Image 01 Image 03

Obama Administration Moving Forward With New Gun Regulations

Obama Administration Moving Forward With New Gun Regulations

Another series of attacks on the Second Amendment

Obama has famously (infamously?) long been enamored of the idea of fundamentally transforming America, and one of the foundational aspects of American culture that he has in his sights is the Second Amendment and Americans’ firmly held belief in their right to keep and bear arms.

His former attorney general, Eric Holder, went so far as to proclaim—back in the 1990’s—that “we really need to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

At least he understood that it’s the American people who resist infringement of this right.  The administration has tried to pass gun control legislation, most notably in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, but such attempts fail.

Completing missing the fact that Americans are strongly supportive of their right to bear arms, Obama and his assortment of anti-Second Amendment zealots blame the NRA:

“But the power of NRA and the gun lobby in Congress is formidable,” Obama said. “And you know, we’re going to keep chipping away at this, but until you get intense public demands for this, it’s probably not going to happen because some special interests and lobbyists in Washington are really, really strong and their membership feels very intensely about the issue. Whereas the general public is concerned about it, but doesn’t make it their top priority.”

He also recognizes that Congress—even when Democrats held supermajorities in both houses—is unable to pass the sort of sweeping gun control legislation he seeks.  In his 2014 State of the Union address, he promised gun control “with or without Congress,” and it seems he’s working on multiple fronts to make that happen.

From taxing bullets, to gun locks, to gun recalls / buyback programs, to targeting children’s pop-tarts and otherwise controlling the narrative about guns, Obama and other anti-Second Amendment advocates are working overtime in their frantic bid to disarm the American people.

Such measures are met with considerable push back even in deep blue states like Connecticut.  In New York, D. C., and Oregon, citizens are engaging in civil disobedience, protesting, and otherwise signaling that they will not relinquish their weapons without a fight.

That, however, does not stop the ongoing assault on our Second Amendment rights.  The Hill reports:

The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

The new rules, The Hill, continues, are aimed at expanding the number of people who will be banned from owning a gun:

The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.

Some of the rules come in response to President Obama’s call to reduce gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook. He issued 23 executive actions shortly after the shooting aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous people, and some of those items remain incomplete.

The “dangerous people” may include “a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” warned Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America.

In addition to these “dangerous people” who cannot be trusted with a gun, the Obama administration seeks to include anyone who has ever had any problems with depression, anxiety, or even seen a psychologist.  Considering the popularity of “seeing a shrink” and the over-prescription of antidepressants and other mood-enhancing drugs, this is a potentially sweeping change that will affect tens of millions of Americans.

“A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA wrote.
  “Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” it added.

The same rationale used to disarm veterans of our armed forces is writ large.  Consider: a 2011 Harvard study found a 400% increase in the number of Americans taking antidepressants in just over a decade.  According to ABCNews, 1 in 10 Americans are using them.  And that’s just antidepressants.

On the bright side: With each Obama push for gun control, gun and ammo sales skyrocket.  He may not be good for the over all economy, but he’s a boon to the gun industry.





Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There really is NO aspect of the Constitution that the Collective is not at enmity with, and they’re coming right out and saying it openly now.

Ol’ Walleyes has openly stated that she’ll ONLY nominate people for the highest court on the condition that they are biased against the First Amendment, and she and others have said they want it altered.

At least they aren’t lying about who and what they are any longer…at least in that respect.

The only question now for people who feel otherwise is the one posed by Jimmy Malone in “The Untouchables”…

“What are you prepared to do about it?”

    platypus in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Many of my friends and associates are preparing to take the ultimate step — going Galt. If you haven’t seen the movie Atlas Shrugged 3 – Who Is John Galt, you really should. It’s not the best movie but the plot is excellent and the script has some familiar zingers in it. My wife blurted out during one scene blasting the government, “That’s what I’m going through with the GOP right now.”

      Ragspierre in reply to platypus. | May 31, 2015 at 1:36 pm

      “Going Galt” is a form of civil disobedience, and one that itself can take several forms. For instance, I will not comply with ObamaDoggle. At. All. I have a physician who will not comply with converting my medical history to government use, too.

      Civil disobedience, IMNHO, is ONE thing we have to try. There are others, if that doesn’t work. But history has taught us that it WILL work if supported sufficiently.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Unfortunately, their supporters are ignorant of the nature of the agenda their favorites support. I hang out with a number (@40) older, educated, accomplished, moderate liberals, both male and female, and when I try to engage them in discussions over things like this, they are in complete denial that their party has any such designs.

      Ragspierre in reply to DaveGinOly. | May 31, 2015 at 2:07 pm

      One of the demands “being Breitbart” places on us is being EFFECTIVE educators of our friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc.

        ElStegosaur in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2015 at 11:18 am

        My ex-gf would rather break up with me than discuss politics, freedom, and economics. She was just legitimately disinterested, but when I pointed out she still votes Dem so she should care about what I’m saying.. She didn’t see it that way. Some people just don’t care, and won’t hear it.

nordic_prince | May 31, 2015 at 1:32 pm

It goes without saying that dictators and tyrants hate the thought of peasantry possessing guns and free speech ~

    DaveGinOly in reply to nordic_prince. | May 31, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    As a commenter (Joseywhales) said elsewhere, “A government that desperately needs to take your guns away from you is getting ready to do something they know you’d shoot them for.”

Subotai Bahadur | May 31, 2015 at 2:10 pm

And right now, we cannot depend on the DIABLO’s to oppose them.

We have the example of DIABLO collaboration in everything since last election night, the failure to even pretend to do any of the things they promised during the campaign, and the “Republican” Senate’s confirmation of an Attorney General who testified under oath that she believes that the President can rule by decree outside the law and the Constitution.

As we speak, the “leadership” of the DIABLO’s has a bill ready with between 20–30 leadership co-sponsors to make the illegal subsidies in Obamacare legal in the event the Supreme Court strikes them [and thus Obamacare] down. Saving Obamacare.

The “Republicans”, “GOP”, “DIABLO’s” under whatever name cannot be assumed to stand with either the Constitution or their own voters against Obama on any issue. We can argue whether it is lack of integrity or Leftist extortion that is the cause. The net result for a decade is a lack of willingness to fight the Left.

We know they detest us. Now it is becoming clear that they no longer fear us.

    AZ_Langer in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | May 31, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

    I’ve been unable to find exactly what your term DIABLO stands for, Subotai Bahadur. I presume it’s an acronym, but I’ve found only game and place references.

    Our views seem very similar (the filthiest word in my personal dictionary is politician) and I’d like to be clear on your meaning.

They want to prohibit people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from purchasing a firearm. Uh… ever hear of the Lautenberg Amendment, you morons?

Is the justice dept not aware of the following questions on ATF form 4473?

h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?
(See Instructions for Question 11.h.)

i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
(See Instructions for Question 11.i.)

Answer either in the affirmative and no firearms for you!

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And that’s exactly what they’re doing.

FrankNatoli | May 31, 2015 at 9:48 pm

Once upon a time, the line for losing 2nd Amendment rights was a felony conviction, which by the way requires a jury trial. Then, in the late 1990s, in pursuit of the female vote, misdemeanor “domestic violence” became the line for losing 2nd Amendment rights, which by the way does not require a jury trial. So a judge can simply say “you lose” and that’s it, over, finito. Now there’s a cascade of non-felonies for losing your rights. Gee. Wow. How did that happen.

    platypus in reply to FrankNatoli. | June 1, 2015 at 12:09 am

    Sounds like the next test case to me. They hand out ROs like crazy here in WA state and it is way past time to rein ’em in.

      FrankNatoli in reply to platypus. | June 1, 2015 at 7:58 am

      I have a close relative who is an attorney and his stories of ROs are incredible but true. Judges confronted with unmistakable evidence of perjury on the part of you-know-which-party, and the judge goes ahead and signs the RO. If the consequences of the RO were “simply” stay away except for agreed visits, that might be fine. But, in order to please one group of voters, the consequences are much more severe, and for all intents and purposes there’s no recourse. Nobody can “prove” to the judge’s satisfaction that you-know-which-other-party is not a “risk”.

Hey, lefties:

Gun ownership is a right. Get used to it.

We’re here, we’re armed, and we’re in your face.

2nd Ammendment Mother | June 1, 2015 at 11:01 am

I’ll give myself a gold star…. when Obama held his little press conference after Sandy Hook with the Surgeon General being charged to “investigate the public health issues” related to firearms ownership… we knew this was on the horizon.

It was just a short step from using your medical history to declaring a person unfit to possess a firearm. Don’t think it can happen to you? Have you read the possible side effects on your blood pressure medication, hormone replacement therapy or acne treatment? Are you a former soldier? Homeland security has already said you are a higher threat of domestic terrorism than a radicalized Islamist…. and the government already owns all of your “ordered” psych screenings that it is requiring more of in the interest of protecting you from future mental illness related to your service.

So…. yes, we all saw this coming….

Henry Hawkins | June 1, 2015 at 11:28 am