hard-hitting& >> today they will be arrested. i >> the president says he wasn't getting any help from congress in reducing gun death, so so he moved ahead on his own, tearing up when he thought about the sandy hook victims. using measures that he says will make guns hard tore get for the wrong people and just as easy to get for the right ones. did he go too far? did he go far enough? are the new rules as he laid them out tonight at the white

house make guns safer? the rights and the wrongs, it's the "inside story". welcome to "inside story". i'm ray suarez. the argument the president made from the white house today was framed with policy, as he wrapped up his presentation, he reminded his audience about how good politics works too. >> we need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens, and feel like your views are not properly being represented, to join with us to demand something better. [ applause ]

and we need voters who want safer gun laws and who are disappointed in leaders that stand in their way to remember come election time. >> one-by-one, barack obama ticked off the new policies he's putting forward under his executive power, extending the reach of background checks, by having more gun sales processedthrough the fbi's databases, to make it harder for people with records to get firearms. the president was very critical of the system who allow someone seeking a gun who knows they can't do it at a gun shop to to do it in a different it system. >> some have been operating in a different set of rules. a violent felon can buy the same gun over the internet with no questions asked. one in 35 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records.

one out of 30 had a criminal record. >> reporter: along with tightening up the background check system, the president said that he'll make the system to enforce the laws already on the books. people suffering mental illness, and making more mental health information available to the background system. he wants to work with gun manufacturers to encourage the design and marketing of safer weapons, guns in his view that would make the less frequent and child involved shootings less possible. the president swung back to politics, noting that the bigger majority of people support background checks, even as the majority of gun owners do. he put the people's power at the there have the equation. congress could not ignore the power on this issue. >> yes, the gun lobby is loud, and it's organized in defense

of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, anytime. you know what? the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. >> the president of the united states is the chief constitutional officer of the country. the current occupant of the white house is a lawyer, and a be constitutional law professor, who as he noted today knows what the constitution says, but when he uses his executive power and tries to get around or ahead of congress, he has often drawn criticism. the speaker of the house, paul ryan of wisconsin, was harshly critical of the president's action, saying from day one, the president has never respected the right of safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued from its founding. it does not stem from the speaker or the president being wrong or deluded or criminal, but the way that the u.s. code is written in the first place,

that is open to interpretation. when the president talks of extending background be checks, he, in effect, is applying the definition of a gun dealer to more people. the u.s. code defines people as a, any person engaged in the business of selling firearms in wholesale or retail, or b, any person in the business of repairinger firearms, or making official barrels, stocks or trigger mechanisms to firearms. but what does that phrase, engaged in the business mean? that's defined as a person who devotes time, attention and labor to firearms as a regular course of trade of business with objective of livelihood or profit in the sale of the firearms manufactured. time, attention and labor? that's a pretty big loosy goosy definition. one that the president wants to read broadly, and the republican leaders in the nra

want to read narrowly. we were going to do something a little different on the program today. all of my guests believe the sale and possession and use of firearms in the united states should be subject to more regulation than currently in place. the senate majority leader, the head of the national rifle association and th the speaker f the house speak all had their say today. and threats from terrorism, any gun relations are a distraction and doesn't do anything to prevent firearms deaths. so for the people who want to do something, this is it. joining me, the president and ceo of the national gun council. caroline frederickson, and lea barrack, executive director of new yorkers against gun violence. when the president works within hissixtive power, when any

president does, do they have to read excerpts from the u.s. code and figure out how far can i go on my own bat here? >> well, there's obviously an important restraint on the president that he not go beyond what the constitution forses, but we have to remember that the constitution says that the very significant role of the president is to ensure that our laws are faithfully executed. so in examining a statute, it's really important for the president to understand, what was the intention behind congress' initiative in passing such a statute? and who is in the business of selling firearms? it's something that we have not reexamined since the advent of the internet. and i don't think that any of us would disagree that there's a lot of commerce that goes on on the internet. i mean, is amazon not one of our biggest commercial engines?

so clearly, the internet is part of our economy, it's part of commerce, and it's part of doing business, and the idea that the president would move to enensure that people selling firearms on the internet would be considered in the business of selling firearms seems like a commonsensical and completely rational extent of the law. >> but is that where the fight really lies? what the president can do on his own. today, he got a lot of criticism from presidential candidates and the chambers of congress, saying that he had exceeded his authority. and i'm wondering whether it's poorly written stat u statute tt creates this definition. >> i don't think so. i think that the law is cabricious to anticipate what kinds of things will be done. for example, if we have laws

for child pornography or other distribution, it doesn't matter that those be sold over the internet or a newsstand on the corner. it's illegal. so to understand the sale of firearms in the same context, what is a legal transaction for a seller, whether the seller does it in a brick and mortar storefront or over the internet, i think that it's absolutely a straight up and appropriate interpretation within the law and certainly within the president's executive authority. >> did the president go as far as he could have within the law today? >> well, i mean there are arguments certainly from some that he could have gone further. i think that we're here to talk about what the president did today, which is very very much within the basic confines of the faithfully executing the law mandate that's in the constitution. >> el lot feinman, did the

president good as far as the law would have allowed him? could he have done more? >> well, i absolutely think that he could have done more, because what he has done is symbolic, but essentially meaningless in having any impact on reducing the gun violence for us to live under. what we want president obama to do, and we have a petition pulling for it, is to declare a national state of emergency using his powers under the national emergencies act. we had a situation, this epidemic, killing 82 people a day, costing $670 million a day, that so clearly falls under the definition of what is an epidemic under the act, that that is what president obama should be doing, declaring a national state of emergency, and then issuing you the orders

that would actually make a difference. for example, the essence of the order today is to force more background checks, not recognizing that the background check system that we have now is powerfully flawed. it's missing 90% of the mental health records, the states don't have to submit data if they don't want to. the last 15 mass murderers passed background checks, so to force people to go through a system that's flawed and to think thats this going to in any way halt the gun violence epidemic is aber surd. >> is it symbolic or more than that. >> it's more than that. the president is chipping away at the edges to address this issue at the federal level. states like new york have gone ahead and passed laws most recently in 2013, right after sandy hook, passed the law in

the state of new york, and the ban on assault weapons, but prior on that safe act, we had licensing and registration of handguns in the state of new york. which to me is one of the most significant things in the state of new york when it comes to firearms. because those licenses are given by law enforcement. and why that's important, so the local police will know the individuals in the community who are applying for a gun, and if they have domestic violence or anger issues, and so if you're giving it at a sate or higher level, you don't have that knowledge. so gun bans do work, but the action happening at the state level is because congress is not addressing this issue. they had three years, and everyone thought it was a watershed. but it turned out not to be. the republican candidates are

helpless. they're mouthing the nra playbook hook, line and sinker, and it's nauseating because we have a health crisis. >> we'll come back with this situation in a moment. gun rights and wrongs. stay with us, it's "inside story".

>> you're watching "inside story," i'm ray suarez.

as the president unveiled a new set of gun measures under his executive authority, we're working on today's program. elliot feinman, ceo of gun action, caroline frederickson, and lea barrett, executive director of new yorkers against gun violence. elliot feinman, you sounded sceptical. and let's look at the proposals apart from the background checks. the president is looking at smart gun technology, and working with the private sector to build safer guns, and providing more enforcement personnel -- currently given a low priority by the justice department. are these things that you suggest merely symbolic or could they have a very real effect? >> well, they're important things, and on the smart gun issue, the real effect would be if the president required that the government purchases of

firearms, only those with the mark on technology as part of them. in other words, that would force the manufacturers to make smart guns because the market would demand it. but to encourage them to do it is fool hardy. every time smart guns, and the technology now exists, and its like everything, replacing -- we're going to have the ability to identify everything by fingerprint, starting cars that way and opening doors, the technology exists, but it can't be commercially marketed because of the opposition to it. so by requiring the government to only purchase smart guns, that would forcer smart guns to come into play. >> you were at the white house, and the president got a rapture us reception for his proposals, but you heard, some of the things have been tried before. and very unsuccessful because

of the power of the forces arrayed at moving ahead with something like smart gun technology. how do you succeed where these efforts from failed in the past? >> well, i do agree with elliot that the president could have abused his executive authority to mandate with the government, purchases a lot of fire departments, only purchasing smart guns, or manufacturers, making them accountable to a certain code of ethics, and doing business and a significant minority are guilty of not adhering to good business practices, and i think that it state it governors, my state of new york, governor cuomo could certainly do more than he has done at the executive action level. so what the president has done, he's demonstrated that by taking ex five action, can you make changes around the edge without congress, and others can do the same. but the real change will have

to come from a congress that actually sees our problem in america as a true e epidemic tht needs to be addressed. >> we're going to talk about the mental health problem on tomorrow's program. but let's look at the prioritization suggestions, yes, the president points to the attorney general and that's within his bailiwick. but would that make a difference that the people could see and feel in the way this is hand? >> well, i think that people need to understand, when crimes are prosecuted, and we see more prosecutions of crime versus another, because authorization has been made by the president, by the governor, by the attorney general, that that crime is such a problem that we really need to put most of our resources into that. and i know the president convened, the attorney general convened the u.s. attorneys around the country to tell them that this is a priority and we

need to make sure that gun prosecutions are the top of their lists, and that includes one of the elements that i think is very important, going after people who are trying to buy guns who are not programmed. those people are -- permitted, they are going to dealers, and because they have been barred for a variety of reasons, because they're guilty of domestic violence or a dangerous crime, and perhaps they have a mental illness that makes them not be able to have a gun, and they get rented, that's a crime in and of itself. and those people need to be prosecuted, and that's a good way to send the message. >> adds the president changed the de bait for 2006 as we head to the national leaks? stay with us, it's "inside story". >> the united states of america is not the only country on earth with violent or

dangerous people. we're not inherently more prone to violence. but we are the only advanced country on earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency.

>> welcome back to "inside story," i'm ray suarez. gun rights on today's program. our guests are still with me, and lea, today my in-box filled up with people weighing in left and right, and saying what they thought the president did today. and of course most of the people running for president did as well. here's marco rubio of florida. >> the new executive order that the president is going to put in place on monday that infringe on your executive

rates, my first day in office, they're gone. >> we know that any executive order is fragile, and it can be undone by any new president in office, but does it change the debate in a way? >> it does. most americans have been sickened by the mass shootings, the clutch of them. and my in-box fills up quickly too. i get a lot of calls from new yorkers who want to do something. and a lot of americans have a lot of disgust with this problem now and the inaction that has been sitting in congress, and people are getting to the point where they will start to look at the candidates very carefully to see where they stand on this issue and cast their vote accordingly and that's what needs to happen. but on the other side, the gun nuts, the gun lobby, they are a single issue voters, and this is what gets them going. and we have to have that

passion, and the president said that today. nearly 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide, not just the criminals, but it's children, children bringing guns to school, and its affecting every aspect of american society. >> elliot, even if the proposals today don't go as far as you would like, do they have a shot at really shaping the debate for the rest of the year? >> well, it will certainly be a prominent part of the debate. but the reality is that there's a structural problem in congress that prevents congress from ever taking action, and the reality is that there are 17 states, 34 senators that are completely pro-gun, and the nra doesn't have to spend any money in these states, and those states simply dent the any gun regulations. what was the thing that the people of umpqua said after the shooting at the school, we don't want any gun control.

these 34 senators, you'll never get to vote for any gun regulation. since you need 60 senators to pass anything in the senate, that remains of the remaining 66, you'll have to get 60, and the math doesn't work. >> elliot, i'm going to give her the last word, are these laws as easily undone as marco rubio suggests they are? >> well, the purview of the executive, so certainly, what i think the president has identified, and what the constitutional scholars we have worked with have laid out so clearly, the president can absolutely do all of things that he laid out without any constitutional challenge. he's fully within his constitutional authority. and the fact that we do not have the laws yet enforced as effectively as they could be, means that we could have the american people's support going forward. >> i want to thank my guests, elliot feinman, caroline

frederickson, and lea gunbarrett, the executive director of new yorkers against violence. i'll be back in a moment with a final thought on guns, and what are guns for anyway? it's "inside story".

>> one of the observations most commonly heard during gun debates, is that laws, new ones, old ones, do nothing to it stop determined criminals or mentally disturbed shooters. the enforcement as the leading politicians obama today, falls on the law-abiding citizen. today, president obama acknowledged and then rejected that line of argument, saying that keeping the guns out of the hands of buyers, even at the margins, is worth it. but how come the very same office holders and candidates who worry openly about inconveniencing law-abiding gun owners don't extend that logic to all laws?

we have laws against all kinds of things. littering, assault, practicing dentistry without a license that are observed by almost everyone, and broken only by lawbreakers, but you rarely hear calls to drop the laws against murder, because murderers so tragically ignore them. i long for a two-way, tough, smart give and take over how to treat guns, something that might lead to widely shared common wisdom about what to do from here on out. more than 30,000 people are killed every year by firearms, by criminals, by family members, in accidents, and the majority by their own hand. so far, from one side of the art, the only thing that we have heard that the best thing to do about that is just about nothing. it's hard to believe that that's where the debate ends. we'll spend the week examining the new policies and the place of the gun in american life.

i'm ray suarez, and that's the "inside story". >> this is aljazeera america, live from new york city, i'm tony harris. executive action, president obama gets emotional while owling new steps to curb gun violence. and we'll talk to the mother of a son who was killed for playing his music too loud. sales and background be checks. one of the president's orders might not change that. >> and claim being the second amendment is under attack. a special report on guns in america star