "gun violence" and shows a failure of leadership.

Keane did say there is one provision the industry does have an issue with the lost and stolen provision (also mentioned here yesterday).  He said holding dealers responsible for something not in their inventory (i.e. if it is lost in transit from the manufacturer to the distributor to the dealer) makes no sense.

Keane and Bennett rhetorically asked "after all the hype, is this all there is?"