The Govt. is losing support for gun reform


PDA






gym
January 9, 2013, 06:27 PM
Just from what I see the last week, things are slowlly coming into perspective once again. The VP, just said that they would not relly on Congress, "translation is they don't have the votes", and will do a one man dance.
The "mandate or Presidential order" will quicklly be challenged". I believe that whatever Obama tries, will get knocked down.
He may get a temporary stay of execution and be able to declare some half baked unenforceble law in effect, but it will be declared unconstitutional and certainlly unenforceble in most states.
I don't think it's over by any means, but I do believe that they "the powers that be" know that they aren't going to win this one.
We may get a version of the AWB" for a time, but I predict that our weapons are safe, and it won't last long. They have bigger problems right now, and more than likelly are trying to save face and placate their associates.
They will of course claim victory, but it will be an empty one. More media people are starting to come over to our side as they start to uncover facts that they never looked at before. The statistics don't lie, no matter how you spin it, guns save lives, many more than most were aware of until they started digging.
Hopefully I won't have to choke on these words, but barring another tragedy, I think we will be ok.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Govt. is losing support for gun reform" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
silicosys4
January 9, 2013, 06:33 PM
I hope you are right
I feel that its the crest of the wave though.
I get one radio station for my 1.5 hour commute. NPR. I get to hear what the opposition is plotting, so to speak.
This week there is a segment on the effects of gun laws on crime. The conclusion was, and I quote
"There really isn't any evidence to correlate reduced gun violence with stricter gun laws."
NPR at the end of their segment, gave a quiet clear summary, that new gun laws won't make anybody safer, by the numbers.
The next segment was on options for implementing new gun laws despite strong opposition.
It really is a control game that isn't going away. Its not going to be a "reasonable debate" in which numbers and logic will win the argument.
They believe they have the right to "feel safe", but aren't responsible for taking care of their own safety. The only way to "feel" safe if you've been told that "guns kill" is to naturally, get rid of guns. We live in a very emotional time, where "feelings" matter, and logic takes backseat if it leads to hurt feelings, greater personal responsibility, or hard decisions.

BHP FAN
January 9, 2013, 06:33 PM
I think we're looking at California style bans nationwide, and I hope to God you're right, and I'm wrong.

Skribs
January 9, 2013, 06:39 PM
Hopefully I won't have to choke on these words, but barring another tragedy, I think we will be ok.

I hope you're right. I'm not going to believe it until I see it though, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised.

There are those that believe the democrats will secretly promote another mass shooting to further their agenda, but my tin foil hat didn't come in the right size.

Old Fuff
January 9, 2013, 06:43 PM
Let us say that as we go through the year, economic condition deteriorate to the point where in some places there is civil disorder.

And this happens just after the president’s big mouth (not to mention VP Biden) has caused a massive peak in gun and ammunition sales.

I can see both good and bad. :evil:

USAF_Vet
January 9, 2013, 06:54 PM
I think we're looking at California style bans nationwide, and I hope to God you're right, and I'm wrong.
Then what will the gun situation look like in California? They always seem to be the first to "one-up" the rest of the nation as far as control.

Law abiding citizens in California will be reduced to single shot fire arms, and gun crime will skyrocket, and will prove that controlling the populace really works.

BHP FAN
January 9, 2013, 07:37 PM
Ugh. You are probably right on the money.

blkbrd666
January 9, 2013, 08:33 PM
The Govt. is losing support for gun reform

Well, I hope so! They really need to be concentrating on banning those damned ferry boats.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/new-york-ferry-accident/index.html

Win73
January 9, 2013, 08:47 PM
The "mandate or Presidential order" will quicklly be challenged". I believe that whatever Obama tries, will get knocked down.
He may get a temporary stay of execution and be able to declare some half baked unenforceble law in effect, but it will be declared unconstitutional and certainlly unenforceble in most states.

If Obuma issues an executive order banning whatever guns and ammo he wants, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to overturn it. There is no way 2/3 of the Senate would vote against him. I assume the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional if they agreed to accept the case. They do not accept all cases appealled to them. And if they accept it, there is no gaurantee they would overturn it. If just one conservative flips, then it is 5-4 liberals.

TenDriver
January 9, 2013, 08:59 PM
I wasn't aware the President could enact a law through executive order.

Cesiumsponge
January 9, 2013, 09:02 PM
I wasn't aware the President could enact a law through executive order.It's not a law if it's a "kinetic executive action"

kwguy
January 9, 2013, 09:13 PM
OP - I very much hope you are correct. One thing to note, emotions ALWAYS have a part in this, on both sides. That is just human nature. However, there is a difference between the emotional impact of having someone wanting to take away your rights (that is certainly emotionally jarring), and using reason, logic, and rationality to combat it (us), as opposed to THEIR emotional reaction, which is knee-jerk, and irrational.

Here is an analogy: Person #1 wakes up in a burning house. Emotionally, he is scared and keyed up. That emotion spurs him to think, calmly and rationally. He crawls under the smoke and finds an appropriate exit. Person #2 finds himself in the same situation, but runs around in an emotionally driven panic until he smacks his head into a door jamb, knock himself out, and dies in the fire. The difference is, while person number two is running around yelling cluelessly, everyone else in the house wakes up and does the same thing. Then it's chaos. That's what the anti's do. They spaz out, and cause others to follow them with "emotional momentum." The "leaders" of this anti movement know this, and want to capitalize on it.

Dr. Sandman
January 9, 2013, 09:13 PM
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional, and Lincoln and the army ignored the supreme court. What about suspending 2a?

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 09:16 PM
If Obuma issues an executive order banning whatever guns and ammo he wants, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to overturn it. There is no way 2/3 of the Senate would vote against him. I assume the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional if they agreed to accept the case. They do not accept all cases appealled to them. And if they accept it, there is no gaurantee they would overturn it. If just one conservative flips, then it is 5-4 liberals.
No. Any federal appeals court in the country can strike it down with a simple 3 judge panel, based on previous SCOTUS rulings. If the POTUS writes something that broad it will be easy for any federal court to find lots of previous SC rulings to shred it and slap the WH back to reality.

A narrow, limited EO written within current law that slightly changes interpretation of some grey area, will not be so easy to strike down. That might require Congress or the full SCOTUS.

GiorgioG
January 9, 2013, 09:20 PM
You think California is bad? In NY, Gov Cuomo in his 'State of the State Address' said this today:

“Forget the extremists — it’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. End the madness now."

sidheshooter
January 9, 2013, 09:21 PM
Obama acting unilaterally would pass a poisoned baton to his own party the next time around, and he's a smarter guy than that.


I agree that the facts are starting to out; between Joshua Boston and the factcheck guy, we've had more positive gun video from the mainstream media posted here in the last two days than in the last 3 1/2 weeks combined.

I wouldn't say that I'm optimistic, but I'm less pessimistic, and that's something–considering that I typically think that both parties are out to get us.

:uhoh:

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 09:21 PM
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional, and Lincoln and the army ignored the supreme court. What about suspending 2a?
The Constitution gives him that power... during a civil war. It was legal.

Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm

Pilot
January 9, 2013, 09:22 PM
I fear a self created national crisis in which Obama "must" declare martial law. Then he can do anything he wants.

RockyMtnTactical
January 9, 2013, 09:24 PM
I tend to agree with the OP, however, we need to keep the heat on!

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 09:29 PM
I fear a self created national crisis in which Obama "must" declare martial law. Then he can do anything he wants.
No. Even if there was "martial law". He is still not a king. Military law is not a crown. Hyperbole is not helping.

anchorman
January 9, 2013, 09:37 PM
I fear a self created national crisis in which Obama "must" declare martial law. Then he can do anything he wants.
I fear that this sentiment smacks of extreme paranoia. Obama isn't a guy who just made stuff up in order to take the country to war so he could "avenge" his father being "threatened", by some two bit has been from the middle east. You may not agree with his policies, but despite what certain people would have you believe, the president is not the devil. The devil would be ashamed at being so pathetic in his evil doing.

anchorman
January 9, 2013, 09:41 PM
Then he can do anything he wants.

...GAH! then he might "force" us all eligible for cheap health care that includes preventative medicine, so that we can live longer, happier, more productive lives! run for the hills!

I mean really, what are people afraid that "he wants" other than to make guns illegal (which he knows he can't do even if he wanted to)?

mjw930
January 9, 2013, 09:54 PM
You think California is bad? In NY, Gov Cuomo in his 'State of the State Address' said this today:

Quote:
“Forget the extremists — it’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. End the madness now."

Of course someone needs to remind Cuomo that 2A has nothing to do with hunting and that it's not the "Bill of Needs" but the "Bill of Rights". Then again, Cuomo has never been all the interested in things that tell him what to do.

I still find it amazing that the term "sporting purposes" found it's way into the NFA and hasn't been overturned by SCOTUS. :banghead:

anchorman
January 9, 2013, 09:59 PM
I still find it amazing that the term "sporting purposes" found it's way into the NFA and hasn't been overturned by SCOTUS. :banghead:

me too, but I don't want to be the one tied up in court for the rest of my life trying to sort that one out.

barnbwt
January 9, 2013, 10:09 PM
Then what will the gun situation look like in California? They always seem to be the first to "one-up" the rest of the nation as far as control.

I believe that "honor" will go to the state of New York this go-around. I always though NYC historically was the precursor on gun control, specifically (on nearly everything else, yeah, CA usually clamps down first). Not only does NYC have the history of the Sullivan Act (or whatever it's called), they have two grandstanding frog-mouths jockeying for the Outrageous Cup.

The "mandate or Presidential order" will quicklly be challenged". I believe that whatever Obama tries, will get knocked down.
He may get a temporary stay of execution and be able to declare some half baked unenforceble law in effect, but it will be declared unconstitutional and certainlly unenforceble in most states.

Obama (or any politician who isn't a crack-pot) hasn't been known to tilt at windmills. When he makes his move, it will be because he has been assured of victory already. I believe his actions are constrained, but not by the Constitution at this point. The man is ready and willing to do anything he believes he can get away with. If he was confident a ban on interstate transfer of primers as hazmat or something wouldn't anger congress or the Court enough to take action against him (possibly in exhange for some other favor), I see no physical law of nature stopping him from issuing an edict to that effect. Congress is probably too schizophrenic at this point to be relied upon for rational governance, but the SCOTUS is still a firewall (they still like to flex their muscles, too, when given the chance;)).

The real inidication of Obama's motives becomes clear when he gets to choose a new justice. What "pressing issues" will he be grilling them about for that role? If gun control (as opposed to healthcare/finance), we know he is serious about trying something.

me too, but I don't want to be the one tied up in court for the rest of my life trying to sort that one out.
I can't believe the Brady Bunch doesn't have a case going to get 50BMG (or better yet, 950 JDJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ)) removed from the Sporting Use exception list; talk about a case that has more going for it than suing Armslist :rolleyes:. Perhaps they're smarter than I think, and they know the SCOTUS would throw out the whole damn law :D

TCB

SaxonPig
January 9, 2013, 10:29 PM
Can an executive order be challenged in the courts? Obama has issued nearly 1,000 in 4 years (far, far more than any previous president, he rules like a king ignoring the peoples' elected representatives and I don't get why Congress doesn't raise hell) and none have been challenged.

gbran
January 9, 2013, 10:39 PM
Gov't gun grabbers are leading with nobody following except the chattering class.

baz
January 9, 2013, 10:44 PM
Can an executive order be challenged in the courts? Obama has issued nearly 1,000 in 4 years (far, far more than any previous president, he rules like a king ignoring the peoples' elected representatives and I don't get why Congress doesn't raise hell) and none have been challenged.EO's are interpretations of how to apply existing law. They CAN be challenged in the courts. But since they cannot be used to make new laws, there is only so much that Biden/Obama will be able to do with them, and they will NOT be able to use EO's to achieve very much of their desired agenda. They will probably turn out to be little more than providing cover, so they can claim to have done something. But no way does anything currently legal, like military pattern rifles with 30 round magazines, get banned by executive order. That definitely requires new law, and thus an act of Congress.

sonick808
January 9, 2013, 10:51 PM
and how. The pushback is major around these parts. Still watching tentatively.

Keep writing your reps and anyone else that has a stake in this.

If you're feeling pooped, go watch the video on youtube of the brits standing in line to turn in their guns.

ETXhiker
January 9, 2013, 10:52 PM
The constitution is the law. No mandate or "executive order" can go against it and still be considered legitimate. Our "leaders", swore an oath to defend the constitution. It is a patriot's duty to disregard and disobey any law which blatantly violates our Bill of Rights. Period. Paragraph.

sonick808
January 9, 2013, 10:55 PM
went OT, disregard this post

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 10:56 PM
Can an executive order be challenged in the courts? Obama has issued nearly 1,000 in 4 years (far, far more than any previous president, he rules like a king ignoring the peoples' elected representatives and I don't get why Congress doesn't raise hell) and none have been challenged.

False. Where do you guys get this info from? Do you just make it up?

sonick808
January 9, 2013, 10:57 PM
who is "you guys" ? N/M i'm contextually challenged. and tired, and stupid, and done posting.

As for EO's, I'd be freakin stunned if Obama actually went that route.

Then again, he's in the habit of stunning me with his questionable decisions.

2ifbyC
January 9, 2013, 10:59 PM
Gingrich brought up some interesting facts when questioned about the use of EO to take away gun rights. As already been stated, the POTUS can not enact new laws unilaterally. If he tries there are two courses of action, the courts and the power of Congress to cut off funding.

The first has been discussed. The second, cut of funding, means that a federal agency will be tasked with the order, e.g., the ATF. Congress can pass a law that cuts off funding for the implementation of the order.

I believe the second course of action would be the most expeditious and would allow the voice of the people to be heard in Congress as the Constitution requires.

mgmorden
January 9, 2013, 11:05 PM
From the article I read when Biden was talking about Executive Orders he was talking about allocation of funding for mental health projects. Obama can't really apply any restrictions on guns/ammmo/mags outright via an EO. The backlash would be more than they could bare.

4thHorseman
January 9, 2013, 11:17 PM
gym...The Govt. is losing support for gun reform
I hope you are right on this one.

statelineblues
January 9, 2013, 11:26 PM
Has anyone else noticed the Gun Control groups are now being refered to as "Gun Safety Organizations" by the MSM?

mljdeckard
January 9, 2013, 11:29 PM
And congress is indicating that they won't even talk about this until after the budget and debt ceiling are resolved.

I said from the beginning, putting Biden on the case is the administration's way of not doing anything while looking to ....people who are willfully fooled, like they are doing something. This administration has other plans for their political capital and arm twists. Even when they held both houses, they didn't have the votes.

4thHorseman
January 9, 2013, 11:32 PM
I believe no one, including the liberals actually thought of the out-pouring of gun purchases in the past few weeks.
If you are a new gun buyer (one of millions) would you want to see gun regulations on the new firearm you just legally purchased?...so to put it elegantly, "Ah Horacio, here in-lies the rub."

horsemen61
January 9, 2013, 11:36 PM
I sure hope you are right.

Dr_B
January 9, 2013, 11:47 PM
The government isn't losing support for gun reform. The simple fact is that they never had support in the first place. The illusion of support exists because the media and anti-gun politicians keep saying that the public wants something done now; that the public wants assault rifles banned. But this is merely a case of "it will become true if we keep saying it." Eventually enough people will start thinking that the majority of Americans want a ban simply because they are being told everyone wants one.

The real danger isn't whether or not the public wants a ban. The real danger exists in the fact that our elected representatives are in a position to do what they want now. They are able to blatantly show their true intentions. What have Obama and Biden to lose? His party may suffer in the long run from voter backlash, but it will be too late. Laws will be written and enacted. He will not suffer personally.

goon
January 9, 2013, 11:56 PM
For what it is worth, I live in a murky grey area between libertarianism and being a liberal.
I am very liberal on many issues.
The stupid little political quiz I took before the election told me I should vote for Obama (I ignored it).

Liberal as I am about women's rights, gay rights, the environment, and a great many other things, I still profoundly respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Although a lot of this anti-gun sentiment does come from the left, it doesn't do the issue justice to just blame it on "them liberals."
Many right-wing hunters don't see why you need a semi-automatic rifle. They don't understand the concept of rights, or that the Second Amendment has nothing do with hunting.

As for the loss of support for gun reform, let's hope that's the case.

anchorman
January 10, 2013, 12:31 AM
I believe no one, including the liberals actually thought of the out-pouring of gun purchases in the past few weeks.
I

happens every time. When the guy shot the congresswoman from tuscon, az, glock sales went through the roof. I knew the moment this thing happened in CT, and how furious and worked up everyone was, that paranoid buying binges of all sorts were in the works. The fact that it happened right after a presidential election didn't help this time around, as many people were already worked into a paranoid frenzy.

anchorman
January 10, 2013, 12:34 AM
Has anyone else noticed the Gun Control groups are now being refered to as "Gun Safety Organizations" by the MSM?
The NRA would do well not to ceede this ground. When I was a kid, that's what the NRA was famous for, promoting gun and hunter safety. It's too bad they've lost this image with the general public (heston and nugent as spokesmen haven't helped), as it was something that made the NRA look less "extreme" to the general public that didn't know anything about guns or shooting.

GiorgioG
January 10, 2013, 12:38 AM
I think anyone that feels the anti's are just going to fade away are in for a rude awakening. Just go to Google News' site and search for 'Gun Control' (or click here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Gun+Control&oq=Gun+Control)

They're pushing hard to keep this in the spotlight and it's working.

Keep hammering your reps with emails/calls folks.

4thHorseman
January 10, 2013, 12:42 AM
The NRA would do well not to ceede this ground.
I am glad they did "ceede{sic} this ground" as you put it. Can you name one other organization that took up the cross to carry? Think hard of one that could accomplish what they did. You may hate the NRA or love them, but unless you have a better method, I would stay with the NRA on this one. JMHO

anchorman
January 10, 2013, 12:49 AM
no, what I meant was I hate that they let their image as the premier gun safety organization lapse in public. it makes it harder for them to advocate for our rights, IMHO, if half of the public just sees them as crazy people.

r1derbike
January 10, 2013, 12:57 AM
We are naive to believe "them liberals", as someone put it in a post above, will be backing-down. They already have plan B, Plan C, Plan D, to fall back on, if things don't go as quickly, or favorably as they had envisioned.

There will be abuse of power. By the time the abuses are challenged and mitigated, the damage will have been already done.

It's going to be a bumpy ride, and we haven't started it yet. Fasten your seatbelts.

Win73
January 10, 2013, 01:24 AM
We are naive to believe "them liberals", as someone put it in a post above, will be backing-down. They already have plan B, Plan C, Plan D, to fall back on, if things don't go as quickly, or favorably as they had envisioned.

There will be abuse of power. By the time the abuses are challenged and mitigated, the damage will have been already done.

They never quit. On almost every issue, they know they can't get everything they want all at once. Whatever the issue, they keep hammering and hammering, taking whatever they can get whenever they can get it. They are always working toward the ultimate goal. As a member of the administration said, "Never waste a crisis." And it doesn't bother them a bit if what they want or are doing is unconstitutional. As Obuma said, to them the constitution is just an impediment to be worked around.

sidheshooter
January 10, 2013, 01:38 AM
The government isn't losing support for gun reform. The simple fact is that they never had support in the first place.

This is a good point. Let's make sure nobody in office forgets it.

Regarding executive orders, we should get our facts straight (especially since we rely on accurate facts and statistics to support RKBA)

Taken from either Urban myths or Snopes, take your pick:

Analysis: This work of fiction not only grossly inflates the number of executive orders signed by President Obama, but attributes to him many that were actually penned by previous presidents.

As of Aug. 10, 2012, Barack Obama had signed 135 executive orders since taking office, far fewer than the 923 claimed and by no means the largest number signed by any U.S. president.

Likewise, the totals attributed to previous presidents appear to have been invented out of whole cloth. G.W. Bush signed 291 executive orders during his eight-year term of office, not 62 as claimed. Ronald Reagan signed 381. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt, not Barack Obama, who signed the most executive orders of any president, amassing a total of 3,522 in 12 years (figures courtesy of the American Presidency Project).

We can dog on Obama for some other things, but not that.

Ignition Override
January 10, 2013, 01:39 AM
Win73:
You might know that Rahm Emmanuel, the previous Chief of Staff in the White House said that they should not let a gun or any other crisis go to waste.
What an appropriate mayor for the Peoples' Demokratik Republik of Chikago.

Their party's entire philosophy is to increase control over everything and everybody, even fully aware that gun crimes continue at the same rate, as happened during the so-called ten year AWB.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Govt. is losing support for gun reform" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!