Gun Control is Happening Whether the NRA Likes It or Not

The Obama administration showed it is wasting no time implementing President Obama’s executive orders on gun control.

According to The Hill, on Friday Attorney General Eric Holder released three proposals to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The proposal would give local law enforcement agencies access to the gun-sales database currently maintained by the FBI. The new proposed rules would also preserve records of denied weapons sales indefinitely.

Right now, law enforcement agencies cannot perform a NICS check when transferring, returning or selling weapons that have been confiscated, seized or recovered. And while the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act already requires federal background checks for gun purchases, not every firearm sale is covered under the law. The new rules proposed by Holder change that.

Attorney General Holder is also proposing that the NICS retain records of denied weapon sales that are more than 10 years old. “The FBI has therefore determined that for NICS’ own internal business operations, litigation and prosecution purposes, and proper administration of the system, NICS shall retain denied transaction records on site,” Holder wrote in a notice to be published in Monday’s Federal Register. “The retention of denied transaction information … will enhance the efficiency and operational capability of the NICS.”

President Obama ordered the rule change in a January 16th memo that called for rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

The proposed changes don’t stop there. The Department of Justice also proposed giving Native American tribes access to NICS. Currently only federal, state, or local agencies can perform background checks.

The rules are not yet final. The public has until March 28th to weigh in, at which point the Department of Justice can revise or put the rules for final passage.

While it may not seem like much, these are important first steps in addressing the way in which we have so inadequately tracked the very dangerous weapons trade in this country. While the right wants to spin this legislative fight as one of “taking guns away” the reality is this is about regulating the business of weapons in this country.

Changes in individual behavior may flow from marketplace reforms, but these proposed regulations are designed to get at the sellers — those who profit off death and violence and who fuel paranoia to push market share. The right may twist and turn the facts every which way they can, but it does not change this fundamental truth — gun control advocates plan to reform the weapons industry and marketplace. And if NRA stooges want to defend that marketplace then they should, out in the open and away from the boogeyman of “taking guns” and “individual rights.”

So far that’s a fight they’ve been too scared to pick.

Related Stories:

White Masculinity’s Ties To Rape and Gun Culture

Gun Control Is Totally Racist Against Guns, Says Former NRA President

Senator Feinstein Promises Action on Gun Control. Can Congress Deliver?

Photo from ryanjreilly via flickr.


Del Rykert
Del Rykert3 years ago


~~~~ Not sure why you feel the need to attack other people!!! ~~~ Maybe because your logic is so weak you have nothing else to use to argue your point? If you bother to read up on WW II history it twere the Japanese military leaders who stated they feared invading the the Contentinal USA because of the armed citizens that had experience using their weapons if for nothign else but hunting and sport/recreational use.. It isn't some wild statement some right wing propagandist came up with. And by the way ~~ yes oour side was concerned with the thousands of our troops that would be lost invading onto Mainland Japan. Was one of the mitigating factors that made them chose to drop the 2 atomic ones.

Roger H.
Roger H3 years ago

shows how little people in urban areas know about those states and the response time by law enforcement. I'm happy for those that think the police can adequately protect them, but that isn't the case in a lot of areas of the country.

Roger H.
Roger H3 years ago

I am far from "gagging on my foot", but I do appreciate that you have a math degree and that you are a gun owner. I also do not ever plan on killing anyone with any of my guns and believe that nobody should own a gun unless they have gone through the proper gun safety and familiarity courses and spend time at the range regularly to keep proficient with them, if they are buying them for protection. As I said in my previous statement, I misstated my original statement and I apologize for that. The Japanese also had something we were very fearful of during WWII and that was their respect for their country, honor and family. They were willing to commit suicide for those things and we were not quite that committed. That was another reason we didn't invade Japan. The whole country would have rose up against us and fought to the death to defend it. I apologize for getting off topic and for any disrespect you may have felt that I was showing toward you, Cletus.
This is a subject that pits people in rural areas of the country against people in urban areas of the country and even law enforcement can't agree with each other on the subject. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of people with opposing views on this subject and gun laws that seem to be common sense to some are absurd to others in other areas of the country. To tell someone in rural states like Wyoming, Texas, Montana, N & S Dakota, Arizona, N Mexico, etc. that they don't need guns to protect themselves sh

Cletus W.
Cletus W.3 years ago


And just to be certain that you are gagging on your foot: I have a math degree!! I sure do hope God had a good answer for Jesus' question.

Cletus W.
Cletus W.3 years ago

Good grief, man! Stop trying to hide behind the Care2 "commandments"! Grow a pair!

You were assailed for the abjectly stupid statement you made as part of a weak defense of the 2nd amendment, a statement from which you have now backed-tracked. Shows my commentary had some effect, and that you have at least some sense.

Japan during WWII had no "2nd Amendment", and yet you will find that our military leaders too were very worried about invading Japan, also because the Japanese citizenry would be everywhere with weapons, especially those provided by the Japanese government (just as you have admitted our gov't was providing our citizens). For the American military leaders, JUST AS FOR THE JAPANESE LEADERS, this was NEVER the sole factor for deciding not to invade. The insertion of this WWII historical nugget is thus WORTHLESS to the discussion of the 2nd amendment; always was and always will be, no matter how many times senseless rightwingers try to fly the fairytale.

I own guns, and support the ACTIVIST interpretations of the 2nd amendment that now allow citizens to keep guns. Please, PLEASE!, stop trying to defend my right to bear arms with abjectly stupid arguments. YOU ARE NOT HELPING MATTERS!!!

WRT to your "math" bragadocio: what are you, 13 years old? And just what would any of that "math" crap have to do with making cogent arguments for the 2nd amendment anyway!??

And just to be certain that you are gagging on your foot: I have a math degree!! I sur

Roger H.
Roger H3 years ago

I suggest you read the Care2 Code Of Conduct before you continue attacking fellow members of the site, if you want to continue to be a member of this site! I am a fellow human being and I'm sure you wouldn't like being called derogatory names any more than anyone else. Please read the wild facts on my profile and tell me you are smart enough to do the same. How many years of math did you test out of in college?
I was just quoting a statement from the head of the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor. If he felt that way, it wasn't because we were a defenseless, unarmed country. I agree with you that there were other factors also as to why the Japanese didn't attack the US mainland, but it was also because he feared the resistance the Japanese would receive from the American citizenry. I should have said that one of the main reasons the Japanese never invaded the US mainland is because the US citizenry was so well armed. If you were actually born in 1940, you probably have some remembrance of WWII. I grew up in a rural area and we had guns out of necessity, just like most rural areas of the country today. I was born after WWII ended but I was told many stories and saw evidence of how well armed the American people were during the war and civilians were actually given high powered weapons by the government if they volunteered to help defend the country as civilians.

Cletus W.
Cletus W.3 years ago

I am sorry, but your statement....
"because of the Second Amendment. That is the whole reason Japan didn't invade the US mainland during WWII."
....speaks volumes for your "knowledge" of the world. The "whole" reason..........?

Despite a cherry-picked, out-of-context quote by another rightwinger, who happens to be a Japanese murderer, you'd have to be dumber than a ring-necked monkey to believe that fairytale, and dumber still to say it, and dumber still to defend it. That leaves YOU, and maybe Joe too, fairly low on the evolutionary chain...and I'm sure you DO accept the theory of evolution, since you are not right wing, correct?

My theory for your little Jesus-picture is that he is praying to God, asking Him..."tell me again, why you made their skulls so large, when you've left many of them with an amount of brains that clearly do not fill the space"?

Stupendously unbelievable!

Joe A.
Joe Aguilera3 years ago

Thank you Jamie C. I Could not have said better. Oh and I lean to the Right. And Cletus.....SHUT UP YUSE!!

Roger H.
Roger H3 years ago

I also apologize for almost stooping to the same level as someone that attacked me verbally. It is very wrong and unbecoming of me, and has no place on a site that, if we all did really "care", we wouldn't be attacking each other verbally, but would try to get along. We all have different ideas of what needs to be done about the problem, but what works for some isn't necessarily the best solution for all, in this case. The rural population has a totally different view of guns than many in urban populations and, because of the necessity of protecting yourself and you family with firearms, sometimes semiautomatic so called "assault weapons, because of lack of proper police protection in rural areas, pro-gun advocates and anti-gun advocates will never agree on the subject and the NRA, like it or not, represents the pro-gun citizens and gun owners in this nation and it get it's money from donations from gun owners and members, no taxpayer money is involved as in the case of several anti-gun organizations and the White House campaign against guns. Check to see how many members of Congress are members, including Senator Reid.

Roger H.
Roger H3 years ago

I apologize for the spelling errors in my last post, by the accusations disturbed me, especially from someone that doesn't have a clue what they are talking about or who I am and meets what he considers stupidity with ignorant comments with no backup for his statements whatsoever. I had relatives that lived and served during WWII and they all agreed that being armed in this country, to the extent that we were during the war, helped keep Japan from invading the mainland. People back then were doing everything in their power to help the war effort and were true patriots, whether they were in the service or not, unlike many of today's American citizens who are taking their freedoms for granted and would rather pretend that the government and law enforcement have an obligation to protect them and their families, when the courts have debunked that theory time and again.