Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

1948 Views 20 Replies 10 Participants Last post by Gh0zt36, Jan 15, 2013

Gh0zt36

Discussion Starter · Jan 14, 2013

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...complish-through-executive-action_695381.html

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

Tackleberry1

· #2 · Jan 14, 2013

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

See less See more

Tackleberry1

· #3 · Jan 14, 2013

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

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

Tack

Gh0zt36

Discussion Starter · #4 · Jan 14, 2013

Tackleberry1 said:
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

· #5 · Jan 15, 2013

Gh0zt36 said:
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...complish-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

· #6 · Jan 15, 2013

PanBaccha said:
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

Discussion Starter · #7 · Jan 15, 2013

PanBaccha said:
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

· #8 · Jan 15, 2013

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

· #9 · Jan 15, 2013

Tackleberry1 said:
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

· #10 · Jan 15, 2013

PanBaccha said:
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

See less See more

Axxe55

· #11 · Jan 15, 2013

IMO, Obama will push his agenda as far as he can get away with, legal or illegal. will he get an AWB to pass? possibly, but i don't think he has the support of the House or Congress to get it through. i see him also bending the law to suit his agenda on this issue as well. after all he is a manipulative politician!

the part that does confuse me, that i read in the news earlier today, was he wanted stricter background checks. what am i missing here and what would a stricter background check be? DNA and fingerprints before buying! phych evaluation before buying? a note from your 1st grade teacher telling them you were a good student? if anyone can shed some light on this i would like to hear it.

Tackleberry1

· #12 · Jan 15, 2013

axxe55 said:
IMO, Obama will push his agenda as far as he can get away with, legal or illegal. will he get an AWB to pass? possibly, but i don't think he has the support of the House or Congress to get it through. i see him also bending the law to suit his agenda on this issue as well. after all he is a manipulative politician!

the part that does confuse me, that i read in the news earlier today, was he wanted stricter background checks. what am i missing here and what would a stricter background check be? DNA and fingerprints before buying! phych evaluation before buying? a note from your 1st grade teacher telling them you were a good student? if anyone can shed some light on this i would like to hear it.

Stricter checks could mean several things. I could be as minimal
as the Feds updating NCIS records to include anyone who's been mental adjudicated and declared incompetent or it could mean NO MORE PRIVATE SALES...now, taking your buddy to the LGS before selling his a prized model 60 might not seem like a big deal bit what if it's more?
What if it's NO PRIVATE SALES AT ALL?
Sell it to an FFL ONLY? That would cut the value of all collections down to wholesale and remove the investment "incentive" from gun ownership.

They keep using the term "universal" background check so I expect the worst and would not be shocked to see an EO BANNING PRIVATE SALES.

Tack

Tackleberry1

· #13 · Jan 15, 2013

axxe55 said:
IMO, Obama will push his agenda as far as he can get away with, legal or illegal. will he get an AWB to pass? possibly, but i don't think he has the support of the House or Congress to get it through. i see him also bending the law to suit his agenda on this issue as well. after all he is a manipulative politician!

the part that does confuse me, that i read in the news earlier today, was he wanted stricter background checks. what am i missing here and what would a stricter background check be? DNA and fingerprints before buying! phych evaluation before buying? a note from your 1st grade teacher telling them you were a good student? if anyone can shed some light on this i would like to hear it.

Stricter checks could mean several things. I could be as minimal
as the Feds updating NCIS records to include anyone who's been mental adjudicated and declared incompetent or it could mean NO MORE PRIVATE SALES...now, taking your buddy to the LGS before selling him a prized model 60 might not seem like a big deal but what if it's more?
What if it's NO PRIVATE SALES AT ALL?
Sell it to an FFL ONLY? That would cut the value of all collections down to wholesale and remove the investment "incentive" from gun ownership.

They keep using the term "universal" background check so I expect the worst and would not be shocked to see an EO BANNING PRIVATE SALES.

Tack

Axxe55

· #14 · Jan 15, 2013

Tackleberry1 said:
Stricter checks could mean several things. I could be as minimal
as the Feds updating NCIS records to include anyone who's been mental adjudicated and declared incompetent or it could mean NO MORE PRIVATE SALES...now, taking your buddy to the LGS before selling him a prized model 60 might not seem like a big deal but what if it's more?
What if it's NO PRIVATE SALES AT ALL?
Sell it to an FFL ONLY? That would cut the value of all collections down to wholesale and remove the investment "incentive" from gun ownership.

They keep using the term "universal" background check so I expect the worst and would not be shocked to see an EO BANNING PRIVATE SALES.

Tack

Tack, pretty much what i thought, just wanted someone elses opinion.

the mentally adjudicated would only be effective if someone were actully commited to an institution. so there in actual reality will still be plent of nut cases that had never been institutionalized, that would be able to purchase, correct? so IMO if that were the case, stricter background checks would in an essence be pretty useless! another ineffective gun control measure that is doomed to fail.

and banning FTF private sales? seriously, who and how could the ever enforce that? sounds like a paperwork nightmare to me! somebody is going to have to do paperwork. possibly having a national registration of all firearms? another huge mountain of paperwork for someone if we were inclined to comply. how would they enforce that!

See less See more

sputnik1988

· #15 · Jan 15, 2013

The only way to enforce a ban on private sales would be universal registration, which nobody will go along with anyway.

Tackleberry1

· #16 · Jan 15, 2013

sputnik1988 said:
The only way to enforce a ban on private sales would be universal registration, which nobody will go along with anyway.

There would be no need to enforce it. Every crime gun would simply be traced back to it's last FFL purchaser.

If that person could not show proof of legal transfer prior to the date of the EO, bingo...hello felony conviction...bye bye gun rights.

Tack

sdiver35

· #17 · Jan 15, 2013

Tackleberry1 said:
There would be no need to enforce it. Every crime gun would simply be traced back to it's last FFL purchaser.

If that person could not show proof of legal transfer prior to the date of the EO, bingo...hello felony conviction...bye bye gun rights.

Tack

I'm sure a tax will also be applied to all transfers too.

Tackleberry1

· #18 · Jan 15, 2013

sdiver35 said:
I'm sure a tax will also be applied to all transfers too.

I hope so...inserting a tax into an EO would guarantee it's struck down. The power to tax is reserved soley to congress.

Tack

Garadex

· #19 · Jan 15, 2013

Tackleberry1 said:
I hope so...inserting a tax into an EO would guarantee it's struck down. The power to tax is reserved soley to congress.

Tack

And as much as we hate paying taxes it is better for. congress to have it than our "president".

Tackleberry1

· #20 · Jan 15, 2013

Garadex said:
And as much as we hate paying taxes it is better for. congress to have it than our "president".

QFT!

I wod not trust the *** Hat in Chief with a sharp stick! Lucky for him he's a liberal and only believes in playing with safe items that can hurt him...

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.