Barack Obama’s resolve to bypass Congress to tighten gun controls is likely to target loopholes around firearms bought at gun shows and on the internet, campaigners believe.



The president’s adviser, Valerie Jarrett, revealed this week that Obama has directed his team to finalise “in short order” recommendations that will keep guns out of the wrong hands, including expanded background checks.

The White House has since declined to offer further details, but Po Murray, chairwoman of the pressure group the Newtown Action Alliance, said she understands the proposal is aimed at closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.

“Individuals selling large numbers of firearms at gun shows would have to be federally licensed dealers,” she said. “This is a step in the right direction. Clearly we could do more.”

At present, people are allowed to buy weapons from private “occasional” sellers without background checks. The statute exempts anyone “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms”.

Under the proposed change, dealers who exceed a set number of sales each year would have to obtain a licence from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and carry out background checks on potential buyers. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has already said she would “take administrative action” to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns be deemed “in the business” of selling firearms.

Murray, whose organisation was founded in the wake of the 2012 shooting of 20 young children and six of their adult carers at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, added: “It is within the president’s legal authority so I’m certain he will do it. There is frustration that the legislative branch failed to act after the mass killing of children so the president is doing what he can.”

The prospect of a backlash from Republicans and the National Rifle Association “doesn’t matter”, insisted Murray, who said more than 30,000 people are killed by firearms every year. “This is a public health crisis.”

Obama’s attempts to tighten gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, which took place three years ago next week, have repeatedly stalled. In January 2013 the president announced 23 executive actions that included banning automatic weapons, limiting magazines to 10 bullets, introducing universal background checks for all firearms buyers and increasing scrutiny of mental health patients. But he has run into a wall in Congress, much to the frustration of campaigners who bitterly criticise its inaction.

Activist Mark Glaze said he is also under the impression that the White House’s latest move is focused on ensuring all firearms sellers have a licence. “We know there are huge numbers of people selling at gun shows but they are not licensed gun dealers. There is a similar issue online. They’re slipping through. The cost of becoming licensed is virtually nothing; the benefit of background checks would be enormous.”

Glaze, former executive director of the Everytown for Gun Safety campaign, added: “This is something we had urged the administration to do for a while but I guess it was not clear to them whether it was in the president’s executive authority or would be challenged at the courts. But the administration has shown its willingness to swing for the fences and act aggressively and let the court decisions fall where they may.”

Opposition from the NRA would be inevitable, however. “The NRA exists for one reason, which is to whip up hysteria about the government taking away guns. As reasonable as this measure is, I’m sure they’ll find a way to turn this into an issue about gun confiscation.”

The NRA did not respond to calls and emails requesting comment. But Erich Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America, said: “This would be a lawless act on the part of the president. He has no authority to expand background checks, especially given that the highest law of the land states the right of the people to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’.

“Both Colorado and California have ‘universal background checks’. And yet these restrictions were unable to stop Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik in California, and Robert Lewis Dear in Colorado, from acquiring weapons to carry out their heinous acts.”

Pratt rejected the idea that gun shows represent an anomaly that needs to be fixed. “The president has no authority to unilaterally bypass the Congress and regulate the lawful activity between two individuals who are exercising their God-given rights – rights which are protected by the constitution. Besides, criminals and terrorists are not acquiring their weapons from gun shows. Only 0.7% of crime guns were originally purchased at such venues, according to the Bureau of Justice in 2001.”



Dave Workman, a spokesman for the Second Amendment Foundation, agreed: “I don’t think this alleged gun show loophole really exists. Criminals by their nature will figure out a way around any law that exists. It’s rare, in my experience, to see criminals going to gun shows.

“You’re going to find a whole lot of American citizens who will object to the president trying to bypass Congress on not only the firearms issue but any issue the public holds dear. We’re talking about a constitutionally fundamentally protected civil right.”