Obama to use Executive Order to enact Gun Legislation?

Pops

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
614
OK, I'm just about down off the roof now. I've done some research:
Weekly Standard

I'm sure this is not the first you've heard about this subject, a little Googling on "Biden Executive Order gun ban" will bring up pages of links.

I've been busy this evening contacting my US Senators and Representatives.
I've made it known that law making is their job, not the domain of one man in the White House.
I've expressed as politely as I know how to write that Congress has to step up and stop this, Republicans and Democrats.

Find your US Representative
Find your US Senator

All kidding aside this is getting out of control at an alarming pace.
 
Register to hide this ad
Caught something on this from CNN news earlier on another computer. Biden sure does say some dumbass stuff, this sure wasn't worded too well by him or CNN on this subject. Things are definitely getting way out of hand, I hope sObama doesn't do something really stupid that he and everyone else will regret. He's spoken out on things in the past that he really didn't need to and he came out of them looking pretty stupid and lame. Now when it comes to something this serious and on a level of import like the country has never seen before, jumping the gun so to speak could wreck the whole country!

We've been seeing where it is coming from and it is very uncertain as to where this will all go. But one thing is crystal clear in my opinion- if the media keeps whipping the mob frenzy up and everyone doesn't put on the brakes soon to really try to work things out, the USA may very well enter its darkest time ever.
 
I didn't think a executive order really ment crap. I mean I don't think that the constitution actually gives the president that power, It's just something they have done and no one has ever said no a hole! But I may be wrong..
 
There's a lot that can be done without congress using executive authority only.

Bloomberg has already laid out a blueprint:
http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/12/28/blo ... blueprint/
That's all pretty easy stuff to do.

On Bloomberg's list, the low hanging fruit is banning imports of guns and ammo. It is illegal to import any gun that is not appropriate for "sporting purposes." AG Eric Holder makes the rules as to what that means. So imports of anything from Glocks to AK-47s to nice high-priced semiauto shotguns could be banned with a stroke of the pen tomorrow. Banning ammo would make prices go up even more; a lot of our ammo comes from abroad now, and it isn't just the Russian calibers. For example, PMC comes from Korea, Prvi Partizan comes from Eastern Europe, Wolf comes from Russia, etc. Even if you don't personally buy PMC, all the folks who did buy PMC will now have to buy Federal, Winchester, etc which will raise prices for everyone. Supply/demand.

The Justice Department can obviously also hassle FFLs tremendously. I actually just let my C&R lapse so that I don't have to worry about their bullshit.

Every single 20 and 12 gauge shotgun is a destructive device regulated under the NFA unless it is appropriate for sporting purposes because they have bores over 50 caliber. Again, AG Eric Holder decides what "sporting purposes" means. The administration could state that a shotgun with pistol grip, adjustable stock, buttstock shell carrier, semiautomatic action, capacity greater than three shells, etc is inappropriate for sporting purposes and thus is a DD. Possession of an unregistered DD is a felony.

It is already a felony to get within 1000 yards of a school with a firearm unless (A) you have a CWP from that state (ATF does not recognize reciprocity) or (B) have the weapon unloaded in a locked case in your vehicle. There is no exemption for driving on a highway by a school. It could be possible to use TSA VIPR teams augmented with an ATF or FBI rep to bust people for violating the Gun Free School Zones act.

The ATF could make illegal demands on FFLs or others. For example, they've demanded long gun registration of certain rifles from FFLs in the southwest since 2011. They have no statutory authority to do so, and in fact, their action probably violates federal law, but NRA hasn't found a judge who will suspend the demand yet. So it is still in effect. There's a lot that could be done to hurt the industry and gun owners using questionable demands from ATF or EOs that are later tossed by a court (or maybe not) years down the road.

There are many, many things that the administration can do without congressional action to screw gun owners. Elections have consequences and Americans voted for this. Pres Obama's position on firearms has been clear and consistent for decades.
 
Rosea Carpa said:
I didn't think a executive order really ment crap. I mean I don't think that the constitution actually gives the president that power, It's just something they have done and no one has ever said no a hole! But I may be wrong..

While there is no specific language giving the office off the president the power to write executive orders, they have been doing it since Lincoln. The courts have overturned EO's, but not very often. They have been used in the past to do some pretty unconstitutional stuff. I think Japanese Americans were put in camps as a result of an EO.

My sense is we are going to see how far the limit can be pushed shortly. If the pres is allowed to write a completely new law through EO and it is not overturned, we might see some ugly reaction.
 
And John I guess that leads into the second part of what I was going to ask. I understand that they have been doing it forever but do you really think people are going to let a president take away a right given in the bill of rights with a power that wasn't really given to him? I mean if this goes down and I mean IF... How far do you think they will go before people say no?
 
First, I don't think you meant to say that the right is given by the constitution. It's a natural right that all men and women are born with, the BOR just lists it. Some seem to actually think otherwise. Most of them belong to one of the groups mentioned below.

My sense is that 1/3 of the population are submissive lemmings and 1/3 of the population are bullies who get off telling others what to do. They represent both ends of the authoritarian scale.

The first third will do what they are told because that is what they are told to do. The second third will seek ways to continue telling others what to do, regardless of whether it's good for them, you, me or anyone else. They can't help themselves.

Within the population is a subset of gun owners. I think that subset is likely an equal distribution just like the whole population. So, I suspect 1/3 of gun owners will do as they are told. I further suspect that 1/3 of gun owners will continue to tell the rest how, when, and where they may have or carry a gun, just like they do now with training, permitting, or how you act as a gun owner.

I've learned that not everyone appreciates, understands or even accepts freedom and liberty.
 
No matter what Obummer and his flunkies do the money for it has to come through Congress.........This is why everyone must write many letters to all the Congressmen and women.......

I don't think the antigun wackos have really studied the vast cost of implementing even simple changes to the 2nd Amendment........Please write those letters folks.....

Dan
 
There are lots and lots of things the President can do.
In my greatest hope he is just trying to float a trial balloon to see how much he can actually get away with.
In my darkest fears he's setting up Americans by sharply yanking on our chain to provoke people to stand up and say things that can and will be used against us. I fear he will paint everyone on the right as a whacko Tea bagger. ( I'm a Tea Party member, if anyone is not already convinced)

Either way, he can't simply ignore "almost half" of the people in America as though have no say in their laws and rules just because he won the election by a one percent margin.

In the mean time, we can voice our wishes to our representatives. If they get enough of a response he'll get the signal when he goes to Congress and even the Democrats refuse to go along.

Pops

;)
 
Yes you are correct our rights are given to us at birth! But it seems that if the pouts does do something that we would be in the large minority.
 
Rosea Carpa said:
And John I guess that leads into the second part of what I was going to ask. I understand that they have been doing it forever but do you really think people are going to let a president take away a right given in the bill of rights with a power that wasn't really given to him? I mean if this goes down and I mean IF... How far do you think they will go before people say no?

Yeah, yeah, they will. I'd say that at least 25% of people in South Carolina can't even name two things on the bill of rights, much less articulate the principles behind those specific enumerated rights. Half of the kids in SC fail to graduate HS, and 1/5 of the total population lack a HS degree, and we all know that depending on the quality of said school, you may not have learned much about history or civics in school even if you were lucky enough to graduate. At least another 25% may be aware of their rights, but want to keep "those people" in line (example: Rep Jake Knotts) and thus are ok with all sorts of totalitarian BS as long as it doesn't directly target them (initially). 45% are apathetic and primarily care about what is on American Idol next. That leaves around 5% who may be interested and motivated on the issue of personal liberty and freedom.

We need to start waking apathetic sleeping Americans up and insisting that our friends, neighbors, coworkers, shooting buddies, family members, etc get involved with our society, even if they don't agree with us on every issue. Widespread apathy and public ignorance is what allows much of what is wrong today to go on.
 
And that's the thing. Most..Well just about all of the people I know could care less or get one news outlets point of view and that is law! Sometimes it makes ya feel like the crazy one that sees some of this crap and that gives a crap. I bet if the government was talking about a I phone ban of a facebook ban we would really see something then.
 
Back
Top