Obama Gun Proposal: Background Checks for All Gun Purchases
President Obama spoke to the nation this morning about his proposal to reduce gun violence; recommends background check for all gun purchases, assault weapons ban.
Editor's note: Updated at 7 p.m. Jan. 16 to include reaction from Congressman Bill Foster.
President Obama spoke to the nation this morning and presented a proposal to reduce gun violence.
Click here to view video of the president's proposal, or click on the video accompanying this article.
"I will put everything I've got into this and so will Joe [Biden]," Obama said in his closing remarks today.
Of particular note in his proposal, Obama called for the following:
- Reinstate lapsed ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
- Requiring background checks on all gun purchases.
- Ban armor piercing ammunition.
- Called on Congress to confirm a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
- Improve access to mental health services and provide information to mental health professionals who want to report threats of violence.
- Provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, should they choose to, to step up school security.
Newly sworn-in Congressman Bill Foster, D-11, released the following statement Wednesday night in reaction to Obama's proposal:
The recent gun violence is a terrible tragedy and I have the deepest sympathy for the families who have been impacted.
The executive actions proposed by the Administration demonstrate that the President is listening to law enforcement and giving them the tools they need to effectively enforce the laws on the books. There are many things the federal government can and should do to reduce gun violence and prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening.
We’ve seen a strong example of that in Aurora, Illinois where the murder rate went from 25 murders in 2002 and 2003 to 0 murders last year. This dramatic reduction was due in no small part to the coordinated intervention of the federal government including the FBI and the AFT and local law enforcement officials.
As Congress begins to draft legislation to address this issue, I hope they will look closely at the success in Aurora and find ways to duplicate this partnership in communities throughout the country.
Democrats and Republicans can and must work together to find common ground on this issue to find solutions that protect our Second Amendment rights while keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them for harm.
Did you see the president's address this morning? Tell us what you thought in comments below. Do Obama's recommendations seem like a common sense approach to you, or are you concerned about the rights of gun owners?
Kevin Scott
2:47 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
If only they could solve the economic woes so quickly!
Brian
6:36 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
They have not solved anything....
Rev
3:25 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Background checks? Illinois already has that. How does it work to reduce crime? Just look at Chicago.
Jerry
6:56 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I agree that none of this will accomplish anything to stop serious crime...as Rev eluded to above, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Chicago has the most gun crime. On the same token, as a very conservative, very pro second amendment gun owner I have no problem with any of the 23 executive orders signed yesterday. The areas where I might have an issue are the items that the President left to Congress to hash out. In times of tragedy, people need to see SOMETHING. Some action that they can look to for a measure of hope in an otherwise hopeless situation and I think that's what the President gave them. I think these actions will do not real good, but I don't think they will do any harm either.
Tom Nosal
9:31 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Through the course of our history, humans have always killed each other. People in this country used to all carry guns, strapped to their waist and in the open. Didn't stop anyone from killing someone.
Before that there were bow and arrows, lances, knives, rocks, etc. If someone wants to kill someone they will find some kind of a weapon to do it with.
At least by banning assault weapons and multiple ammunition rounds, we can limit how many they can kill at one time. The smart move would be to ban all weapons and go back to single shot guns and rifles. Which is what we had when it was written into the Constitution.
Ernie Knight
2:42 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
So we are then to ban all current forms of communication, because the Bill of Rights only refers to 18th century technology, according to you? How can you allow modern 1st Amendment rights, and 4th and 5th, etc., but not 2nd?
Incidentally, semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a hundred years.
Bill Konn
11:54 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
OK, I give up. What does a legal gun owner due with the semi-automatic pistols like a Ruger P-89 or a Springfield XD-9 that has 15 round magazines. Are we to flush them down the toilet, and do we purchase new ones, or are we grandfathered in. If anyone with half a brain thinks this will work, I give you the drug war that has been going on for over 40 yrs, and our Drug Czar who has done such a wonderful job of stopping drugs from entering the USA from Mexico. Police investigate crime, they don't prevent crime. Keep a loaded gun in your home, you, and you alone are your first line of defense people.
Olddeegee
3:10 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Only bad guys and really bad shots need a clip with 10 or more rounds. Either way, many laws need to be revisited (the NRA's heavy hand on our legislative bodies needs to be addressed). Ban all but small hand guns, shotguns, and basic hunting rifles. If you need more than that, you need help.
Rev
12:22 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I need large capacity magazines and accurate semi-auto firearms for the same reason the police and military do, and for the same reasons.
Olddeegee
12:32 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
REV-
Really? Nice levelheaded reasoning. Have a lot of intruders, do ya? Are the "gang-bangers" out to get ya? Are you a licensed authority or even, (gulp) part of a well regulated militia? All of the above? I'll hang up and wait for the voices in your head to tell you what to do next.
Rev
11:10 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Olddeegee -
You never know, better safe then sorry. Yes, I am licensed, as all legal firearms owners in Illinois must be. Per Illinois law we are both members of the Illinois Militia, but that does not matter as the 2nd amendment does not say you must be a militia member to own a firearm. There is no difference between a AR-15 and a hunting rifle, none. Using the same logic that is being used to try to ban "assault weapons" (a made up term) we could also ban cars with spoilers, speed rated tires, 100MPH speedos, etc.. None of the features that classify a weapon as "assault" make the firearm any more deadly, it is all about "looks". Further, as the AWB of 94 showed no discernible effect in overall crime, none.
Police, as good as they are, will always respond second to a crime scene, if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family, YOU must be able to defend them, the police can not.
Want to ban high capacity magazines? fine I will just buy and carry more.
Ame Bible
3:25 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Universal background checks, that means all 50 states would have access to the same database! And why not?
Rev
7:29 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
As a legal firearms owner it is no ones business how many or what type of firearms I may or may not have. A "basic hunting rifle" is no different in operation then a so-called "assault rifle".
Olddeegee
12:35 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
If the intelligent voters get it right it'll be our business. Your side can't even get together a true electoral slate let alone organize sane laws without lobbying scum that actually do the law writing for the bribed congressmen. You'll all soon be part of a sad chapter in US history.
Ernie Knight
12:15 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
"Your side"? Who would that be? Are you talking about the 4 million members of the NRA, the 8 million licensed trained law-abiding civilian concealed firearms permit holders, and other like-minded individuals? Or are you talking about the few wealthy anti-gun elitists like Bloomberg and Soros, who are more than happy to trample our rights?