ATF raids Ares Armor despite restraining order

OCEANSIDE, Calif. –  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) raided Ares Armor, a gun parts supplier, despite a court order granting a temporary restraint until March 20, 2014. On Saturday, March 15, Ares Armor Chief Operating Officer Jeremy Tuma posted this photo on Instagram:

 

On Tuesday, March 11, the United States District Court in Southern California granted a temporary restraining order against the ATF, staying a planned raid on Ares Armor to seize its inventory and customer records. The planned action was due to the company offering heretofore legal so-called “80 percent lower receivers,” or unfinished gun parts that must be further processed by the purchasers into what is legally classified by the ATF as a “firearm.” The temporary restraining order is supposed to stay any raid until at least after a preliminary hearing scheduled for March 20.

Ares Armor filed a motion Tuesday claiming that “The ATF’s planned seizure violates the Fourth Amendment” and that the “ATF mischaracterizes ‘EP 80 percent lower receivers’ as firearms as a pretense to seize customer information.” They further stated that “Ares Armor has standing to sue on behalf of itself and its customers,” and that if the planned raid were allowed to go forward, “Ares Armor will suffer irreparable harm.” Along with the motion for a temporary restraining order, Ares Armor filed a complaint for deprivation of civil rights, stating that the receivers they carry cannot legally be defined as firearms according to ATF’s own determinations. They say the ATF clearly specifies several machining operations that must be performed in order for the 80 percent receivers to become 100 percent receivers and legally classified as firearms.

On Friday, March 14, YouTube personality, product reviewer and gun rights advocate Nutnfancy posted an interview with Ares Armor CEO and USMC Iraq combat veteran Dimitrios Karras:

Karras said he met with ATF agents and discussed how the ATF’s new finding contradicts every previous finding and is based on information which the ATF knows is faulty. The ATF agent’s response, according to Karras, was that he didn’t care and it didn’t matter because his superiors gave him his orders. Karras said it was “comparable to talking to a prison guard at Auschwitz who’s just doing his job.” Karras agreed with interviewer Nutnfancy who asked if he would characterize the ATF as an agency that “make the rules up as they go along and doesn’t care about the rule of law.”

According to Karras, the ATF had been specifically asking for the Ares Armor customer list for many months and told him “no one will know we have the list.” Karras told a local Fox affiliate, “They said either give us these 5,000 names or we are coming in and taking pretty much anything – which is a huge privacy concern and something we are not willing to do.” Karras says he believes turning over his customer list would violate their privacy rights and would be morally wrong. He says his refusal to turn over his customer list led to increased “strong arm tactics” in an effort to force him to give them his customer list.

Karras says the ATF is now threatening to file criminal charges against him and confiscate inventory, in addition to what Karras believes is a very real threat to business that may even cause Ares Armor to close its doors permanently. Karras said people that could otherwise be customers may be reluctant to purchase from Ares Armor out of fear of being harassed themselves by the ATF. He also estimates Ares Armor has spent over $20,000 in legal fees in the first week alone so far.
Also, on Friday, March 14, the United States District Court in Southern California issued a clarifying order to prevent Ares Armor from divesting itself of inventory and records subject to the temporary restraining order the court issued Tuesday. The court order did not prohibit lawful criminal proceedings. The ATF appears to be ”working around” the temporary restraining order by accusing Ares Armor of illegally selling guns, rather than honoring the court ordered date of March 20 to obtain resolution without a raid. Despite the temporary restraining order and the clarifying order issued Friday, the ATF apparently raided all Ares Armor locations Saturday. This video was also posted Saturday, which clearly shows the Ares Armor storefront, the front door lock damaged and door ajar, and law enforcement agents visible inside the store:

The ATF’s response, and apparent justification for the raid, states that

while this Court’s order prevents ATF from taking ‘any steps’ to deprive Ares Armor of this contraband, the order DOES NOT RECIPROCALLY PROHIBIT ARES ARMOR FROM destroying, transferring, selling, or otherwise divesting itself of this evidence and contraband, and, further, allows Ares Armor to remain in possession of this contraband (emphasis added).

However, this claim is false, according to the court’s order clarifying the temporary restraining order, dated March 14, which states:

Ares Armor (“Plaintiff”) and its owners, officers, managers, employees, and agents ARE HEREBY PROHIBITED from taking any steps to destroy, transfer, sell, or otherwise divest themselves of the items that are the subject matter of the Court’s March 11, 2014 Temporary Restraining Order.

The court clearly states Ares Armor is prohibited from getting rid of the evidence, which is what the ATF claims the company is free to do under the temporary restraining order. At this time it is not clear if any charges have been filed against Dimitrios Karras or anyone else. This story will continue to develop as more details emerge.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication Marh 16, 2014).

Gun Control Debate: Loopholes, Part II - There Is No “Online Gun Store Loophole”

Liberals have now taken the “gun show loophole” argument into cyberspace. But despite their claims, there is no “online gun store loophole” for gun purchases.

As I wrote previously, despite the failures of any gun legislation to move forward — even the Manchin-Toomey amendment, hailed as a “compromise” that largely addressed expanding background checks, among other provisions — gun control advocates vowed the fight for gun control is not over. We should expect to see many of the recent arguments resurface later this year. Along with the so-called “gun show loophole” exposed here as a fraud, we can also expect to see the so-called “online loophole” again.

It is a myth to claim there is an “online loophole.” This myth is designed to sound scary to those who are ignorant of what the law already requires. A loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” An online loophole could only exist if there were a law meant to restrict gun sales which some were evading by purchasing online.

What does the law say? According to the ATFE, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d) “A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.” And per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) “A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.” The ATF further clarifies, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3) “A person not licensed under the GCA [Gun Control Act] and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.” So the law requires a buyer to buy in his own state or make an in-person purchase in another state; or, if purchased out of state and not in person, for the firearm to ship to a licensed Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) in the buyer’s state, where it may then be transferred to the buyer. Note that all FFLs must conduct background checks through FBI-run NICS for every purchase, regardless of location.

In plain English this means it it 100% legal to purchase a gun from anyone in the state you live in; it is 100% legal to purchase in another state in-person at a licensed dealer; and it 100% legal to purchase from an out-of-state seller as long as the firearm is shipped to a licensed FFL in your state. This means you can find a gun to buy in paper classified ads, online classified ads, physical store retailers, and online retailers legally already. No loophole exists.

A buyer may legally go to online classified ads or auction sites like Gunbroker, Guns America, or Armslist and order (pay for) a gun, but if the seller is out of state, it must be shipped to a FFL in-state for the transfer (taking physical possession) of the firearm. Failure to do so is already a federal crime per § 18 U.S.C. 924(3)(C). If the seller is in your state, the law stipulates it is perfectly legal for the buyer to meet the seller in person to complete the transfer of the firearm, regardless of whether the parties first got in touch through an online classified, paper classified, met at a local fundraiser, or whatever. It is 100% legal under the law to purchase (pay for), a firearm from an online retailer such as as Atlantic Firearms, Centerfire Systems, or Bud’s Gun Shop, but transfer of the gun must be done via in-state FFL. It is not legal for those retailers to ship the firearm to your front door, like your last order from Amazon.com, however – it must go to a FFL. Shipping it to your front door, and not to a FFL, is already a federal crime.

Many gun control advocates continue to be either ignorant, or willfully ignorant, of what the existing law says in order to perpetrate these myths and scare or dupe the public. This is the basis for the “gun show loophole” and the “online loophole” arguments.
 
Education defeats propaganda. It is critical to examine precisely what the law and federal law enforcement agencies say about these issues.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication June 13, 2013).

There Is No “Online Gun Store Loophole”

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jun 13, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 1 comment

Liberals have now taken the “gun show loophole” argument into cyberspace. But despite their claims, there is no “online gun store loophole” for gun purchases.

As I wrote previously, despite the failures of any gun legislation to move forward — even the Manchin-Toomey amendment, hailed as a “compromise” that largely addressed expanding background checks, among other provisions — gun control advocates vowed the fight for gun control is not over. We should expect to see many of the recent arguments resurface later this year. Along with the so-called “gun show loophole” exposed here as a fraud, we can also expect to see the so-called “online loophole” again.

It is a myth to claim there is an “online loophole.” This myth is designed to sound scary to those who are ignorant of what the law already requires. A loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” An online loophole could only exist if there were a law meant to restrict gun sales which some were evading by purchasing online.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d) “A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.” And per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) “A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.” The ATF further clarifies, per § 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3) “A person not licensed under the GCA [Gun Control Act] and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.” So the law requires a buyer to buy in his own state or make an in-person purchase in another state; or, if purchased out of state and not in person, for the firearm to ship to a licensed Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) in the buyer’s state, where it may then be transferred to the buyer. Note that all FFLs must conduct background checks through FBI-run NICS for every purchase, regardless of location.

In plain English this means it it 100% legal to purchase a gun from anyone in the state you live in; it is 100% legal to purchase in another state in-person at a licensed dealer; and it 100% legal to purchase from an out-of-state seller as long as the firearm is shipped to a licensed FFL in your state. This means you can find a gun to buy in paper classified ads, online classified ads, physical store retailers, and online retailers legally already. No loophole exists.

A buyer may legally go to online classified ads or auction sites like Gunbroker, Guns America, or Armslist and order (pay for) a gun, but if the seller is out of state, it must be shipped to a FFL in-state for the transfer (taking physical possession) of the firearm. Failure to do so is already a federal crime per § 18 U.S.C. 924(3)(C). If the seller is in your state, the law stipulates it is perfectly legal for the buyer to meet the seller in person to complete the transfer of the firearm, regardless of whether the parties first got in touch through an online classified, paper classified, met at a local fundraiser, or whatever. It is 100% legal under the law to purchase (pay for), a firearm from an online retailer such as as Atlantic Firearms, Centerfire Systems, or Bud’s Gun Shop, but transfer of the gun must be done via in-state FFL. It is not legal for those retailers to ship the firearm to your front door, like your last order from Amazon.com, however – it must go to a FFL. Shipping it to your front door, and not to a FFL, is already a federal crime.

Many gun control advocates continue to be either ignorant, or willfully ignorant, of what the existing law says in order to perpetrate these myths and scare or dupe the public. This is the basis for the “gun show loophole” and the “online loophole” arguments. Education defeats propaganda. It is critical to examine precisely what the law and federal law enforcement agencies say about these issues.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Jun 13, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Debate: Loopholes, Part I - There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This  article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication May 31, 2013). 

There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 31, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion,

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date May 31, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Obama Gun Control Speech: His 23 Executive Orders Won't Accomplish Much

Obama Gun Control Speech: His 23 Executive Orders Won't Accomplish Much

President Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control, sending directives to many Federal agencies. Some of these orders are good steps, but many are rhetoric and won't accomplish much. Here's a break down of the orders:

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

This is certainly a good thing, if they actually do it. As one of my previous articles demonstrates, the Obama administration has not followed through with the actual execution of existing laws and Congress has only funded NICS (the background check system) at 5.3% of approved amounts for the last 3 years.

Order 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.

This is good, provided actual action is taken.

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

This is also very good. It will be interesting to see what specifics this covers, i.e., what incentives, as well as to see how states respond with actual reporting. Also covered previously is that 19 states have provided almost nothing in the way of records so far.

Order 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.

This smells of rhetoric. If they present something concrete that was a significant oversight, I'll stand corrected.

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

This could have an impact. I see no reason why gun owners would object to someone who is prohibited from possessing a gun from having one. However, if this ends up used in practice as a delay tactic to keep lawful owners from receiving their guns back, it would not be a good thing.

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

This will have an impact if Congress separately passes legislation requiring private sellers to sell through federally licensed dealers. This seems to indicate they are hoping to acheive that.

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

Rhetoric. Safety is good, but I see this as more of a move to designed so they can say "See? We did something," rather than an actual measure designed to reduce crime, mass shootings or even accidents.

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

Also mostly rhetoric. "Reviewing" safety standards in and of itself isn't bad. However, I don't see a reasonable expectation of improving anything. Gun locks aren't needed if the gun is in a safe. Gun locks shouldn't be used on a personal defense conceal carry weapon (which should be stored in a safe when not used - even if a bedside safe like a Gunvault safe).

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

If they weren't doing this already, then shame on the administration.

Order 10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 

This could end up providing interesting information over time.  Kudos.   Analyzing after the fact won't prevent crime though.

Order 11. Nominate an ATF director.

This is something Obama could — and should — have done a long time ago. He should direct "If there's even one thing we could do" comments to himself on this one.

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

This is something that is already available. It will be interesting to see what specifics are involved with this order. Does it provide greater Federal agency involvement in training? Is it funded? If not, how does the president plan to address this failing, like the failure to fund the NICS system?

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

Rhetoric. Does this suggest efforts are not currently maximized? This is "feel good" language.

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

Good idea.

Order 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. 

I don't forsee anything new or Earth-shattering here either. Primary gun safety is with the person holding the gun - assume it's loaded, check to verify if it is loaded, never point it at a person or any target unless you intend to shoot it, never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot, and always be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

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

Thumbs up.

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

Same as 16.

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

This is interesting. The president is essentially backing the NRA proposal here.  "Resource officer" means an armed adult staff member, be it school administrator or teacher.

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

This can't hurt, but is essentially part of the existing active shooter response training already available.

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

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

Order 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

If these orders have the net result that patients have better access to mental health care, then in total, the above 3 orders are good.

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

We need a robust discussion on mental health. Directing one on paper could be good, but doesn't mean anything at the end of the day, unless this is truly pursued. Mental health discussion is not likely to net instant gratification, so it will likely fall by the wayside.

Overall, there are some good steps represented in these orders, however many of them amount to "feel good" language and re-stating what already exists. To really dig into the meat of these issues, real action must be taken, not just more words printed on paper.  I applaud the steps outlined for the most part, but contend real action is beyond what is represented here.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication  January 16, 2013).