Obama and Biden unveil bold and significant gun control reform proposals

If they can get it through Congress, this would be a ban with teeth.

“If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.” That was the pledge made by Barack Obama on16 December, at a prayer vigil in Newtown, Connecticut. Yesterday, he followed through on the promises he made that day. Taking the podium along with Vice-President Joe Biden, he announced sweeping executive orders and crucial legislative proposals designed to ensure that America will no longer have to witness the horror of mass shootings again on such a terrible, relentless, regular basis.

“No one can know for certain if this senseless act could have been prevented,” said Biden, introducing the President, “but we all know we have a moral obligation — a moral obligation — to do everything in our power to diminish the prospect that something like this could happen again.” It looks as though he meant it.

Then Obama took the stage. Pointing out that more than 900 Americans have been killed by gun violence since Sandy Hook, Obama read from a series of letters from schoolchildren he received in the aftermath, saying: “These are our kids. This is what they’re thinking about. And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them, and shield them from harm.”

His speech included the signing of 23 executive orders that give sweeping new powers to those working in law enforcement and mental health care; aim to enforce and vastly strengthen the background-check system; and the Attorney General will review the categories of people who aren't allowed guns, review safety standards on gun-safes and locks, provide training for first responders and school officials in how to deal with school shootings, strengthen mental health care's ability to provide the care needed, as well as its ability to flag up cases where it sees danger, and several that aimed to take real steps towards a national dialogue on guns in the US, including mandating research into the causes of violence.

But the biggest announcements today, and they are huge, were the two policy proposals that every parent, every reasonable man, woman and child had been hoping to hear: the introduction of a general background check for anyone purchasing a gun, and a real ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, a ban with the teeth required to prevent arms manufacturers from just circumventing it the way they did last time.

The next battle, therefore, will be in Congress. Obama has made it very clear that he is going all-out on this policy, though he warned that it wouldn't be easy. He is right; the battle will be hard-fought. The power of the pro-gun lobby and the NRA over a large swath of congress is incredible — 213 members of the House of Representatives received NRA campaign donations last year — but it is waning.

At each new legislative announcement, the assault weapon ban and the background check, Obama said “the majority of Americans agree with me on this” — a message to congressmen and woman from both sides of the aisle; effectively, saying in the clearest possible terms that he is speaking with the vox populi today: "defy me — and them — at your peril", he seemed to say.

That means that if this legislation ever had a chance of passing, that chance is now. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released this week shows that more than 50 per cent of those polled said that the Sandy Hook shooting had made them “more supportive” of gun control legislation, while 58 per cent now say they support the reintroduction of the ban on assault weapons. Obama and Biden are betting that, while a majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives oppose the ban, they will be reluctant to be seen opposing it in the face of overwhelming national support. The President will have the support of the Democratic-controlled Senate, too.

“I have no illusions about what we’re up against or how hard the task is in front of us,” said Biden. “But I also have never seen the nation’s conscience so shaken by what happened at Sandy Hook. The world has changed, and it’s demanding action.” To a very great extent, it needs to be pointed out, this was Joe Biden's day as much as Obama's — it was he who was given the wide-ranging brief to come up with solutions; in 33 days he took more than 229 meeetings and has been prepping Congress for the coming storm. These proposals were based on his hard work.

Now it is Obama's turn to lead the fight; he must steer Congress into supporting the legislation, and make sure the national momentum is not lost in doing so. The congressional GOP has proved itself cowardly, and likely will dig its heels in, so the President must do everything he can to bully, cajole, persuade and shame them into making this legislation law. From his speech today, it sounds like he's ready.

The full text of his plan is available here (pdf). You can also watch the video of the announcement below:

Biden and Obama during the press conference at the White House. Photograph: Getty Images

Nicky Woolf is reporting for the New Statesman from the US. He tweets @NickyWoolf.

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle