NSSF Statement on Obama’s Gun Control Executive Orders

nssf

Here’s the NSSF’s statement on President Obama’s just-announced executive orders:

We all share the goal of reducing the intentional misuse of guns and enhancing the safety of our communities. As the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) will carefully review all aspects of the executive actions that President Obama announced today. Much remains to be spelled out. In the interim we have some initial reactions:

  • We support further resources being allocated to staffing and increasing operational hours for the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to make the system more efficient and responsive.
  • We represent Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). The criteria for what will constitute being “engaged in the business” going forward needs considerable clarification and raises questions about enforceability.
  • The number of firearms lost or stolen while in transit to or from FFLs is less than 0.15 percent of the number manufactured and imported in a given year. In these rare occurrences, FFLs already actively participate in ATF’s long-standing voluntary reporting program and FFLs and common carriers work closely with ATF to investigate them. Proposals to make a shipping FFL responsible for tracking and reporting firearms no longer in their inventories, after the legal title has been transferred to the purchaser, are misdirected, as the receiving FFL is in the best position to know if it receives its shipment.
  • We have long called for the effective enforcement of the numerous laws already on the books regarding the criminal misuse of firearms and would encourage the administration to carry through on this directive.
  • NSSF has been working actively since early 2013 through our FixNICS initiative to encourage states to report all appropriate adjudicated mental health records to NICS and has succeeded in getting legislation passed in more than a dozen states. We welcome the administration’s attention to this issue.
  • With regard to the development of “smart-gun” technology, the industry has never opposed its development. How additional government research into this technology would advance it is unclear. Law enforcement agencies and consumers themselves will have to make the determination whether acquisition of firearms with this technology “would be consistent with operational needs,” as the White House itself states. We would continue to oppose mandates for this technology, particularly since there are well proven existing methods to secure firearms, and firearms accidents are at historic low levels.

NSSF will have additional responses in the days, weeks and months ahead, especially as federal departments and agencies begin the work of carrying out the executive orders.

comments

  1. avatar ACP_arms says:

    Well said NSSF…

  2. avatar Big E says:

    unfortunately, logic, effectiveness, common-sense, liberty, etc are not the objectives of these actions and their authors. We can all recognize the fallacies and infringements to no avail. That is what they want.

  3. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Listening to that speech on the radio right now has really pissed me off.

    The smugness, the cavalier delivery, deliberately playing some parts for *laughs*.

    Gee, I sure hope my phone doesn’t ring right now asking my opinion on El Presidente’s current of handling of the country…

  4. avatar Silver says:

    Absolutely nothing coming from the White House should be supported, ever.

    Obama is a villain. Everyone with half a brain and a smidgen of morality knows that. Therefore, everything he proposes is an act of villainy, no matter how innocent it sounds on the outside. You can bet with absolute certainty that at the hidden heart of everything he proposes, there’s some kind of attack on Constitutional rights or the lives of citizens. It’s what he does. It’s what his party does.

    If the head of ISIS got on the news and rolled out some policy changes, would we believe them him?

  5. avatar Mike says:

    Someone should ask Mr. Obama how it feels to know that he and his family will be protected by armed guards for the rest of his life. Maybe he could make that a possibility for average Americans, since the most sacred human right is the right to self defense.

  6. avatar Joe Nieters says:

    I thought gun “safety” meant;

    – Knowing the 4 rules.
    – A trigger system that works reliably.
    – A weapon that doesn’t discharge when dropped.
    – Accurate sites.
    – Ammunition that always clears the barrel.
    – Bullets that always perform as advertised.
    – Holster retention that prevents an unexpected pull without impacting desirable presentation.
    – Consistent regulations regardless of geographic location.
    – A sufficient and effective trigger guard.
    – Adequate range ventilation. (Hope the EPA doesn’t see this one.)

  7. avatar Joe R. says:

    The “problem” is barack hussein obama. You can tell, because he says it’s you. He’s one of your stupid neighbors who needed a job that ganged up on you and are calling themselves your ‘government’. The Second Amendment is there to prevent your neighbors from removing or limiting your rights. If you can’t get a gun because someone has difficulty selling you one, you are prevented from protecting yourself from the very people imposing the restrictions.
    It has been shown, throughout known history, that a-holes like that have been a greater problem to the population that they claim they rule or govern, than any single or grouped constituencies.

    The other problem we have (in the U.S.) is everyone that voted for him. You chose sides, and you chose wrong.

    1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

      “The other problem we have (in the U.S.) is everyone that voted for him”

      Winner winner, chicken dinner.

    2. avatar never follow says:

      The problem are haters like you, who belong in the same “mental illness” category.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Let me never hear your bitch-cry for [help from] a ‘hater’, when the fing liberal/progressive/communist (D)bags come for you and your kids [which is far more likely than you ever being harassed by a “hater” or gun-owner].

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    Well, that was calm. If I was the NSSF, I would be telling King Hussein to perform an anatomically impossible act, and then suggest a deadly meal of waste products.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      Now you and I know that the Prez does not eat at McDonalds…….

  9. avatar Mk10108 says:

    I don’t know who these jackasses are. Seems they are the main beneficiaries of the Executive Order. Castle and coin without conscience.

  10. avatar JB Karns says:

    NSSF = Quislings and enablers.

    The POTUS (nor anyone else) has no constitutional authority to infringe on the fundamental constitutionally-enumerated liberty to keep and bear arms.

    Further, the POTUS has no authority over any individual not subject to his Chief Executive of the Fed-Gov/Commander in Chief role as specified in the Constitution.

    Some of you people need to wake the hell up and grow a set of balls, because it has come down to one of two choices….

    #1. Refuse to comply and begin to resist, disobey, nullify and prepare to defend self, family, nation, comunity and Liberty itself with force of arms, when inevitably Govt force is used against you to abrogate your fundamental essential iberty.

    …or…

    #2. Take the path of the Quisling and the Tory and lick the boots of govt, reject and oppose those who stand for Rightful Liberty and Constitutional Governance and grovel subserviently whilst taking what scraps of perceptual liberty the Govt deigns to ‘allow’ you to have.

    There are no other actual options and only the insane, the stuipd, the willfully ignorant, or those suffering from abject Cognitive Dissonence can believably fail to grasp this fundamental reality.

    As for me, ‘I Will Not Comply’ and I refuse to back up or back down, nor will I provide any rhetorical cover or any arena for weasel-speak, rationalization, justification or excuse-making from those who are facilitating, enabling, assisting or aiding and abbeting the domestic enemies of Liberty and the Constitution.

    It really is that simple.

  11. avatar pod says:

    What, no opinion on 41P, NSSF?

  12. avatar Felix says:

    .15% of guns are lost or stolen in shipment? That’s one of every 700, and seems several orders of magnitude high to me. I wonder what is included that is not obvious.

    1. avatar Noah says:

      Mind you, failed ATF stings hike the number considerably.

  13. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    NSSF Supports Background checks. I am surprised they don’t get more hate for that.

  14. avatar Green Beastie says:

    Why can’t we just set a number of guns sold per year that makes someone a dealer? Why is this so hard?

    There wasn’t a number before, which created a so-called ‘loophole’…
    Now there’s still not a number, so someone who sells just one or two could be ridiculously considered ‘in business’ for a few hundred dollars profit (if any) for selling a couple hunting rifles.

    The democrats don’t want to solve this problem, they just want to keep it as a divisive issue for the election. If they did want to solve it they could have taken a couple very easy steps like increasing funding and opening NICS to the public while setting a clear “selling more than 9 guns a year makes you a dealer” guideline.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Because the lack of a defined quantity is a feature that can be exploited. It gives F-Troop “flexibility” if they want to pursue an alleged “bad apple gun dealer”. And also promotes FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) among others.

      If F-Troop WANT to convict someone over a single item sale, they can and probably will.

      After all the hype, I expected more than the BATF being told to “enforce the law” and a bunch of “pretty-pleases”.

  15. avatar Cody says:

    At least the agree with Obama. Background checks solve everything…

  16. avatar John says:

    I don’t think more enforcement of the already existing gun laws is such a good idea. Just means the Feds will go out looking for trouble and creating criminals.

  17. avatar Roy says:

    Lacking was any statement on Old people being stripped of their gun rights.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email