Obama To Announce Executive Orders on Gun Control

...and their contents are decidedly, "meh."

These orders have two main prongs.

The first is closing what many call the "gun show loophole," which allows private individuals (eg., not firearms dealers) to sell guns without conducting a background check on the buyer. While we're here, it's worth mentioning that the "gun show loophole" doesn't really exist - the law, as it stands before this executive order takes effect, allows private sales without background checks. Any gun dealer at a gun show must, by law, conduct background checks on buyers. A person who sells one gun - and is therefore a private seller - is not required to run a background check. That's not a bug in the system, it's part of the design. You may not like it - but it's not an unintentional design mistake, and therefore not a loophole.

Anyhow, I don't hate the idea of expanded background checks. The slight delay might be inconvenient for some, but if you're not a criminal, the background check doesn't stop you from buying a gun. It's like how you have to show your ID when buying Sudafed - annoying, but since I'm not buying a huge quantity to make meth, it's only a short delay before I can purchase that sweet, sweet cold relief and be on my way.

President Obama is even trying to reduce the background check delays, by directing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to hire over 230 new employees to process these expanded background checks. I don't like expanding the government. But, expanding the government in a way that will help more people exercise their constitutional rights? That, I can tolerate. Obama should cut waste elsewhere in government to pay for this. He probably won't, but a girl can dream.

The second prong of this executive action makes it easier for states to provide mental health information to the background check system. It sounds good, but 1) what if doctors get it wrong? and 2) this might discourage people from seeking treatment.

It is unlikely that anything in these executive orders would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings. The following data is from the New York Times:

• Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, used guns belonging to his mother.
• The San Bernardino shooters got their guns from a neighbor. It is unknown whether this was theft or purchase. 
• Dylann Roof, the Charleston shooter, passed an FBI background check, which failed to catch a prior drug conviction that should have rendered him ineligible to own a firearm.
• The Navy Yard shooter "passed state and local background checks."

Mental health records on Jared Loughner (Tucson) or James Holmes (Aurora) might have signaled that they should not be in possession of a firearm. I couldn't find any information on exactly what mental health data will be reported, or what kind of mental health information the ATF and FBI will take into account when conducting background checks. (If you know, please comment!)

These new executive orders probably won't stop future mass shootings. But they don't seem unconstitutional, at least so far - and if they stop even one murder, I'm willing to give these laws a fair shot.