Time for some more good news


PDA






tyler500e
January 11, 2013, 01:27 AM
Ben Swann of Fox 19 of Ohio talks about the possibility of Executive Orders for public disarmament and what that means for us.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20559098/reality-check-executive-order-for-gun-control-can-it-happen

If you enjoyed reading about "Time for some more good news" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo
January 11, 2013, 01:58 AM
Morbo says Executive Orders do not work that way.

HorseSoldier
January 11, 2013, 02:37 AM
I don't think they'll try executive orders as a tactic, because they'll get slaughtered in the courts. The president, not even His Annointed Democratic Highness Barack Hussein the 1st, doesn't get to issue orders violating the US Constitution. Odds of it passing judicial scrutiny are low to nil. Odds of it costing the Democrats heavily in the mid term elections, pretty good. Odds of it being the straw that breaks the impeachment camel's back after the Dems lose bad in the mid term elections? Remote, but a possibility all the same.

kwguy
January 11, 2013, 02:59 AM
These guys are playing the long game. They have been forever. My gosh, Feinstein has been working her friggin bill for like, what, 50 years? And she still sounds like an idiot when she speaks about the subject. They ALL do. They sound stupid, and patronizing: (I mean: Hunters? Really? The 2nd Amendment was to preserve hunting? How ELSE did you get food back then? So the founders passed an amendment to the constitution that allows us to get groceries?! Because that's what they expect the public to believe).

All these power hungry people stay READY to pounce upon and capitalize on something like the Newtown murders. They were ready.

The people that remember the 1994 ban have diminished somewhat, and the opportunists count on short memories to get their nonsense through (or try). Dumb ideas that were dumb back then can be tried again because a newer generation of people might think they are good ideas. But no, they're still dumb ideas.

We suffer from "generational amnesia", which is why humanity always does the same stupid stuff over and over again. They know this, and want to use it. EO's is just one part of it. Whatever they can get, they'll get, because they know they will keep trying. A constant vigiliance is needed on our parts.

radiotom
January 11, 2013, 07:23 AM
I don't think they'll try executive orders as a tactic, because they'll get slaughtered in the courts. The president, not even His Annointed Democratic Highness Barack Hussein the 1st, doesn't get to issue orders violating the US Constitution. Odds of it passing judicial scrutiny are low to nil. Odds of it costing the Democrats heavily in the mid term elections, pretty good. Odds of it being the straw that breaks the impeachment camel's back after the Dems lose bad in the mid term elections? Remote, but a possibility all the same.
Slaughtered in the courts? Like they did last year with Obamacare?

alsaqr
January 11, 2013, 07:25 AM
We suffer from "generational amnesia", which is why humanity always does the same stupid stuff over and over again. They know this, and want to use it.

Bingo!!!

i've been fighting gun control since before the GCA 1968 and have a good handle on gun control efforts at the national level. After about 10 years the facts become blurred as many attempt to put their own spin on events. Example: Folks don't like to be reminded that a congressman who voted for the GCA 1968 went on to join the NRA and became president.

jmorris
January 11, 2013, 08:56 AM
The administration is eyeing unilateral steps on gun control, but analysts said there are few things President Obama can do on his own because gun control is one area where Congress has jealously guarded its power to make the laws.

r

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/executive-gun-order-easier-said-than-done/

Yo Mama
January 11, 2013, 09:00 AM
Just because the Washington Times says it's so, doesn't mean anything.

Now, I was encouraged that when the House members heard Biden's hint at EO, they came out and said no way.

Hapworth
January 11, 2013, 09:04 AM
I'll add what I (tentatively) think is some, too. Indications of the Administration backpedaling on some of their earlier plans, following the NRA meeting. No mention of going after assault weapons, online ammo sales and some of the other previous targets.

Neither ideal nor final, but for now an indicator that the White House doesn't want to spend the political capital it now realizes it's going to take to make a major change. All the more telling, this is as reported by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/politics/biden-to-meet-with-gun-advocates-including-nra.html?ref=us&_r=0

Batty67
January 11, 2013, 09:06 AM
I thought it was a pretty informative and balanced piece. Not much substance of course, since it is all speculative.

sidheshooter
January 11, 2013, 09:28 AM
^^^This.

mdauben
January 11, 2013, 10:01 AM
No mention of going after assault weapons, online ammo sales and some of the other previous targets.

Just ran acros this today:

Gun control debate: Is an assault weapons ban out of reach? (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-control-debate-assault-weapons-ban-reach-094810128.html)

Of course, this doesn't mean we can slack off! Keep the pressure on your congresscritters to oppose any new firearms restrictions.

2ifbyC
January 11, 2013, 10:43 AM
Encouraging article in the WSJ today:
Strassel: The Real Gun-Control Consensus
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578234010962821032.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

bds
January 11, 2013, 11:32 AM
Posted on Yahoo News today - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-control-debate-assault-weapons-ban-reach-094810128.html

Gun control debate: Is an assault weapons ban out of reach?

But Biden's omission of the ban from his description of his package of proposals on Thursday suggests an assault weapons ban is out of reach ... A lot has changed since 1994—including public opinion,the legal landscape and the political might of the NRA.

"I don't think a ban on assault weapons—which is a ban on some of the most popular rifles in America—is likely to get support," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and Second Amendment expert. "The 1994 ban was widely recognized to be ineffective and to be riddled with loopholes."

The NRA told Politico that it has gained 100,000 new members since the Newtown shooting.

Even if gun control advocates were able to pass an assault weapons ban, it would most certainly face a legal challenge.

In a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a majority of justices ruled that the government cannot ban an entire class of weapons (in this case, handguns) that are commonly used by law abiding gun owners for legitimate reasons, such as self defense.

481
January 11, 2013, 11:46 AM
I see the suggestion of resorting to the issuance of an executive order as an indicator of a certain level of this Administration's desperation- that is, on some level the Administration realizes that getting any firearms legislation, new or renewed, through the House of Representatives is going to be "problematic" at best, that they've created an enemy in Boehner (and most of the Republican party) that would delight in burying any proposed legislation in some obscure sub-committee and letting it languish there.

Gtscotty
January 11, 2013, 11:54 AM
From the WSJ article posted above:

At the same time, the more sweeping any gun proposals, the more dead on arrival they will be in Congress. Mr. Obama might know that and be planning to take credit for going big while blaming failure on Congress.

This pretty much sums up my theory on the current motivations and actions of the WH.

I'm still going to send snail-mail letters to my congressmen, the heat needs to remain turned up in order for us to limit them to Plan B (gain political capital by blaming the other side for blocking grandiose gun control plans).

Edit: I also agree with 481's assessment of the EO discussion at hand.

HorseSoldier
January 11, 2013, 03:08 PM
As the latest linked articles suggest, it is looking like the situation might work out to Biden and Barry-O calling for gun confiscation, mandatory forehead tattoos of all gun owners, legislation outlawing the very word gun and every other extreme measure they can think of and then saying "oh, we'll compromise and just accept a ban on high capacity magazines." The up-thread suggestion to keep up the heat on Congress members about this issue is very well made.

481
January 11, 2013, 09:50 PM
From the WSJ article posted above:


At the same time, the more sweeping any gun proposals, the more dead on arrival they will be in Congress. Mr. Obama might know that and be planning to take credit for going big while blaming failure on Congress.

This pretty much sums up my theory on the current motivations and actions of the WH.

That analysis seems to right in line with Zero's "lead-from-behind" posture.

I'm still going to send snail-mail letters to my congressmen, the heat needs to remain turned up in order for us to limit them to Plan B (gain political capital by blaming the other side for blocking grandiose gun control plans.

I've redoubled my efforts in that arena, too. We cannot let up, ever.

How's that saying go?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

kwguy
January 11, 2013, 09:53 PM
^^^ Absolutely! Keep up the pressure.

If you enjoyed reading about "Time for some more good news" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!