Biden says EO is on the table...


PDA






SilentStalker
January 9, 2013, 02:37 PM
Just to alert all of you 2nd amendment savvy people. Biden claims that an EO by Obama is on the table. Now, IMO, this would not even be proposed unless he thought he did not have enough support to get it through regular channels. That at least might mean our voices to congress are being heard.

http://nation.foxnews.com/joe-biden/2013/01/09/biden-president-going-act-there-are-executive-orders

If you enjoyed reading about "Biden says EO is on the table..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
January 9, 2013, 02:39 PM
Or that it's easier and requires less political power. Think about it like this: you're the leader of a group of 10 people. 3 of the others agree with you, 3 disagree, and 3 are on the fence. Which is easier, to try and convince the 3 fencers to see your point of view, or say "I'm the leader, we're going with my choice."

SilentStalker
January 9, 2013, 02:42 PM
I wasn't going to say it but you did. That is why I said that our letters and voices MIGHT have been heard.

gbw
January 9, 2013, 02:45 PM
They will do whatever they can get away with under an EO, they've just been waiting for the opportunity, which they now have. The country is on their side now, they think, so why bother with Congress.

So, what sorts of things are allowable under an EO?

Can they, for example, forbid the future sale of military brass, bullets, etc. to civilians? Restrict imports? 'Encourage' the EPA or other bureaucracies to make rules that make it more difficult to obtain or use weapons or ammo?

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 02:48 PM
Wow, another thread on E.O.s. Remember, executive orders are not a way to make law. They are a method of directing the federal law enforcement agencies under the President's command (as head of the Executive branch) as to how he wants them to enforce discretionary facets of existing federal laws.

He can't deliver an E.O. that makes AR-15s illegal, or makes them NFA firearms. He can't hand down an E.O. that makes <10 round mags illegal. He might be able to make a few changes which we wouldn't like, but he has nothing like the power that the Congress wields here.

beatledog7
January 9, 2013, 02:57 PM
But that won't stop him from declaring what he wants as the way it shall be and having the backing of the media and many members of Congress and probably SCOTUS as well.

This president makes no distinction between what is allowed by the Constitution and what is not. He considers himself, for all intents and purposes, the King of the United States and therefore above the law. He also believes that Congressional leadership will not stand up to him, and he may be right about that; it hasn't so far.

SilentStalker
January 9, 2013, 02:57 PM
Wow, another thread on E.O.s. Remember, executive orders are not a way to make law. They are a method of directing the federal law enforcement agencies under the President's command (as head of the Executive branch) as to how he wants them to enforce discretionary facets of existing federal laws.

He can't deliver an E.O. that makes AR-15s illegal, or makes them NFA firearms. He can't hand down an E.O. that makes <10 round mags illegal. He might be able to make a few changes which we wouldn't like, but he has nothing like the power that the Congress wields here.

^^^Really? Well, if that is the case then it eases my worries some. I am not a political expert by no means but for some reason it seems like most EO's always seem to become law and they never go challenged. There are still EO's in place that have been in place and effect for decades that nobody has ever challenged. I will have to read up on it. If it is what you say then thanks for the lesson.

Wyndage
January 9, 2013, 02:58 PM
Good post, Sam.

The gun prohibitionists are saying this stuff to rattle us. They want to create a sense of inevitability about more gun regulations. Congress is where the battle will be fought.

Wyndage
January 9, 2013, 03:01 PM
I am not a political expert by no means but for some reason it seems like most EO's always seem to become law and they never go challenged.

It is probably in Obama's best interests that they remain unchallenged. If he overreaches in an EO and it gets litigated to SCOTUS, the result could be a new limitation on presidential power. It is in his best interests not to allow this to happen.

raddiver
January 9, 2013, 03:04 PM
Then couldn't he re-instate the AWB by EO? that's not enacting a new law per se.

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 9, 2013, 03:05 PM
The gun prohibitionists are saying this stuff to rattle us.
I don't think it is so much to rattle us as to assure the masses that "something will be done" and they are "pursuing every available option."

Telling people that you'll leave no stone unturned tends to placate them.

Hapworth
January 9, 2013, 03:06 PM
Wow, another thread on E.O.s. Remember, executive orders are not a way to make law. They are a method of directing the federal law enforcement agencies under the President's command (as head of the Executive branch) as to how he wants them to enforce discretionary facets of existing federal laws.

He can't deliver an E.O. that makes AR-15s illegal, or makes them NFA firearms. He can't hand down an E.O. that makes <10 round mags illegal. He might be able to make a few changes which we wouldn't like, but he has nothing like the power that the Congress wields here.Thank you for continuing to supply some much needed fact on the E.O. panic.

I'll add that it's Congress' control of budget allocation that is probably its most powerful tool for pushing back against E.O.s it doesn't like.

DoubleTapDrew
January 9, 2013, 03:06 PM
He seems to be testing whether the people still have the will to use the 2A for it's original purpose.

Queen_of_Thunder
January 9, 2013, 03:07 PM
"
Wow, another thread on E.O.s. Remember, executive orders are not a way to make law. They are a method of directing the federal law enforcement agencies under the President's command (as head of the Executive branch) as to how he wants them to enforce discretionary facets of existing federal laws.

He can't deliver an E.O. that makes AR-15s illegal, or makes them NFA firearms. He can't hand down an E.O. that makes <10 round mags illegal. He might be able to make a few changes which we wouldn't like, but he has nothing like the power that the Congress wields here."









You tell him that. I never thought that it was legal to take a citizens life without due process but they have done that using drones in Afghanistan. He can issue the order but it will have to be litigated through the Courts to overturn it and that can take years.

Hapworth
January 9, 2013, 03:12 PM
I never thought that it was legal to take a citizens life without due process but they have done that using drones in Afghanistan.I believe you're referring to al-Awalki; that was in Yemen. He renounced his citizenship when he went overseas, joined a foreign enemy at war with the U.S., and proceed to wage war against the U.S. As such, the international laws of war applied; fair target, fair kill.

Back on topic: any President can issue an E.O., true, but whether or not it can and will be enforced is another matter altogether.

Grassman
January 9, 2013, 03:19 PM
So we are now taking what Biden says as gospel? That moron can barely tie his own shoelaces.

coloradokevin
January 9, 2013, 03:20 PM
This article suggests that Obama may use Executive Orders as a means of circumventing Congress in an effort to implement more gun control measures. How far reaching can these Executive Orders potentially go?

I suspect an EO could be used to place AR-15's and whatnot on an NFA list, or perhaps to require person-to-person sales to go through an FFL. Beyond that, I'm not sure... and, of course, I'm just speculating about what he might do:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Bubbles
January 9, 2013, 03:22 PM
I expect that any EO will hit the industry rather than the buyer, as was done with reporting multiple rifle sales by dealers in the border states.

blarby
January 9, 2013, 03:35 PM
Thanks, Sam.

Yet another topic that should be a sticky.........

Billy Shears
January 9, 2013, 03:36 PM
This is expected. Obama and his allies rammed Obamacare through by devious means; he has routinely exceeded his authority and made numerous recess appointments, when the Senate was not in recess in order to sidestep troublesome confirmation hearings; gutted the work requirement from the 1994 welfare reform law, in spite of both constitutional limits on the power of his office, and of clear and unambiguous text in the law specifically prohibiting this very thing; and decided to selectively enforce immigration laws to achieve the effects of the "dream act" when he and his party couldn't get it through congress. Was there ever any doubt he'd exceed his authority in the same way over the issue of gun control?

It's probably going to take a legal challenge to whatever executive orders he issues, and get the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional. And at that, we'd better get that accomplished before Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, or even Kennedy dies or retires and Obama can appoint a replacement, who will unquestionably be very liberal. If that happens before the issue comes up, we're sunk.

jdex
January 9, 2013, 03:38 PM
He does like his EO's, pretty sure he has signed more than all other presidents combined.

Skribs
January 9, 2013, 03:41 PM
Until something happens or fails, I'm going to hope it doesn't happen, campaign to make it not happen, but still mentally prepare for if it does happen. From an activism perspective, I'd rather assume a subpar outcome so I know what to work against.

razorback2003
January 9, 2013, 03:48 PM
Obama can get Biden to make up these fake committees but if he can't get Congress to pass a law, he is out of luck for the most part.

I can see military brass being destroyed and also SKS ammo banned from import. That is about all Obama can do, just like Slick banned Norinco SKS's from being imported and old man Bush pulled the deal on FN FAL's.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 9, 2013, 03:59 PM
He might be able to make a few changes which we wouldn't like, but he has nothing like the power that the Congress wields here.

What changes could he do with EO?

gunnutery
January 9, 2013, 04:00 PM
Personally, resisting/disobeying an EO seems a lot easier than against a law passed by Congress, Senate and then signed into law by the president. So in some way, I'd rather he go that route, have masses, including LE disobey, than have something pushed through Congress like obamacare was. I'm not saying that such legislation would get rammed through, but it's a possibility.

"Enacting" some anti-gun EO would only prove his arrogance and, in my mind, be reason for impeachment, though I'd have to research that just to make sure it would even qualify.

What changes could he do with EO?

He could "clarify" specific rulings for the EPA, CDC, ATF, etc. to adhere to that isn't expressly explained by law. Such as, material bullets are made of like require them to be biodegradable(?). Or perhaps push for the courts to hand down very strict sentencing for a very small violation of gun law, despite a person doing something by accident or without ill-intent. I can't think of other examples right now. Forgive me if my understanding is off.

627PCFan
January 9, 2013, 04:05 PM
Can he sign an EO that the ATF will not proccess any NICS Background checks for Semi-Auto Rifles? *edit* until some time in the future-

DAP90
January 9, 2013, 04:13 PM
I hope he does issue an EO that exceeds his authority. This fight is coming anyway, and since it is I would prefer if the opposition takes an idiotic position.

Jim K
January 9, 2013, 04:20 PM
Remember George H.W. Bush simply ordered ATF to reject/rescind import approval for AK-47's from China after the CA schoolyard killings. Obama could just close NICS or order ATF not to issue any more FFLs.

Most government licensing laws are based on the idea that people who want to do something that requires a llicense (drive a car, open a restaurant, etc.) will get a license. And the law usually says what they need to do to get a license (learn to drive, clean the building). But the laws almost never say that if the applicant meets the requirements, the government MUST issue the license. It is assumed by the legislature that the government will act in good faith. But what if the government is of bad faith or simply refuses to act? If a leader thinks that way, and considers the Constitution out dated and void, he may well believe there is no need for further elections. Remember, the Constitution mentions elections; it does not say the government has to provide voting machines, or places to vote, or a means of counting votes. Those are implied, but a bad faith leader can ignore implications.

Jim

Hapworth
January 9, 2013, 04:26 PM
One very revealing thing Biden said in the article was his admission: "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet."

In other words, they don't know what they're talking about, and he just admitted it.More likely he was deliberately not announcing to his opposition precisely what to expect.

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 04:28 PM
Then couldn't he re-instate the AWB by EO? that's not enacting a new law per se.No. That is not a current US law.

Billy Shears
January 9, 2013, 04:31 PM
Most government licensing laws are based on the idea that people who want to do something that requires a llicense (drive a car, open a restaurant, etc.) will get a license. And the law usually says what they need to do to get a license (learn to drive, clean the building). But the laws almost never say that if the applicant meets the requirements, the government MUST issue the license. It is assumed by the legislature that the government will act in good faith. But what if the government is of bad faith or simply refuses to act?
That was the impetus behind shall issue carry laws. Before them, almost anywhere you could get a permit, you had to go hat in hand to some official and state your need to have the permit. And it was entirely up to them to issue it or not. Most places it was not. That's what happens when you put some people over others. They will exercise control, and the longer they do it, the more they get to feeling they know what's better for you than you do. That was the whole view of government our constitution was set up to check. Unfortunately, the checks built into the constitution have to be actively maintained and defended. When they're not, when repeated violations (like the ones I mentioned above) go unpunished, those checks erode away, and individual freedoms are stifled.

raddiver
January 9, 2013, 04:31 PM
No. That is not a current US law.
Thanks for clarification on that Sam. Much appreciated.

Navy_Guns
January 9, 2013, 04:39 PM
The worst part is it would take a new administration to overturn. Yes, it could be challenged and work it's way to the Supreme Court but that takes years. Or Congress could pass a law counteracting it, but it would have to pass House and Senate with 2/3rds or Obama would just veto it.

autospike
January 9, 2013, 04:43 PM
The EOs will be the stick that they threaten us with. The carrot (which I think will be accepted by our spineless politicians) will be a series of laws designed to eventually make owning firearms illegal (or extremely costly and difficult to obtain) for nearly everyone. If they cannot confiscate they will win them through attrition.

Look for mag bans, taxes on firearms (Nfa type registration), increased initial costs, no private transfer, no transfer to heirs, and disqualifying people with certain things in their medical history (PTSD, visits to mental Health care providers, certain meds, etc.) And of course they will have all that thanks to Obama care.

Killian
January 9, 2013, 04:46 PM
How was this done then? This article seems to imply it was thru the use of executive order.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/assault.weapons/

Hapworth
January 9, 2013, 04:50 PM
How was this done then? This article seems to imply it was thru the use of executive order.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/assault.weapons/
By issuing an E.O. that in letter pertained to an already extant import law (though in spirit was about firearm restriction).

leapfrog
January 9, 2013, 04:54 PM
the POTUS taught constutional law and it is no secret he thinks it is worthless,there needs to be some counter talk from maybe the NRA about impeachment.

Killian
January 9, 2013, 04:56 PM
So could an E.O. be issued today relating to an import restriction law, or a proliferations of "weapons of mass destruction" law? I'm really not sure how many guns are being imported from overseas nowadays.

Edit: Also I was wondering if anyone could tell me how the requirement for border state gun dealers to report more than purchases of more than one "assault weapon" per customer came about and was it the result of an executive order or thru some other method?

Wyndage
January 9, 2013, 05:00 PM
Personally, resisting/disobeying an EO seems a lot easier than against a law passed by Congress, Senate and then signed into law by the president. So in some way, I'd rather he go that route, have masses, including LE disobey, than have something pushed through Congress like obamacare was.

In this respect, Printz v. United States is relevant. The Supreme Court ruled that county sheriffs have the power to decide whether federal gun laws are enforced in their jurisdictions.

.45&TKD
January 9, 2013, 05:01 PM
Obama will probably do what George HW Bush did when he banned foreign imports of semiautomatic rifles. Not exactly an Executive Order, but the same effect. And Obama will say, "what's the big deal? Bush did it.".

mr.scott
January 9, 2013, 05:04 PM
#13
DoubleTapDrew
He seems to be testing whether the people still have the will to use the 2A for it's original purp

I've probably put myself on the radar, but I have been writing my Congressmen and reps and have told them plainly that any attempt by the government to deprive Americans of their rights will be met with force.

Killian
January 9, 2013, 05:05 PM
This article on "Three Simple Steps" is pretty chilling--to me at any rate--if it properly identifies the President's current options. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726

Hapworth
January 9, 2013, 05:07 PM
there needs to be some counter talk from maybe the NRA about impeachment.There really isn't grounds for impeachment, and so calling for it -- especially if the NRA did -- both distracts from the Second Amendment issues in play, but also gives the opposition grounds to marginalize gun ownership supporters as irrational.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 9, 2013, 05:08 PM
An Executive Order can only be used to execute a Constitutionally appointed authority or one delegated by Congress. For example, the Obama administration interpreted a requirement in the 1968 Gun Control Act for FFLs to report such information as the Secretary of the Treasury (now Attorney General) may require as authorizing them to extend the reporting for multiple sales of handguns to semi-auto longguns as well, even though Congress had passed no such law. The court upheld that authority.

In another example, any firearm with a bore greater than 0.50" is a destructive device (all 12ga shotguns) unless the Attorney General determines it to have a "suitable sporting purpose.". So, many shotguns are particularly open to attack through executive order.

skypirate7
January 9, 2013, 05:11 PM
The POTUS absolutely cannot issue any EO that creates new law. An EO can only clarify existing law. This has already been established by the SCOTUS.

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

For all I know, Biden and Zero might dress up in women's panties and dance to the music score of "Rocky", but they cannot force anyone else to do so.

One very revealing thing Biden said in the article was his admission: "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet."

In other words, they don't know what they're talking about, and he just admitted it.

Correct, but EO's aren't a joke either. As long as it is carefully defined, a lot can be done with an EO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

Old Fuff
January 9, 2013, 05:12 PM
Most of what has been mentioned are things he can’t do, or unlikely to stand up if he does. Sam is correct in saying the Executive Order power has been limited by past Supreme Court decisions.

I expect that if he does anything he will use the “sporting purpose” language in the 1968 GCA to ban importation of guns, gun parts, gun magazines, ammunition and ammunition components that do not meet his view of the “sporting” requirements. He might also order that the military services destroy any surplus ammunition or ammunition components (meaning fired cases) so that they can’t be used.

But if he goes this route more people (read that to mean “voters”) will be mad, Congress will get more letters that will make new laws more unlikely, and the possibility that his party will face serious losses in the 2014 election will grow.

Beyond that he can’t do much more, and I’m sure the NRA and others will be in court before the ink is dry on the order.

And of course, the panic sale of guns, magazines and ammunition will continue and grow even larger. None of these consequences should be particularly attractive to the president – or his Democrat Party.

One last point that hasn’t been mentioned: Working through the federal court system does take time – sometimes years. However in the beginning a Petitioner (through an attorney) can ask for a stay or injunction to block enforcement of any order until the court has ruled. Unquestionably any legal action that is filed from our side will ask for exactly that – and they might get it.

Killian
January 9, 2013, 05:15 PM
It would seem that almost ALL guns could be subjected to the "sporting purposes" test. And if found "wanting" could be subject to administrative procedures. Or have I misunderstood?

Bartholomew Roberts
January 9, 2013, 05:25 PM
The sporting purposes test applies only where Congress says it does. Two common examples are bores greater than 0.50" (many shotguns) and imported firearms. Normally, I would be concerned about domestic manufacturers working to limit imports; but given that they can't meet demand as it is right now WITH imports, I am a tiny bit less concerned. And typically, the imports create a lot of domestic business anyway...

xXxplosive
January 9, 2013, 05:26 PM
Don't like the sound of this stuff................

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 05:41 PM
Merged

Ryanxia
January 9, 2013, 05:44 PM
Remain alert. Crazier things have happened.

LubeckTech
January 9, 2013, 05:49 PM
I am hoping any attempt at an EO will backfire on him by strengthening the resolve of the gun owning community and/or possibly promoting legal challenges to his use of the EO thereby limiting his power.

Storm
January 9, 2013, 05:55 PM
Right on Sam.

One other thing. If the EO requires any funding that has to come through the House, the same House that will be a hornets nest.

streak
January 9, 2013, 06:26 PM
This quote from a posting on another website


'Is Obama really ready to blow up his entire second term using Executive Orders over this?

He's shown that he can't pass anything through a split Congress. He will have ZERO chance of passing anything if he does this. How about the budget? How about the debt ceiling? How about the growing concerns and costs over implementing ObamaCare and the health insurance exchanges? How about entitlement spending? How about tax reforms? How about a coherent energy policy? Are they really willing to get nothing done over the next four years over the reactions to a lunatic killer? Have no doubts that it will ultimately be the political calculations for the next four years that settles this, not the NRA or any gun control group"

dcarch
January 9, 2013, 06:28 PM
Oh crap.

Cosmoline
January 9, 2013, 06:36 PM
Bans by EO? Absolutely not. No way.

But there are things he can do. For example while he can't tell NICS to stop processing semiautos (they don't know which are semis and which aren't), he could order the NICS system as a whole to be taken down indefinitely for study groups and fine tuning. So no more buying firearms through NICS until the study group find out ways to "fix it." He can also do almost anything he wants to active duty military. And as noted he can do a lot to bog down imports. And of course he has enormous power over transportation regs.

marsofold
January 9, 2013, 07:12 PM
The limits of an EO are whatever he can get away with. The delay between enforcement of an EO and any actual resolution of litigation before the SC may take quite a while to complete. In the meantime bad things could be happening that might prove difficult or impossible to reverse later. And the SC could betray us all at the end and give him his way...

Victor1Echo
January 9, 2013, 07:15 PM
Wow, another thread on E.O.s. Remember, executive orders are not a way to make law. They are a method of directing the federal law enforcement agencies under the President's command (as head of the Executive branch) as to how he wants them to enforce discretionary facets of existing federal laws.

He can't deliver an E.O. that makes AR-15s illegal, or makes them NFA firearms. He can't hand down an E.O. that makes <10 round mags illegal. He might be able to make a few changes which we wouldn't like, but he has nothing like the power that the Congress wields here.
__________________
-- Sam
Okay Sam, but what about expanding the 1968 Gun Control act to include--etc, etc, etc,??

breakingcontact
January 9, 2013, 08:20 PM
Although I don't like to see the gun community jump everytime a gun grabber says something I also don't like to see our community say that politicians "can't" do things. They can do anything they will get away with and if they stack the appropriate courts with enough of their "yes men", they can get away with anything so long as the masses are busy with all the distractions and lies and keep voting people into office who have no respect for humanity or the Constitution.

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 08:51 PM
No.

It's amazing how many Americans think this is a monarchy where the President can order anything he wants.

:banghead:

If they are talking about EO, that means they know they can't get what they want through Congress so they are looking for other options.

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 08:58 PM
It would seem that almost ALL guns could be subjected to the "sporting purposes" test. And if found "wanting" could be subject to administrative procedures. Or have I misunderstood?
I think they know that would be a court challenge they would lose. Since Heller/McDonald ruled the 2nd a fundamental right, there is no way a "sporting" test can be upheld, and might even come back with an admonishment from SCOTUS on arms and/or executive power they don't want to see in writing.

Biden/Obama are panicing because they are only now realizing there is very little they can do. So they are getting desperate to do something... anything. Before all the hype fizzles away.

Sam. Colt
January 9, 2013, 09:02 PM
He does like his EO's, pretty sure he has signed more than all other presidents combined.
# of executive orders per president:

Eisenhower - 481
Kennedy - 213
Johnson - 323
Nixon - 345
Ford - 168
Carter - 319
Reagan - 380
Bush - 165
Clinton - 363
Bush - 290
Obama - 139 (Through October 9, 2012)

Source: www.archives.gov

gunnutery
January 9, 2013, 09:04 PM
I do have to wonder, why risk an over-reaching EO against the one group that may be willing to call you out?

I do believe that the current president loves to use his power, and is arrogant in it. However, why not just assert control over the smaller groups that don't have the numbers, funding and the biggest lobby in the US?

Unless... he's really gunning (pun intended) for a fight for control over the biggest, most funded, biggest lobby in the US, to assert control over the rest?

Merely speculation at this point, but things to consider.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 9, 2013, 09:12 PM
The problem is even if the Administration stretches its interpretation of its executive authority, what are the options to correct it? Congress can not clarify its intent unless the Senate cooperates and the courts are reluctant to get involved in these kind of disputes unless there is a very glaring violation. Not to mention it would take years to resolve through courts and the same media that is paving the way for a banana republic would be the only way most people would even know about it.

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 09:19 PM
SCOTUS, or even a federal apeals court, can knock it down in a few weeks. The farther he over-reaches, they quicker/easier it will be to knock it down.

The biggest danger is if they write a narrow law that chips away at our access to arms and EO's that are within current law. That will be harder to challenge/overturn.

Big blanket bans, confiscations, sweeping changes will be easily struck down and set them back from where they are now.

Archangel14
January 9, 2013, 09:40 PM
They're scared and buying time. They remember what happened with the last ban. And they know that EO's will be challenged with great effect. Imagine the President signing an EO that orders the IRS to restrict certain types of speech? That's what any such EO's on guns will likely add up to....a restriction on a recognized, Amendment-based, individual right.

On the other hand, remember who Obama's people are: people who will push the envelope as far as they can, probing to see how much they can get away with. That's why our reaction must be fierce! Let them push....this will give right-thinking Americans the chance to really push back in the mid-terms!!!

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 10:19 PM
Kinda interesting how the political has taken over THR:rolleyes:

This is a discussion of Constitutional law and how our government works. Not a political "libs-vs.-cons", "R-vs.-D" rant.

There's a difference between what we consider a political debate and a legal question, though I guess the distinction must not be clear to some.

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 10:21 PM
And of course he has enormous power over transportation regs.Oh? The 1986 FOPA is still LAW and it says exactly how one may transport firearms. He doesn't have discretion there.

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 10:23 PM
Okay Sam, but what about expanding the 1968 Gun Control act to include--etc, etc, etc,??I'm not sure why this would be unclear, but the GCA says certain things -- SPECIFIC things. That's the law. Neither the President, nor anyone else but Congress can change what it says, in other words "expand" it. He may be able to make small changes in how certain things are administered, but he cannot change the fundamental text of the law -- what's covered and what isn't.

Landric
January 9, 2013, 10:27 PM
The real question is, is the president willing to cede all of congress to pro-gun republicans in 2014 in order to either make a series of EOs or to get some ban legislation pushed through congress that even he and the most ardent supporters of gun control know won't have any measurable effect on crime and violence?

The first (and hopefully only) AWB was one of the primary factors that cost the democrats congress in 1994, and I am sure they remember it.

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 10:28 PM
Biden/Obama are panicing because they are only now realizing there is very little they can do. So they are getting desperate to do something... anything. Before all the hype fizzles away.They knew all along there was "very little they can do." It's the nature of their offices. They're politicians and the biggest task of any politician is play-acting for his constituents.

When Mr. Biden says that the President is "working hard to find solutions...yadda yadda..." that's just an extension of the picturesquely furrowed brow and concerned demeanor that tells his supporters "he's doing all he can...wow, look how serious he is!"

All theater.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2013, 10:29 PM
Biden also assures us that the president has a very big stick. I don't think BIDEN even knows what can and cannot be done by executive order.

Yoda
January 9, 2013, 10:38 PM
Things Obama could TRY to do via exec order (aka, "We can't wait for Congress to act.")

* Instruct FBI to automjatically disapprove NICS checks for ugly guns.
* Instruct BATFE to lean on any FFL that doesn't report ugly gun sales to central database.
* Declare current laws against national gun resitration lists to be invalid due to the current "emergency."
* "Exempt" NICS and FBI from current law that prohibits them from keeping records of NICS approvals for more than 72 hours.
* Ban impoprt of all ammo not destined for police or law enforcement.
* Revise existing regulations to re-classify ugly guns and scarey ammo as "destructive devices."
* Press Hollywood to include anti-gun themes and messages in TV and movie productions.
* Instruct TSA to search cars on highways for ugly guns.
* Instruct TSA to compensate any gun at an airport or on the highways where the owner cannot provide immediate proof of purchase/ownership.
* Declare NRA to be a terrorist organization.
* Demand NRA membership lists as condition for maintaining status as 501xxx organization.
* Conduct repeated raids on NRA HQs to check for safety, administrative, environmental, etc violations.
* Confiscate business records of any pro-gun organization as evidence for any trival charge/violation, whether relevant to the offense or not.
* Prohibit military and government employees from owning ugly guns, or any guns at all.

Need I go on? Hate to give the government any new ideas...

- - - Yoda

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 10:46 PM
Hoo boy! You forgot the part about how he could fly around DC in his magic hover-limo confiscating guns with his mega-huge gun magnet! :D

TSA stopping cars? NRA a terrorist organization? Reclassifying ARs (re-writing the NFA unilaterally?)

Ohhhhh kay.

scottsvillesol
January 9, 2013, 10:49 PM
oops double post

scottsvillesol
January 9, 2013, 10:51 PM
Is it possible that he could make the instant background check not so instant anymore? Under the guise of being more thorough?

larryh1108
January 9, 2013, 10:51 PM
This quote somewhat explains their thinking:

Biden said that the administration is weighing executive action in addition to recommending legislation by Congress. Recommendations to the Biden group include making gun-trafficking a felony, getting the Justice Department to prosecute people caught lying on gun background-check forms and ordering federal agencies to send data to the National Gun Background Check Database.

Some of those pieces could happen by executive action, but congressional say-so would be needed for more far-reaching changes such as reinstating the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Congress let the ban expire in 2004 under heavy pressure from the NRA. Democrats blamed a backlash against some lawmakers who voted for its enactment 10 years earlier for steep election losses that year.

It also appears that they don't have the support they need to do anything worthwhile:
quote:
Since then Democrats have been wary of legislating on guns, and efforts have fizzled in Congress. Already there are signs any new legislative effort by Obama could face tough going. Some pro-gun Democrats have voiced doubts, and the Senate's top Republican has warned it could be spring before Congress begins considering any gun legislation.

Obama has said that his efforts on guns can be successful only if he has the support of the public, and advocates who attended Wednesday's Biden meeting said part of the White House message was for participants to spread the word and keep up pressure on Washington.

So, to me, this sounds like good news and our efforts are paying off. EOs seem to be a little toothless but it makes him appear like he is doing something. I think we're moving in the right direction here.

source of the quotes:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130108/US.Obama.Gun.Control/

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 10:56 PM
Things Obama could TRY to do via exec order (aka, "We can't wait for Congress to act.")

* Instruct FBI to automjatically disapprove NICS checks for ugly guns.
* Instruct BATFE to lean on any FFL that doesn't report ugly gun sales to central database.
* Declare current laws against national gun resitration lists to be invalid due to the current "emergency."
* "Exempt" NICS and FBI from current law that prohibits them from keeping records of NICS approvals for more than 72 hours.
* Ban impoprt of all ammo not destined for police or law enforcement.
* Revise existing regulations to re-classify ugly guns and scarey ammo as "destructive devices."
* Press Hollywood to include anti-gun themes and messages in TV and movie productions.
* Instruct TSA to search cars on highways for ugly guns.
* Instruct TSA to compensate any gun at an airport or on the highways where the owner cannot provide immediate proof of purchase/ownership.
* Declare NRA to be a terrorist organization.
* Demand NRA membership lists as condition for maintaining status as 501xxx organization.
* Conduct repeated raids on NRA HQs to check for safety, administrative, environmental, etc violations.
* Confiscate business records of any pro-gun organization as evidence for any trival charge/violation, whether relevant to the offense or not.
* Prohibit military and government employees from owning ugly guns, or any guns at all.

Need I go on? Hate to give the government any new ideas...

- - - Yoda
No. No. No. No....

Please read the Constitution and some history on EO before you keep spreading these panic rumors. Loosen your tinfoil and learn how your government works.

We really need to just start mocking these kinds of posts.

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 10:59 PM
oops double post
No. He can't rewrite the law. The law says they have 3 days to find a valid reason to deny or it automatically gets approved.


The President is not a king!

Yoda
January 9, 2013, 11:17 PM
I get paid not-so-big bucks to do independent, alternative analysis, to encourage critical, creative thinking, and to encourage planners to consider a wider range of possibilities. I'm one of the guys who gets paid to suggest to some serious folks that the Japanese MIGHT be planning to hit us where it would hurt the most, that the Germans might once again attack through the Ardennes, and that there is no particular reason why the rumors of missiles in Cuba should be dismissed out of hand.

Are my suggestions on what the administration might TRY (repeat, TRY) to do unilaterally really that far out of the range of possibilities? Consider that for a while, the police in California lurked near gun shows, and anyone walking in or out without proof of ownership of a firearm found it confiscated? I seem to recall the New Orleans and certain parish police in Louisiana would routinely confiscate legally-owned guns during regular traffic stops, and when the owners tried to recover them at police HQ, there was no record of the guns ever being taken. This was before and after Katrina. What law did Obama use when he ordered the BATFE to require FFLs in the south to report all multiple long gun sales, when the law specificaly referred to handguns only?

I also remind you that the TSA is ALREADY conducting random searches on the highways. If instructed to do so, it does not seem utterly impossible that they could just take possession of any gun they find during such searches if the owner can't provide convincing proof of ownership.

And so on...

If the Prez decides he can ignore debt limits, then what else might he decide to ignore? Is there any reason to believe the critters in Congress will do anything more than bitch, in frustration and ineffectively? They don't have much of a record of keeping the Executive Branch in check, as they are required to do.

Keep in mind that the things that really upset the apple carts are the things that you don't anticipate, not the things that feel familiar and comfortable.

- - - Yoda

Frank Ettin
January 9, 2013, 11:22 PM
We've had more than enough threads on executive orders, and all those threads do is spread more and more misinformation about executive orders. There's nothing new here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Biden says EO is on the table..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!