U.S. Congress must stop abdicating role in gun debate

Staff Editorial

Congress again and again - most recently in December - has failed to enact gun sale reforms supported by a majority of Americans, including those who own firearms.

This week, President Barack Obama pledged, through executive action, to do some of that work for them.

His plans: Overhaul the federal background check system, close a loophole allowing firearm sales at gun shows and over the Internet without a federal license and its accompanying background check requirement, provide more federal resources to combat illegal firearms trafficking, enhance access to mental health services, and prioritize gun safety technology research through the departments of defense, justice and homeland security.

It is a meager offering, one even the president acknowledges won't stop all acts of gun violence in America. Still, the proposed changes would offer nationwide consistency to the states' patchwork of firearm sale laws, also developed in the absence of federal legislative action.

But even as we can appreciate executive frustration - eight times, Obama has had to address the nation in the wake of a mass shooting - and applaud intended ends, we cannot support the means.

Just as we have repeatedly chastised Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad for using his authority to circumvent the role of the state Legislature, we must point out that addressing inadequacies in federal gun law is the role of Congress, not the president.

Executive orders are intended to provide clarity and establish priorities for agencies under authority of the executive branch, not to create or modify existing laws. Many of Obama's orders, while good policy, are not in keeping with this spirit.

For far too long, federal lawmakers have abdicated their role in making sure federal gun regulations are reasonable, practical, enforceable and fair.

In some ways, that's understandable - the heated backlash from a vocal minority against Obama's orders, even before the details were announced, is a small and entirely predictable example of the kind of inflamed rhetoric and apocalyptic predictions any debate of gun regulation is sure to spark. But elected leaders simply cannot continue to treat gun law as an untouchable third rail.

There is good reason to insist that substantive changes in gun regulation go through Congress - even if those changes are to close loopholes in existing law, or to carry out the will of the majority of the people.

Laws debated and decided by a legislative body carry more weight and have more permanence than unilateral executive decisions. When the next executive stands behind the podium, the rules can change again - and again.

' Comments: editorial@thegazette.com, (319) 398-8469