Obama's Executive Action on Guns Explained

A short primer on President Obama's recent announcement of new Executive Actions regarding gun control. Common sense or Tyranny? That is the question.

[KahavaveCAPIPI]

I still like how you present these unbiased. Only time I can do that is when I don't have an opinion either way.

[chasrathburn]

I want you to know that you are awesome!!! I love that not only you do history lessons that both provide a broad understanding as well as an in depth analysis, but also provide your thoughts on contemporary events!!

[joeaguirre]

I am very pro-firearms and very pro 2nd amendment, in my humble opinion background checks are EXTREMELY important and absolutely necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and quite honestly should be expanded . I have to say, the "internet sales don't require background checks" is a complete fallacy! Yes you can purchase a firearm online but it must be shipped to someone with a Federal Firearms license (I.E a gun store) where BEFORE you take possession of said firearm, where a background check must be completed..these arbitrary gun law are being written by people who don't even know how the current laws work or even how modern firearms and their accessories work...thanks for shedding light on the facts. Love your content!

[RadioactiveSincex]

You did a good job with this video, very fair. And as a gun owner I am very glad you used the quotation gesture when referring to the "gun show loophole" lol.

[PUM_Productions]

I agree with Keith, gun regulation can easily fit under the commerce clause. But it is still CONGRESS that needs to pass it, not the PRESIDENT.

[vincent]

Thank you for posting this video. I have not researched, read or "dug into" the whole of the Presidents executive action yet. My opinion on some of the controversy is that since he has only one more year in office he can, with little harm to any political career he may wish after office, do something like this. Is he over reaching his power? Probably not if he is indeed enforcing, clarifying or maybe funding the execution of existing laws. I do believe that too many of the citizens of the USA do not have the same respect for weapons, firearms, and maybe life as the people who were alive when this amendment was added. We also have near instantaneous transmission or dissemination of information, good, bad, true or untrue that these people did not have maybe much to our detriment. Be of good cheer.

[adamcostilla]

I think it's government doing what it does when allowed to roam freely; that is destroy prosperity, kill the free market and harm individuals. This applies to all matters, not just firearms.

[Mallory-Malkovich]

After 3 days, if they don't do the background check, _they just give you the gun?_ Are you kidding? How did that even become a law in the first place!? That's insane!

[wombocombo]

your my favorite youtuber thanks keep up the funniness like say more oh yeah!! its so cool hope to see it thanks!!!

[MrEricksonsvideos]

While I don't believe his actions have gone beyond what the law allows him to do, I do see these actions as primarily political smoke and mirrors. The number of legally obtained weapons used in illegal actions are small and this approach is more to show the left he is doing SOMETHING. An idea I heard floated that I think might be more effective is a mandatory jail term of at least 10 years for any violent use of a gun, this would be above and beyond whatever time was assigned for the specific crime. This would also apply to anyone found in possession of an unregistered weapon--10 years just for simple possession. While costly, I hello be this would deter illegal weapon use much more than background checks.

[johnfranks]

The rules currently in place are sufficient for determining who is in the business of selling guns and who is not. If you purchase guns with the intent to sell, you are in the business of dealing guns. Someone buying a gun at retail and flipping it to a ineligible individual is already a felony for both parties. New rules will not affect these transactions as they are already illegal.

What this does do is create a paper trail of law abiding gun owners. As someone who values my 2nd amendment rights, I will not risk losing them by selling to someone without going through the background check process. Even though I know I'm "not in the business", the "single sale" wording in the rules leaves too much room for abuse by unscrupulous government enforcers.

History has shown that registration leads to confiscation. While the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 prevents the federal government from creating a registry of non-NFA firearms, the bread crumbs left behind by law abiding gun owners engaged in private transactions is concerning to those who understand how tyrannical governments have abused registration information in the past.

If the intent is truly to stop ineligible people from obtaining guns, why not start by prosecuting the 2 million felons denied on the current 4473 applications? Here you have a repeat offender who is actively seeking a gun, knows they are ineligible, committing a felony which means you can immediately take them off the streets, and slam dunk physical evidence that can lead to a long term prison sentence... WHY NOT prosecute those?

[moccamonster]

I'm interested to see how this will affect gun sales on the long term. I'm also wondering if the next president will uphold it or not.

[TheRabidfan]

I consider myself more on the conservative side but I totally agree that what Obama is proposing is seriously not a big deal and that it is indeed common sense. I'm amazed that it hasn't happened sooner.

[martingee]

I believe an up rising is inevitable whether it starts from good or bad people, and no one from this time will be able to change that even though it is possible.

[christinekouria]

But getting a gun isn't legally impossible right? I don't understand what the fuss is about. These background checks were made to help make sure guns weren't in the wrong hands (criminals.) So ideally the only people effected by this is criminals. Is there anything I'm missing?

[acromionbionic]

As a gun owner I'm happy to see this action by the president. It may or may not prove effective but we have the responsibility to close obvious gaps in accessibility to firearms. The most common reaction I get is the bad guys don't follow the law argument. Which is valid to a point; the point being that it is retrospectively valid. The best we can do is ensure that guns are not legally accessible to violent offenders and the mentally unstable. Perhaps reinvesting in mental health in this country is worthwhile considering the cost of the decades of deinstitutionalization. I know a few gun traders and I know they would rather have a slow week than sell a weapon used in a homicide or worse, a mass event. Sadly, we see the cost of inaction but we can never measure what tragedies are averted through legislation like this. This is so analogous to the pit bull argument: they are harmless with proper training but deadly in the wrong hands. Breathe deep..calm your titties. It'll be ok

[pmjones]

Legal online auctions DO have background checks. Here's how it goes. I buy a gun online. It has to be shipped from Federally Licenced Gun Store to another Federally Licenced Gun Store. The FLGS at the recipients end, my local gun store in this example MUST provide background check on me just as if I was buying one of the guns they have in stock. It's illegal to ship guns from person to person, so if the current law in followed, there is no problem with online gun sales.

[kyanders]

It seems to me more of a Federalism issue. Does the President have the right to execute a law not specifically granted by the Legislature? The President may be acting beyond his scope like in Youngstown Steel because it is not a foreign issue and is therefore a domestic issue. He might argue that Congress has historically delegated these types of issues to the President giving him the right, an example would be delegating power to the Executive branch via the ATF agency. Congress carries out the will of the people hence the President may be hindering the people's sphere of federalism. Hopefully this makes its way to the Court, it would make a great future Keith Hughes video.

[alejandroflores-samaniego]

He knows he can't take away our guns but by implementing new laws in such a way that it only effects law abiding citizens wallet! It's my opinion and every time somebody buys gun on line or gun shop it must be transferred to ffl dealer and get a background check. All that info about the buyer is in the state police database at least it is here in Oregon. Another issue we have is to many people on pain pills, that kills more people than guns and that problem hasn't been solved

[Allen]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by LBJ allows private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. You cannot buy a firearm online without an FFL unless it is considered an antique (pre-1899) or a black powder which the ATF does not define as a firearm.

"Gun Show Loophole" is essentially private sales at a gun show. Which some gun shows do not allow. The whole idea that background checks on all gun sales would prevent guns getting into the wrongs hands was based on a statement given by Robyn Anderson. She basically said she wouldn't have purchased the guns used in the Columbine High School shooting if there had been the required paper work. What isn't being talked about is she straw purchased them and she still could have done it with a background check or not. Obama is just one of many politicians trying to come to the rescue for a crisis that has been fabricated and pushed by the media for decades.