Massif

“Biden-Harris” Administration Announces Initial Actions to Address the “Gun Violence Public Health Epidemic”

Yes, the quotes in the headline were added by the editor. When more people are beaten to death each year by fists than killed by all rifles (including hunting accidents), you know someone is intentionally lying to you. Words have meanings, well until MINITRU redefines them at least, and an epidemic this is not. As for the “Biden-Harris” administration, that’s more telling than anything else that has happened, including falling up stairs repeatedly.

Regardless, a couple of these proposed actions could directly affect the US firearms industrial base as well as the US citizens who buy from them. As such executive actions cannot be directly implemented without the publication of proposed rules changes and a mandatory 30-day comment period, be prepared to provide feedback to the executive branch. In the past, ill informed schemes hav even foiled by responses to proposals. The stabilizing brace issue is particularly sticky for the “Biden-Harris” administration as they were created to assist disabled Americans to safely and effectively use firearms, not to mention the fact that they are currently employed on firearms owned by millions of Americans.

The “Biden-Harris” administration couldn’t even wait until Thursday like they had announced, to unveil their initial list of executive actions to curtail civil rights. This list was published on Wednesday evening. In case you missed it elsewhere, here it is:

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing six initial actions to address the gun violence public health epidemic. The recent high-profile mass shootings in Boulder – taking the lives of 10 individuals – and Atlanta – taking the lives of eight individuals, including six Asian American women – underscored the relentlessness of this epidemic. Gun violence takes lives and leaves a lasting legacy of trauma in communities every single day in this country, even when it is not on the nightly news. In fact, cities across the country are in the midst of a historic spike in homicides, violence that disproportionately impacts Black and brown Americans. The President is committed to taking action to reduce all forms of gun violence – community violence, mass shootings, domestic violence, and suicide by firearm.

President Biden is reiterating his call for Congress to pass legislation to reduce gun violence. Last month, a bipartisan coalition in the House passed two bills to close loopholes in the gun background check system. Congress should close those loopholes and go further, including by closing “boyfriend” and stalking loopholes that currently allow people found by the courts to be abusers to possess firearms, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, repealing gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability, and investing in evidence-based community violence interventions. Congress should also pass an appropriate national “red flag” law, as well as legislation incentivizing states to pass “red flag” laws of their own.

But this Administration will not wait for Congress to act to take its own steps – fully within the Administration’s authority and the Second Amendment – to save lives. Today, the Administration is announcing the following six initial actions:

The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.” We are experiencing a growing problem: criminals are buying kits containing nearly all of the components and directions for finishing a firearm within as little as 30 minutes and using these firearms to commit crimes. When these firearms turn up at crime scenes, they often cannot be traced by law enforcement due to the lack of a serial number. The Justice Department will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of these firearms.

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act. The alleged shooter in the Boulder tragedy last month appears to have used a pistol with an arm brace, which can make a firearm more stable and accurate while still being concealable.

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states. Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement to petition for a court order temporarily barring people in crisis from accessing firearms if they present a danger to themselves or others. The President urges Congress to pass an appropriate national “red flag” law, as well as legislation incentivizing states to pass “red flag” laws of their own. In the interim, the Justice Department’s published model legislation will make it easier for states that want to adopt red flag laws to do so.

The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions. Community violence interventions are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities through tools other than incarceration. Because cities across the country are experiencing a historic spike in homicides, the Biden-Harris Administration is taking a number of steps to prioritize investment in community violence interventions.

• The American Jobs Plan proposes a $5 billion investment over eight years to support community violence intervention programs. A key part of community violence intervention strategies is to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities.

• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is organizing a webinar and toolkit to educate states on how they can use Medicaid to reimburse certain community violence intervention programs, like Hospital-Based Violence Interventions.

• Five federal agencies are making changes to 26 different programs to direct vital support to community violence intervention programs as quickly as possible. These changes mean we can start increasing investments in community violence interventions as we wait on Congress to appropriate additional funds. Read more about these agency actions here.

The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking. In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) issued a report summarizing information regarding its investigations into firearms trafficking, which is one way firearms are diverted into the illegal market where they can easily end up in the hands of dangerous individuals. Since the report’s publication, states, local, and federal policymakers have relied on its data to better thwart the common channels of firearms trafficking. But there is good reason to believe that firearms trafficking channels have changed since 2000, for example due to the emergence of online sales and proliferation of “ghost guns.” The Justice Department will issue a new, comprehensive report on firearms trafficking and annual updates necessary to give policymakers the information they need to help address firearms trafficking today.

The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. ATF is the key agency enforcing our gun laws, and it needs a confirmed director in order to do the job to the best of its ability. But ATF has not had a confirmed director since 2015. Chipman served at ATF for 25 years and now works to advance commonsense gun safety laws.

48 Responses to ““Biden-Harris” Administration Announces Initial Actions to Address the “Gun Violence Public Health Epidemic””

  1. Amer-Rican says:

    Democrats (a.k.a. Nazis) are the inside threat the Founding Fathers warned us to be vigilant of.

    • Mike says:

      Nice sound bite. Unconnected to reality. What specifically warnings are you talking about? The tyranny of allowing unregulated military weapons more deadly than a muzzle-loading cannon filled with canister, to people not in a well-regulated militia? (70% of Americans support limits and background checks.) The tyranny of optional semi-socialized medicine?

      • Joe R. says:

        Lousy sound bite and not even you believe it. Quit making up fake poll results, no one’s buying it.

        Here’s the bottom f n line. Cause I’m done.

        1) What other “Rights” do you have?
        2) Except for ‘freedom’ against slavery, which one ISN’T a protection AGAINST your “government” (which is merely comprised of our idiot ay-whole neighbors who needed a job).

        SO, IF Rights are Freedoms against “gov’t” THEN “gov’t” cannot also be the protector of those Rights; nor can they be the one doling out the means for that protection. SIMPLE IRREFUTABLE LOGIC SKIPPY, VERY SIMPLE LOGIC THERE.

        PLUS The Declaration of Independence says (2X in it’s flesh-language) it’s your [if a bona fide U.S. Citizen, which, from your post, sounds very much like that’s not the case] “duty” to replace your government “whenever” you deem necessary.

        So, it’s not like you have to go pig-rooting around in historical documents to try to discern what our Founders / Framers were thinking THEY FN DECLARED IT. And they could not have written that, but then also meant that you should have to ask your government [that needed replacing] for the means, OR THE PERMISSION TO OBTAIN THE MEANS to do so. NO WAY. Therefore the 2nd Amendment DEMANDS PARITY of arms (not just “guns”) with our “government”, and it’s not our fault what that parity might entail.

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” ARTICLE 4th, Original Joint Resolution proposing the “Bill of Rights to Congress” https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript.

        Let me break that down for ya.

        A well regulated Militia [Founders: WHICH IS WHAT WE’RE GOING TO HAVE SINCE WE DON’T WANT A STANDING ARMY], being necessary to the security of a free State [WHICH WE WANT WITHOUT A STANDING ARMY], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DRAW FROM THE POPULACE TO BUILD A MILITIA, WHEN NEED BE, AND IT WOULD BE REAL HANDY IF THOSE PEOPLE HAD THEIR OWN WEAPONS AND KNEW HOT TO USE THEM].

        That’s simple logic, and it is the final answer.

      • Derek says:

        Mike, you know as well as I that the founding fathers didn’t intend the 2nd amendment to be strictly for muzzle loading firearms. Feel free to look at the stats, your “military weapons”….or more commonly know as, rifles, are not the problem.

        • Ray Forest says:

          Let’s not forget in that comparison that the first amendment would only apply to ink printed or voiced speech. The founders could have never predicted radio, television, or Internet based speech. I think that’s an apples to apples comparison when folks try to use the musket vs AR15 argument.

      • Joe R. says:

        Muzzle-loaders were “Parity” of arms with their government, which is what is demanded by the 2nd Amendment as bulwark for our Founders “Declaration” that it is your “duty” to replace your government “whenever” you deem necessary.

        All Rights are freedoms AGAINST government, so you needs guns to protect your rights.

        And no one, not even you, believe your fake polls.

      • Snafuperman says:

        Five seconds of looking at the Supreme Court rulings drives a semi-truck over the argument of 2A only being tied to muzzle-loading weapons. That’s dead-horse dead and then some. DC vs. Heller should you need specifics.

        As for threats, I’d start with politicians funded by foreign nations, and thus more concerned about doing foreign bidding rather than what is best for Americans. And that is a bipartisan issue. Ever wonder why the Clinton Foundation’s foreign donations quickly went to zero once Hillary lost? They sure as hell weren’t collecting money for Haiti…

      • James says:

        “A well regulated militia….” is not limited to either argument- ” Because we need a well trained militia, we affirm the right to bear Military Arms to further the culture of fighting arms” and “Because we have no choice but to maintain a narrowly tasked militia, it is illegal to restrict Military Arms so that the citizens may protect themselves.” To claim it’s one and not the other is to completely ignore stated intent . In short , there’s a reason why it was written that way and has been interpreted to mean both at different times. Interestingly at least one supreme court case found it to protect ,specifically, militarily useful weapons, rather than sporting arms.

      • RealityChecker says:

        Hey, Mike, you’re on the wrong site. This one is centered around information for those mostly in the military. That’s means we support and defend the constitution from moronic ass clowns such as yourself. Maybe you would better served back on Twitter, or whatever predominantly far left echo chamber you’re used to? Otherwise, you and the other leftist will eventually trigger a response that you’ll most likely not believe or expect.

  2. Strike-Hold says:

    Seems a timely reminder of this is needed:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

    Interesting to note also how the WP has wrapped this story with embedded videos and article links that reinforce the WP’s misguided editorial position that is opposed to the common sense, evidence-based, approach taken by the author. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a narrative and never let a tragedy go to waste. Right?

    • Sunny says:

      Yeah, never fight against some narrative. Because you know, non of the 6 mentioned actions is prohibing guns in general – but yet you see it here. How? You for sure do have no narrative, or do you?

      • SSD says:

        So anti-civil rights actions are only bad if they take away the right completely? Anything short of that is ok?

        • Strike-Hold says:

          I’m not sure what “anti-civil-rights” actions you’re referring to here? The points brought up in the article demonstrate pretty clear evidence that the so-called “gun control” measures that are usually advocated do nothing to address the actual social problems that they claim to address – and in fact make things worse for everyone.

          • SSD says:

            Anti-civil rights are any actions taken to curtail the civil rights of the people. It doesn’t matter if it is the right to speech, self-defense, or protection from self-incrimination. We must refer to our right to bear arms along with other civil rights, and constantly compare it to other civil rights that our opposition claims to venerate. An attack on one is an attack on all.

      • Strike-Hold says:

        I guess you didn’t read the actual article…

  3. JR says:

    All branches of the US Military are sworn to defend the US Constitution. They are also the only ones who have the ability to do so effectively. However, they have done exactly zero to defend the Constitution. Without their assistance, there will continue to be endless infringements on all citizens rights.

    • Chuck says:

      So you’re advocating a military coup?

    • SSD says:

      I’m not quite sure here what you expect to happen. I’m not a fan of the idea of the military taking it upon themselves to decide who might be a domestic enemy.

      • Junior says:

        You’re probably right, but I am thinking a Chilean-style air assault school should be worthy of some consideration.

        • LowSpeed says:

          People say a lot of silly things in the comment section of this site but this is the worst I’ve seen. You need to re-evaluate a lot if you would seriously consider (or think it’s funny to joke about) doing the infamous “helicopter rides of political opponents” carried out by the murderous military junta/dictatorship of Pinochet.

          The second you’re considering simply murdering your fellow citizens rather than working through (and fixing it as we go along) the existing constitutional representative republic system you have lost the plot and are holding fundamentally anti-democratic (little “d” not the Democratic party) views more compatible with the enemies of our nation.

  4. JT says:

    Can anyone provide a link to this FBI UCR data I’ve found some but not this breakdown and particularly showing that hunting accidents are included in the data for rifles?

  5. Papa6 says:

    Per standard DNC procedures; “never let a crisis go to waste”. “The recent high-profile mass shootings in Boulder – taking the lives of 10 individuals – and Atlanta – taking the lives of eight individuals, including six Asian American women” Typical pandering to the very loud leftist minority. What about the 10 caucasians killed in Boulder. How come they don’t get mentioned? Boulder was clearly an Islamic hate crime. Interesting how we haven’t heard much about the Boulder shooting since it was learned that the shooter was of Muslim descent and not a “white man”.

    I like how they have the audacity to use the term “evidence-based” only for community based violence because “cities across the country are in the midst of a historic spike in homicides, violence that disproportionately impacts Black and brown Americans.” Yes, due to DNC backed “defund police” schemes and the encouraging of terrorist organizations such as blm and antifa.

    Why don’t they take their same, “evidence-based” approach to violence? If they used “evidence” provided by the federal government they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. How many criminals use 80% to commit crimes? I’m sure it’s so low that the statistics don’t even show up in reports.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s time to flood your elected representatives, at both the state and federal level, with vigorous opposition to all of these proposals. Hopefully the lawsuits against all of Uncle Joe’s administrative actions will again set the Constitution as the law of the land and not some senile, old man.

    • Mike says:

      Re: Boulder – B.S.

      “How many criminals use 80% to commit crimes?” – incoherent

      “Senile, old man” – Evidence? A lot more connected to reality, and governing for all, and an infinitely better man, than his predecessor.

      • SSD says:

        Biden can’t form a sentence, let alone complete a speech. He hides in his basement in Delaware each weekend. He is the first President to openly acknowledge that he can’t do this without his Vice.

        Our enemies know this. They smell blood in the water.

        You bet on the wrong horse.

        • Joe R. says:

          Biden, in his speech today, repeatedly referred to the ATF (ATF&E) as the “AFT”. But sure, he’s all there. Yep.

      • Alpha2 says:

        “Senile old man” – “evidence?” ….have you not watched not one of his speeches or his one and only scripted press conference where he lost his train of thought and said…”oh forget it.” Truthfully, it’s f’n sad to watch. Biden reminds me of my Grandpa with dementia before he passed. It is what it is. He is not fit to be commander in chief. I’m not fully confident he’ll make it four years. And you can bet your ass, as SSD stated, our enemies are most certainly watching this with great interest.

  6. Michael Olin says:

    Do you have a source for the Boulder killings not being mentioned? No, you don’t.
    “How many criminals use 80% to commit crimes?” – what does that mean?
    Senility of the President – evidence? None.

    • Steak TarTar says:

      If you don’t know what an 80% is, you’re in the wrong place.

      The evidence of Joe’s senility is on display any and every time he speaks.

      • Joe R. says:

        I used to think 80% firearms were stupid, and it (the impetus behind them) just made me more pissed off at places like CA. But if you’ve ever built an AR from pieces it does immediately give you [me] the confidence to try to build the thing by creating parts, and the 80% becomes a challenge to truly be a craftsman at it instead of just a LEGO assembler.

        And yes, I attribute Biden’s OVERT senility to the likely result of his family pulling him off his dementia medicine during the campaign to attempt to weaken the public’s fervor to publicly hang him over his braggadocio discussions (on video readily available on the internet) of his international extortion of foreign entities/actors/and countries for personal gain, and Hunter’s and the rest of his family (and Kamala’s and Romney’s kid’s) involvement in the same. Or it’s just his “I CLUADIVS” routine, to affect a similarly flaccid public response to him.

    • SDButler says:

      Do you seriously not understand what 80% means in this context?

  7. BradKAF308 says:

    “evidence-based” is a new propaganda term. The evidence is frequently manufactured & the population doesn’t fact check. Doesn’t make one optimistic. We should be able to “trust” not totally though, the media & politicians of all strips but we can’t & this only helps foreign entities & weakens us. We can’t & shouldn’t demand everything go “my” way only and everything else is evil. But we need balance, honesty & fact based truth or we are f’d.

  8. Joe R. says:

    Arms (“guns” ) are for killing every swinging dick of your idiot ay-whole neighbors who needed a job (your “government”) should you decide to replace them, and they not go to the house peacefully, quietly, and of their own volition.

    The Declaration of Independence (It’s a Declaration, so we don’t have to hem & haw about what the Founders were ‘thinking at the time they wrote it’) states 2x in its flesh-language, that you are to replace your government [as the Founders were in the process of doing when they wrote it] “whenever” you deem necessary [our Founders did not reserve the right to do so only to themselves]. One of those times they recite that it is your “duty” to.

    Now, when your idiot ay-whole neighbors who needed a job become satanic-communist and dug-in-like-a-tick, they are not likely to go home quietly [neither was our Founder’s government of England at the time]. So, getting rid of them will likely require “arms” in parity with our government. So, members of the government attempting to pre-empt the ownership and bearing of arms is just one more sign you are late on doing your duty (the other big sign was you failing to enforce the Communist Control Act of 1954, and allowing satanic-communists to openly join your government [but that can still be fixed]).

    Anyway, if ya just want to keep it simple stupid. . . NOTE: All your rights are freedoms against government, so government cannot also be the protector of those rights, nor the one doling out the means NOR THE PERMISSION TO OBTAIN THE MEANS to do so.

    Simple people. Very simple. And it’s only “inflammatory” if you feign ignorance of history. But we can fight it out if you want.

  9. SGT Rock says:

    Once AGAIN, everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room… Mental Health. Its been a driver in most if not all of the recent mass shootings in the US. Until this is addressed, then they’ll continue in some way, shape or form.

    Passing knee-jerk feel good executive actions/legislature does nothing but infringe upon the rights of law abiding gun owners. We pay the price for our elected officials when they don’t address the root cause of an ongoing mental health crisis in America.

    • Joe R. says:

      Once AGAIN, everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room… Mental Health, members of our “government” (and those that listen to them) are CRAZY if they think they can protect anyone on an individual level, even themselves (ask Steve Scalise [a great and smart man who was shot by a Bernie Sanders campaign worker] to run a free clinic on that one if you need to). Members of our “government” (and those that listen to them) are CRIMINALLY INSANE if they think that it’s their job, or profess such.

      Members of our “government” (merely consisting of our idiot ay-whole neighbors who needed a job) should be made to profess, annually, publicly, and in-writing that they cannot AND DO NOT protect anyone on an individual. Once that’s accomplished then any further b s about how they need to do this or that to “protect” anyone can result in their receiving a wet flip-flop beating for several days or until they come to their senses, whichever comes last.

      • Will Rodriguez says:

        Wrong elephant.

        Politicians don’t want effective solutions to minimizing violent deaths or enable people to protect themselves.

        Gun control isn’t about protecting citizens. It’s about controlling citizens.

        • Iggy says:

          Well said. And all faces of politics are keen to exploit the shit show. People will kill each other if they want one way or another, guns or not.

          Legislate for more and better training and address the actual problem.

    • LowSpeed says:

      Sorry SGT Rock. You make a good point. However, at this time, regardless of the number of bullet-riddled fellow Americans we have from any type of firearm, we will not, under any circumstance pass any form of sensible mental health support legislation. Not gonna happen. We’re too far gone. We’d rather pay for burials, thoughts n prayers (free btw), more guns, and more lobbyists/2A organizers to ensure we keep those new guns and all the ammo (if we can find it haha) we got.

      We’d be hearing stuff along the lines of:
      “How we gonna pay for it?”
      “Why pay for a sissy, soy boy mental health program? This is the feminizing of America!”
      “America’s gone soft, we might be tougher without a mental health program that mitigates violence”
      “Sorry the parliamentarian says nah”
      “Sorry the moderate or the fringe in our party says nah”

      We’d have nothing but the same.. politicians of both parties hemming and hawing and ultimately kicking the can down the road. We’ll never even see a CLEAN BILL on this. One of the parties will inevitably hide some unacceptable portion in it that they know damn well the other side and its own moderates won’t accept.

      Not to mention most of the country, likely the people that freakin need the support would probably be unable to afford it (we’re also ok with that as our body politic consistently shows when the topic of healthcare of any kind comes up).

  10. Chuck says:

    It’s pretty simple. “…shall not be infringed.”

    Infringement has a simple definition that means the same thing today as it meant in 1791. The people who wrote the Second Amendment chose those words specifically because a tyrannical state militia commanded by Thomas Gage attempted to infringe upon their natural right to keep and bear arms for common defense, leading to the events of April 19, 1775. All of the long winded song and dance on the right and the left doesn’t change the fact that this right specifically was protected with that language. Even free speech is only protected conditionally in the First Amendment i.e. “…Congress shall make no law”.

    The right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government is so important that those men used the strongest language to protect that right as they possibly could. People who choose to interpret differently are the tyrants we were warned about. And we know how the story ends. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.

    • Joe R. says:

      Since you brought up the law, and infringement, it is often repeated that America’s Citizenry has tolerated infringement through law and adjudication for so long that they are stuck with it.

      That is not the case, however. “Precedence” when you are wrong, can be rolled tightly and fit up your back hole, without lube and with at least a fistful of salt, and thus circle-file every other bit of legislation or attempted governance from the bench that you’ve attempted. Otherwise a person would have to spring from the womb, fully-formed and armed to the teeth to beat back all of the barbs and slings and arrows of infringement that was hurled at their great-great-great-great-great grandfathers. Further, they would be subject to the result of litigation decisions REGARDLESS of the strength of any previous argument or the effectiveness of the litigators. So NO. F2dat. Don’t bother reciting all of the ways in which the law was previously wrong and out-of-bounds, I don’t want to waste the rest of my days telling those pushing that c – – p to F thehell off.

  11. russel says:

    America, Fuck Yeah!!!

    • Joe R. says:

      BY GOD !!!

      The irony of there needing to be a bunch of puppets to teach people that, is nearly overwhelming.

  12. Marcus says:

    I put my guns upstairs. Molon Labe, simp.

    When clowns like this start to use Executive Agencies to carry out their despotism, you know the wheels are coming off.

  13. Junior says:

    We also have to keep in mind, and fund, federal programs to encourage interpretive dance and poetry readings.

  14. Edgar says:

    Does nothing to address any violence in the democrat cities especially when he can’t even pronounce atf correctly. Additionally, you must prosecute in order for laws to work. Chicago has enough and so do other cities but if you’re not prosecuting then you’re not doing anyone a favor. Biden has been a complete and utter failure of a puppet.

Leave a Reply