Is the president on target with his executive order?

This past week, President Barack Obama held both a news conference and a town meeting to address his proposed executive order concerning gun control.

In a daytime news conference on Tuesday, Jan. 5, he dramatically positioned victims of gun violence as set pieces surrounding his emotionally evoking podium of carefully expressed despair. Obama shed tears as he recalled the heinous character of the murders of 20 young students at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut a few years back. Additionally, he went on to mention many mass shootings in the last two decades that have captured our attention as citizens and troubled our souls as human beings.

Two days later, in a town hall meeting broadcast on CNN, Obama went into conversational detail about his proposed order and confronted both supportive and contrary opinions in regard to his impending executive action.

The president’s movement at this juncture in time may be propelled by his yearning for a positive legacy, as he conspicuously mentioned he had only one year left in office at the town meeting. Or perhaps he is truly peeved by the Congress’ inability to pass legislation providing greater scrutiny of prospective gun purchasers proposed by senators of both parties. Whatever the motivation, Obama has cultivated an eruption of discourse regarding gun ownership rights and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The president’s projected air of importance and immediacy begs this question – are gun related deaths more prevalent than they were, say, in the 19th century, or are they simply more reported on in our instant-media society? And if the notoriety of gun-related crimes has simply exploded in exposure, then we need to understand why our society should be perceived as more dangerous today then it was when every man wore a gun belt.

Consequently, there are three glaring questions that need to be addressed as a predicate to confronting changes in gun laws. First and foremost, what rights did the Second Amendment actually convey? And had James Madison and George Mason (the authors of the Bill of Rights) viewed those rights in a manner that is applicable to modern circumstances? Second, has Obama circumvented the legislative branch of government in a way that renders these impending changes unconstitutional, at least to the spirit of the law? Third, are the impending executive adjustments in gun rights the first steps to more restrictions against law-abiding gun owners, or merely safeguards against the mentally unbalanced or the criminal from obtaining guns?

Undoubtedly, all one has to do is mention various scenes of horror over the past 20 years, and instantly the slaughter of innocents come to vivid and appalling recollection. Victims like those of Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999, of movie theatres in Aurora, Colo., in 2012 and Lafayette, La., in 2015, of Universities in Blacksburg, Va., in 2007, and Santa Barbara, Calif., in 2014, all weigh heavy on the minds of people seeking to understand the catalysts of slaughter. Does the culpability lie with the perpetrator himself, his access to the tools of destruction, or a system that failed to anticipate the incendiary? Obama has clearly assigned blame to the guns themselves, their availability, and the unrecognized danger of the mentally unfit assailants.

However, the equation is not that easily deciphered. Mass killings by all sorts of methods have cluttered the criminal landscape of America from the beginning of the United States. Gun-related deaths per capita were much higher in 1880 in our country, which then had a population of 51 million. Interestingly, in 2010, with a population of 309 million, our gun deaths per capita were actually over 20 percent less. Considering reporting methods and media coverage were miniscule then in comparison to today, the percentage of gun related deaths long ago is probably much higher.

Of course, we are not settling the West and fulfilling our Manifest Destiny any longer. We are, however, dealing with a whole different set of social problems. The president has proposed the commitment of $500 million toward better mental health services as part of this executive order. Also, he wants to add 200 ATF agents to help enforce gun laws and investigate lawbreakers. Additionally, he wants to require background checks for all gun purchasers, regardless whether they are bought through gun shows or the Internet.

These proposals do not seem extraordinary as a means of protecting society from the wrong people getting access to firearms. Yet constitutionally, these actions should not be implemented as a result of executive action, but rather through a considered legislative process. Along this line, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, a Republican, had orchestrated a “common sense compromise bill” that incorporates most of what the president is attempting through executive order. Unfortunately, 90 percent of Democrats voted for the legislation, while 90 percent of Republicans voted against the bill.

Similarly, Arizona Sen. John Mc Cain, a Republican, has presented more than once a simple piece of legislation aimed at the gun show loophole. He said: “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.”

Considering the ongoing stalemate regarding any changes in the gun laws in the Congress and the strong influence the National Rifle Association exerts over many lawmakers through its aggressive lobbying, any change would seemingly be legislatively impossible. The NRA’s constant “slippery slope” argument that any adaptation of existing guns laws will eventually lead to retrieval of firearms from law-abiding citizens has inflamed its membership into a conflagration of protest.

These intractable circumstances lead us back to the foundation of the gun control issue, the Second Amendment. It reads: “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.”

Does that mean providing the obtainer of firearms passes the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or is vetted through a mental hygiene database? Also, in Madison and Mason’s time, they were considering muskets and not semiautomatic weapons of substantial power, potency, and portability.

Similarly, since we have a grand and extensive military inconceivable in the era of the founders and modern police forces to protect society, one could say it is unlikely that if the nation is attacked we would need to muster local forces using personal firearms.

Whether or not it is prudent to implement these adjustments, the question remains whether the president has a right to sidestep Congress. Obama has vented his frustrations with his inability to push his agenda through a contentious Congress, and with his tenure in office depleting with every passing day, he is using the executive order like a cudgel to batter stalwart opponents.

Even if his actions in this matter are correct and would serve public safety, the ends do not justify the means. Like Madison and Mason and their almost flawless logic of that era, there is an imperative reason why we have three coequal branches of government, and the president, a former constitutional law professor, should know that.

All in all, the news conference and the town hall showed a well-rehearsed politician using exploitive emotional theater to drive home an agenda he hopes will help cement a positive legacy. If his concern is truly valid, then he should attempt to achieve his aims through the system the founders constructed. Everyone with a modicum of compassion is moved by the tragedies of mass killings. To use those horrors for political purposes is abhorrent and despicable. I hope he is earnest so that sensibility and true service to our society is paramount over his quest for positive political perception and lasting historical relevance.