President Obama is once again flexing his executive muscle hoping to impose a new background-check on buyers of weapons from high-volume gun dealers, reports The Washington Post.

In this latest ploy to circumvent Congress and usher in a new phase of gun control, Obama proposes a rule that would also affect dealers who exceed a to-be-determined number of gun sales per year by requiring them to purchase a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as perform background checks on buyers.

The conversation is the same after every event involving a deadly shooting, minus the weekly gang-related murders in the inner city, of course: more gun laws. In fact, since Sandy Hook, the president has issued 23 executive orders to that end. And after the recent Oregon college shooting, Obama's vigor is renewed.

Just after the incident, the president sent a request to his staff looking for any and all ways to ensure enforcement of the laws already in the books "more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals." This will keep the administration busy as lawyers determine the legality of his executive order.

From the Post:

The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

Yet ATF officials are skeptical to the law's enforcement, saying it would be hard to determine exactly who would be affected. An anonymous insider told the Post, "Everyone realized it would be hugely politically controversial."

There are others who are skeptical, too. As the report states, those on the left view this as only a "modest step" in the direction of stricter gun control. And the NRA believes the rule would "ensnare" certain individuals unnecessarily, as in the Post's example of "a widow selling off her late husband's gun collection."

Then there is the redundancy factor, as pointed out by NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker: "People who repeatedly sell large volumes of firearms are already covered in the current statute because they are already defined as ‘engaged in the business.’" 

Just hours after the Oregon shooting and with little details of what happened emerging, Obama stood before America, proud to politicize the moment in asking for citizens to demand action on guns. But the question remains; would one more law have prevented this, or any other tragedy?

For a closing thought on that, here is National Review's David French on the day of the mass shooting:

[I]t’s disgraceful for the president to specifically and intentionally politicize the shooting before we even knew the identity of the gunman, his motivations, or how he obtained his weapons. Do we know whether a single one of the president’s gun control proposals would have made the slightest difference in Oregon? We already know that one very specific gun control measure failed utterly — the declaration that the campus is a gun-free zone. We also know that our most draconian criminal prohibition failed as well — the prohibition against the intentional, unjustified taking of a human life. When we know the facts, we’ll doubtless also learn the full extent of the gunman’s lawbreaking, and we’ll discover that he violated a whole host of laws. Would one more criminal prohibition made a difference?