Obama's 23 Executive Gun Control Actions

Tyler Durden's picture

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jonas Parker's picture

Hard to say with a straight face when your CCW in it's shoulder holster is hanging on the hook by your clothes in the examination room...

Fedaykinx's picture

around here they don't even have to ask.  if you don't have a shotgun and a rifle in your house there's something wrong with you.

Husk-Erzulie's picture

Whole lotta nothing... I am Andrew Cuomo's creeping sense of unease...  LO fuckin' L.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Dangerous assault-lists like this should be restricted to no more than ten items.

Congressional-style assault legislation should be limited to no more than ten pages.

Transformer's picture

The whole thing was an exercise to judge the reaction of the populace.  From what we have seen in the media, and all across the country, it's pretty obvious.  The sleeping giant is awakening.  This is what they are afraid of.  Try taking the guns and the giant will wake up and be very angry.

ElvisDog's picture

This is the problem the gun-ban people have. If guns are banned and there is sporadic, isolated opposition - some guy living in the woods who says he won't give up his guns - TPTB can handle that. But if entire towns/counties/states openly defy the gun ban, which just happened in some town in Oregon. What do TPTB do then? It's all a bluff predicated on the hope that 99.9% of the people will be cowed into following the laws. When that doesn't happen (and it won't) then it's game over for the central state.

Captain Benny's picture

The great states of Wyoming and Nevada are also proposing legislation to clarify that it is a felony to attempt to mandate purchase reporting, gun registration, magazine size limits, and various other restrictions in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Nevada Assemblyman Jim Wheeler: http://www.wheeler4nevada.org/3/post/2013/01/the-race-for-gun-control-in-america.html

Wyoming's bill is HB0104


More states need to clarify that it is THEIR right to regulate THEIR state without FEDERAL mandates and restrictions that violate the oaths of office.


MachoMan's picture

Absolutely.  I fail to see how this should be allowed to be a federal concern...  just like California is free to ban certain guns and magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds...  [although I completely disagree it is constitutional; it's still a state's rights issue]

gnomon's picture

Citizens who have never been criminals are now being criminalized in Blue States.  The Obummer crowd has already overstepped.  These experiments in gun control/confiscation will go badly in the next year.  The Red States will go more red in 2014, knowing what awaits them if the House goes Blue.

pods's picture

Any mention of the false left-right paradigm gets a ding from me.


Cathartes Aura's picture

Oregon has Ron Wyden, who's very keen to bring drones to the depressed economy (drones already based in Portland). . . they also have Evergreen Air, an admitted see-aye-AE aerosoling operation. . .

and licensed, taxed, permited MedMaryJ revenue.   and a high proportion of the populace are on mind-pharna of some sort, etc. etc.

Banksters's picture


LukeWorm's picture

Could it be watered down even more ??

Zer0head's picture

this ain't watered down at all (other than some fluff inserted to distract), it is brilliant to the point that people actually see it as being watered down

#15 for example

Sean7k's picture

Please explain your issue. A report is unimportant. Seeking safety mechanisms seems pretty straight forward. Maybe I'm missing something, so please illume.

Zer0head's picture

"Attorney General to issue a report"

(the report is likely written already) the same way an asslicker CEO calls on McKinsey to issue a report on how best to optimize the production facilities and 4 months later with report in hand announces the relocation of the factory in asslick Arkansas to Poco Loco Mexico

the AG will issue a report that says all guns shall be fitted with automatic disabling devices, tracking devices or whatever and that existing guns of a certain classification shall be retrofitted..

Sean7k's picture

Which requires LEGISLATION. The AG can't require disabling devices.

NidStyles's picture

Going to war requires legislation too.

Sean7k's picture

Yes and no. Plus, no AG has ever declared a war. The abuses of the executive office are legion, but they still are being comitted by the President exclusively.

NidStyles's picture

AG has all of the powers that the President gives him.

Sean7k's picture

The attorney general is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time; the attorney general is also subject to impeachment by theHouse of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."[1] Only in 1870 was the Department of Justice established to support the attorney general in the discharge of his responsibilities

Congress might disagree.

lightning's picture

You are right, but here is the rub.  If you look through these executive orders they are very clever.  Obama is using federal agencies to do his dirty work.  The one dealing with the CDC is also very alarming.  You all noticed how the DSM-V expanded its contents?  The CDC won't be far behind.  They won't attempt to ban guns which would obviously violate Hellar, but they will use every regulation at their disposal to make it nearly impossible for you to get one.  BEWARE - this list looks benign, but I honestly find it more frightning than if he attempted via executive order to actually ban guns.  This is ten times more dangerous because it appears so benign.

Sean7k's picture

I don't find them clever, I find them to be a violation of the Congressional exclusivity to create legislation. While the Supreme Court has approved them, this means nothing to me. Fascism is fascism. 

Starting from this point, I never expect the government to be anything other than the brown shirt, goosesteppers that they are. I have no expectations of liberty, freedom from debt slavery or any other ridiculous assumption of natural rights. 

The Elites run this show for themselves. The only safe place is in the folds and creases, and then, only until they have the time to chase down the last bastions of independence. 

What I find discouraging is the number of idiots that think they have some control over the system. 

SheepDog-One's picture

How much are those 'devices' going to cost to make you 'in compliance'? And when they say 'If you own firearms (we have the list so dont try to pretend you dont) you need to report for a psychological screening test'....then they drag out the file of everything youve ever said on ZH, youtube, Twitter, the internet in general....how many of us do you think would 'pass' such a test?

Goldust's picture

I'll explain a little for him. The main brilliance is in #2 and 16.  Making info on gun ownership part of your health record.  That is their workaround to compile a federal level list of gun owners in America.  Who needs a warrant to examine purchase records at a gun dealer when its right there, plain as day, in your healthcare record... oh, and privacy?  There is an exception for matters of grave public health concern (if there isnt, there will be soon... count on it), and knowing who owns guns is such a matter because some bureaucrat said so.  Bing Bam Boom, your door gets kicked in.  Of course, this is just a baby step.  They aint kicking in doors next week or even next year probably, but they will be, and they know it.

j0nx's picture

All seems a little moot when they have financial trails from everyone in the past 5 years who has purchased a firearm, any accessory or ammunition for one via credit card. Banks already sort all of your purchases by type anyway. I have no doubt in my mind that all that information doesn't get dumped into an NSA or FBI database somewhere and easily catalogued with name and address. They already know unless you have made EVERY firearm, ammo and and accessory purchase with cash in the past 5 years.

NidStyles's picture

I have never bought a firearm with anything but cash. The only thing I buy with the debit card are Fiat Ben Bucks.

mkhs's picture

You think the background check isn't a clue to gun ownership?  I doubt the list gets corzined.

Vooter's picture

So is my motor vehicle registration a diabolical precursor to the government kicking in my garage door and taking my car?

NidStyles's picture

There is a difference between revenue generation and threat reduction.

Vooter's picture

Oh, I see--so you'd be okay with a nation of hundreds of millions of unlicensed Americans driving hundreds of millions of unregistered and uninsured vehicles? Just driving anything they want, wherever they want, without any concern for anyone else's well-being? Just running over your kids, and running into your new car, safe in the knowledge that you'll have no recourse to do anything about it? How about surgeons and airline pilots? No licensing for them, either, right? After all, anyone should be able to operate on anyone else, and hey, I've always wanted to fly a 767 without any training whatsoever...climb aboard!

NidStyles's picture

Yes, because that is exactly what I just said right?


People are completely capable of self-regulating. What you are doing is telling us that you wourself are incapable of this. That means the problem lies within you yourself.

notadouche's picture

It can be if you continue to neglect it.  Why don't you try it for say 5 years and see what happens and report back to us if your able.  

Ident 7777 economy's picture

+1; All your base are belong to us, as well as your MED RECS

Ham-bone's picture

The appearance of doing something and taking credit while doing nothing...well played sir, well played.

I think there's a term for this....ah yes, POLITICS.

jmcadg's picture

I thought it already was?

mirac's picture

There's always Canadian beer.  May I suggest a king cab or two of Labatts Ice...

Cynical_Observer's picture

American Beer is already watered down. Try our Canadian Beer sometime :)

zerozulu's picture

If you cannot protect your constitutional rights, forget your beer, your ass will be kicked.

pupton's picture

Anything that you consume affects your HEALTH, right?  Get ready for it champ.  They're already on top of your 16oz Coke.

Pumpkin's picture

Have you ever gone drinking and shooting?  It is an absolute hoot!  Well, except for Uncle Roy.

Pool Shark's picture




24. Seize firearms from US citizens and ship to Mexican drug lords.



Ghordius's picture

now that could be made illegal with an international treaty as the one that was drafted in the UN

you know, the one that was addressing the international movements of arms

(that's across national borders, for those who don't know what international trade & movements means)

but the NRA went spare, so no way, José

LynRobison's picture

Yes, and we all know that international treaties and international law constitute the preeminent body of law to which we must all subject ourselves.

Carl Spackler's picture


And, what other jokes do the Euro socialist clowns have for us today?

A world currency?