President Barack Obama issued an executive action earlier this month to tighten controls on the problematic “gun show loophole,” which allows customers to purchase guns from a private seller without undergoing a background check, according to an article by Vox.

Through his executive order Obama also wants to make background checks more efficient and improve the current tracking system for lost or stolen guns, according to the article. Obama used this method because Congress has refused to pass any kind of legislation regarding gun control multiple times.

The Daily Orange interviewed via email Grant Reeher, professor of political science at Syracuse University; Danielle Thomsen, assistant professor of political science at SU; Kristi Andersen, professor of political science at SU; and Christopher Faricy, assistant professor of political science at SU, about their opinions on Obama’s recent statement.

The Daily Orange: What do you think of Obama using an executive action to pass these gun laws?

Christopher Faricy: This is not a surprise given the current political context and the specific issue. President Obama is dealing with a divided government, meaning that Republicans control Congress, and during an era of high polarization in which the two parties are far apart ideologically. In addition, the (National Rifle Association) is a very strong and federated lobbying group and supporters of gun control while numerous are unorganized. This all makes passing a bill difficult resulting in the president turning to executive orders.

Danielle Thomsen: One point to note is that gun laws are controversial, which politicizes the use of an executive order more than usual. Personally, I am supportive of more restrictive gun laws, but I think Obama needs to be cautious not to entirely sidestep Congress given the importance of checks and balances and separation of powers in our political system. However, it does not seem controversial to say that some type of legislative action is warranted in light of the many, many episodes of violence we have seen in recent years.

The D.O.: Do you think Obama’s actions will have a lasting impact on America?

Grant Reeher: Executive orders can be changed or repealed by a future president. The Republican candidates for president have said they will repeal these orders, but once they are in place that may be harder to do politically. Again, the new measures are relatively marginal compared to the status quo.

… Note, however, that in some states, like here in New York, there will be little impact because our state laws are already stricter than these changes at a national level. In New York, any sale or transfer of firearms is subject to a background check, except between immediate family members.

C.F.: This action narrows who can sell guns, adds more FBI to conduct background checks and tightens existing regulations. Yes, it will slightly reduce gun violence but real reform can only be accomplished with the assistance of Congress. Executive actions can be overturned by the next president so which party controls the White House will determine the impact of the law.

The D.O.: What do you think the government should be doing in terms of gun control legislation?

C.F.: We could follow Australia and conduct a massive buyback of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles. We could pass new gun laws that prohibit private sales, require that all weapons be individually registered to their owners and require that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each gun. No right is absolute and all rights are regulated for safety reasons.

Kristi Andersen: I believe the federal government should certainly reinstate the ban on assault weapons (this law was on the books from 1994 to 2004). We should restore funding for the Centers for Disease Control to study causes of gun violence. Thorough background checks should be required for all purchasers of handguns. Guns should be banned in public places (probably by state rather than federal law). I would note that the majority of Americans favor measures such as these.

The D.O.: In his State of the Union address, Obama did not make gun control a main focus, but did leave an empty seat for gun violence victims. Do you think this was a good way to get his point across, rather than addressing it up front?

G.R.: Presidents since (Ronald) Reagan have been using seats at the State of the Union to make points. The President took a more symbolic approach by leaving a seat open to represent gun violence victims. I don’t think it changed many minds — his press conferences where he shares his emotion are much more powerful, I think.

Published on January 18, 2016 at 10:44 pm

Contact Caroline: cbarthol@syr.edu