[Gh0zt36]

My understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence," said Obama. "Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-some-gun-control-measures-i-can-accomplish-through-executive-action_695381.html

[Tackleberry1]

He could tweak import laws and background checks via EO...

...if he get crazy with anything else like bans or registration it would either get struck down on court or struck down with veto proof margins in congess.

Capitol Hill need to hear a consistant message from all of us.

"We the people do NOT recognize the authority of the President to infringe upon ANY of our constitutional rights via Executive Orders, we will NOT obey any such orders AND it is incumbent upon Congress to defend our liberty by striking down any Executive Orders regarding the 2nd Amendment AND doing so with veto proof margins".

Nothing less will be acceptable.

Tack

[Tackleberry1]

Hope I didn't kill your thread Ghozt...

Perhaps my response was a little too "honest" for some.

Tack

[Gh0zt36]

Originally Posted by Tackleberry1

Hope I didn't kill your thread Ghozt...

Perhaps my response was a little too "honest" for some.

Tack

No worries brother . If anyone can't handle grown up discussion they should check themselves into daycare after they get out of work


I however think the case more likely to be no one had anything to add to the discussion. FTF posters 99.99% are top notch even if we don't all agree 100% on any given issue.

That's what makes this country so great . For the MOMENT we are free to form our own opinion or alliance with any law. So please don't appologize.
As anyones opinion on any of my threads are more than welcome. 1A isn't just for me

[PanBaccha]

Originally Posted by Gh0zt36

My understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence," said Obama. "Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-some-gun-control-measures-i-can-accomplish-through-executive-action_695381.html

Am I wrong in thinking that 'executive priviledge' and 'executive action' are against the law, if it be true that we are a nation of laws predicated on the guidance and framework of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there references made to subject matter above. To execute such an act, I believe, would be akin to dictatorship, no? Just asking.

[locutus]

Originally Posted by PanBaccha

Am I wrong in thinking that 'executive priviledge' and 'executive action' are against the law, if it be true that we are a nation of laws predicated on the guidance and framework of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there references made to subject matter above. To execute such an act, I believe, would be akin to dictatorship, no? Just asking.

Executive orders are perfectly legal if kept within the confines of statutory law. But there needs to be a law there in the first place before he can issue an order to help enforce it.

[Gh0zt36]

Originally Posted by PanBaccha

Am I wrong in thinking that 'executive priviledge' and 'executive action' are against the law, if it be true that we are a nation of laws predicated on the guidance and framework of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there references made to subject matter above. To execute such an act, I believe, would be akin to dictatorship, no? Just asking.

I'm not sure but in the current political climate in the US of " I am government. I do what I want " . Does it really matter?

[Warrior1256]

Hopefully all of the pro-gun organizations will by watching closely to make sure that Obama does not overstep his bounds. Obama will try anything, legal or illegal.

[dog2000tj]

Originally Posted by Tackleberry1

Capitol Hill need to hear a consistant message from all of us.

"We the people do NOT recognize the authority of the President to infringe upon ANY of our constitutional rights via Executive Orders, we will NOT obey any such orders AND it is incumbent upon Congress to defend our liberty by striking down any Executive Orders regarding the 2nd Amendment AND doing so with veto proof margins".

Nothing less will be acceptable.

QFTMFT!!! Either they can hear our voices ... or they can hear our boots

[Tackleberry1]

Originally Posted by PanBaccha

Am I wrong in thinking that 'executive priviledge' and 'executive action' are against the law, if it be true that we are a nation of laws predicated on the guidance and framework of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there references made to subject matter above. To execute such an act, I believe, would be akin to dictatorship, no? Just asking.

EO's are rarely used for "controversial" items and are typically a method to expedite new laws until the congress can act upon them.

BO tested the waters before the election with his "Immunity" order and Congress did not push back. Could not push back because there was no Democratic support to overturn it.

Guns are different, 40+ Democrat senators signed the letter to BO telling him to cool his crap with the UN Arms treaty because they would not ratify it.

We need to keep the pressure on both sides to overturn any EO the President puts forth on gun control by reminding them what we did to Dems after the first AWB.

Allowing any unconstitutional EO regarding 2A to stand...or leaving it to the courts to decide...it tantamount to voting for it themselves and every Congresman and Senator need to hear that!

Tack