Obama: Quick on the draw for supporters slow on the uptake

Beyond that, his high-profile action looks unlikely to accomplish anything. Indeed, the word “action” is probably an overstatement in describing it.

The NRA reaction was especially telling. In his official statement, the director of the organization’s lobbying arm criticized Obama for condescension and “distracting attention” from his record on terrorism. But as for the proposals themselves, he merely called them “ripe for abuse” without singling out any of them. That’s probably because they were too insubstantial to criticize.

In describing his proposal, Obama began by promising that “anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. It’s not where you do it, but what you do.”

He might as well have said he will make the sun set tomorrow evening, because that’s already the law. Contrary to the misinformation that he and others have been spreading for years, there never has been any exemption for sales over the Internet or at gun shows. The only legal sale where no background check is required is between two private residents (not licensed gun dealers) living in the same state.

In other words, Obama is trying to take credit for rules that predate his presidency, dressing them up as concerned action when they are, really, cynical showmanship. He is trusting in the ignorance of his base to make it seem as though he is doing something serious. It seems that the Great Divider is no longer satisfied with contempt for those who disagree with him; now he displays it for those who are on his side, too.

One small change, probably the most substantive in the proposal, tightens the rules for the use of corporate structures to buy a special class of guns regulated under the National Firearms Act. This applies only to a tiny niche market in very strictly regulated guns (such as machine guns) whose owners must first obtain a federal license. The ATF, in drafting the rule to which Obama was referring, acknowledged that the use of such guns in crimes is extremely rare, even under the current, weaker application process. In short, this is not a measure that pertains to the normal world of gun ownership.

Although it was not part of his proposal, Obama also disappointingly brought up once again the political gimmick that made an ugly appearance in his recent anti-terrorism speech. The very fact that he even mentioned the disingenuous proposal to deny gun sales to Americans placed on secret government terrorist watch lists (not charged or convicted of any crime) signifies an underlying lack of seriousness in his efforts on this issue.

On the other hand, it was at least something to see him propose an additional $500 million in funding for mental health, which Congress would have to approve. Of course, the more important issue is how the money is spent, given the relevant agency’s record of spending mental health money on hotlines for people anxious about the weather.

Obama also mentioned that he would hire more agents to perform background checks (a good thing) and “bring an outdated background check system into the 21st Century,” (pleasing, if true). But if Obama wants to make a real difference, he should take a page from the playbook of his former colleague, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., as he does so.

We recently recommended that Congress revive Coburn’s proposal for a free, voluntary online system by which any gun owner can instantly check the background of any potential gun-buyer. We stand by that recommendation because it will be effective and it places faith in American gun owners’ prudence and rationality rather than increased government control over the exercise of their rights. Such a system would represent a real and immediate improvement over the status quo, unlike the tinkering that Obama promised on Tuesday.