Firearms Confiscation

[alsaqr]

i love it when someone gets an e-mail or reads something on the web and then posts it as fact without vetting it.

This executive order provides instructions for implementing The Defense Production Act of 1950: Public Law 81-774; in time of war or other national emergency. It supercedes another executive order by a previous president. You can't understand that executive order without understanding the document it refers to: The Defense Production Act of 1950.

The Defense Production Act (DPA) was created at the outset of the Korean War to ensure the availability of the nation’s industrial resources to meet the national security needs of the United States by granting the President powers to ensure the supply and timely delivery of products, materials, and services to military and civilian agencies.

The DPA codifies a robust legal authority given the President to force industry to give priority to national security production and is the statutory underpinning of governmental review of foreign investment in U.S. companies.

DPA authorities are not permanent. Rather, they are time-limited, undergoing periodic amendment and reauthorization. Of the seven titles contained within the original Act, four have been repealed. In 2008, Congress reauthorized the remaining titles of the DPA through September
30, 2009.

The Defense Production Act of 1950 was re-authorized and amended in 2001. It was last re-authorized by congress in 2009.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1677

Sep 16, 2009: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

Sep 23, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.

 

[Tipro]

Executive orders merely order/arrange the Presidents congressionally or constitutionally delegated powers. George Washington was giving out executive orders. They aren't some newfangled means of tyranny, and they do not usurp anymore power than has already been given.

If you read the top of the EO in question, you will read "This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act")."

 

[beatledog7]

I read the EO in full. I'm not a dumb guy, but I had a tough time figuring out exactly what powers it gives.

That, in my mind, is intentional.

Today it's vague, tomorrow it obviously means whatever the administration needs it to mean.

 

[alsaqr]

It reads much like the executive orders of previous presidents implementing the Defense Production Act of 1950. Nearly every president since Ike has signed executive orders implementing this act. The first president to sign an executive order pertaining to national defense preparedness was Roosevelt in 1939 (EO 8248). The Clinton executive order; EO 12919, was amended twice by Bush II.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/...redness-executive-order-power-grab-or-update/

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Unfortunately, much of the laws are subject to interpeption and are written that way for the govts. "convience".

 

[theicemanmpls]

That is just a formality in restating an EO that has been signed by every president since at least Eisenhower. I have no idea why it was not signed earlier by Obama. It establishes legal authorization and sets up responsibility for actions that would (and would have to be) taken in the event of a national emergency. Those who don't remember the restrictions and controls that were put in place in WWII should do some research before going off the deep end and raving about things that are not even in there. Those controls were established "on the fly" after Pearl Harbor; that EO is intended to lay some of the groundwork to save time should the country face a national emergency again and not waste time trying to figure out who will do what with missiles falling.

I think I am about as supportive of the Second Amendment as anyone, but sometimes folks who own guns can go off on tangents for no reason at all. Unfortunately, that tendency is played up by our enemies. Their argument is simple, and effective:

"If gun people go crazy and rant and rave about imagined threats and talk about disarming the police and shooting it out with the authorities, can they, should they, be allowed to have guns? Isn't talk like that proof that they are lunatics who should be disarmed, if not exterminated, for the good of society?"

When something like this comes up, read it. Don't take someone's word for something. You learned to read for a reason; you were given a brain for a reason. Read and use that brain. Don't just go off on a rant.

Jim

Jim,

I was replying to the OP's posting. Not the EO. I read the EO. IMO, no big deal.

Friends, help friends, neighbors help neighbors.

Lets just say there is a Katrina like disaster.

We live not very far from an economically distressed area. (hood)
When a few of those folks, and I ain't saying which ones get done looting, and burning their area, it is very possible they will move on to targets of opportunity.

We had a massive tornado hit the north side last year. Guess what some of the residents did? Can't guess? They cleaned out the vulnerable. There were several cops armed with AR-15's and MP-5's patrolling in ATV's

I will protect my family, home, property and self in anyway necessary. Peaceful resolution preferred, but violence IF only necessary.

Surviving, cleaning up the mess, and moving on is what its supposed to be. As we have seen, people don't always behave like they are supposed to.

The gub-ment thinks I have no right to keep and arm bears? Think again.

If the cops/army were going door to door here confiscating firearms/ammo, they will have a problem. One guy buy himself will be a non issue. A group of very determined, heavly armed, mostly veterans will not be easy pickings.

Our neighbors are a tight group. The gun guys even tighter.

 

[Swing]

EO's have been around since the 50's

Huh? The first one was issued in 1789.

 

[Orkan]

To me, then, the definition is too easily misused, bringing all affairs of whatever sort under the direct control of the central government in the name of security.

You'll notice, throughout history, it is always done in the name of security. Usually, the people that are about to be enslaved, ask for it to be done under that same veil.

I laugh when read threads like this, and the people commenting want to talk about the "legal" ramifications of it.

They ALWAYS come under the guise of the law. The law they write. That is what they use to vilify and criminalize otherwise lawful citizens. The founders of this country were in "violation of the law" when they refused to accept englands tyranny any further. There were death orders issued for every one of them, and it was completely legal.

It shocks me how few Americans have come to terms with this. When the time has come, we will ALL be labelled criminals in one manner or another. If a government entity comes to take your firearms, you can decide if its worth fighting for or not. The LAW will be a distant afterthought for anyone that is not ready to become a peasant.

 

[armoredman]

I read the EO, more than once, and I found the terms to be vague and undefined. Not to mention, what are NDERs? Is this the nucleus of the Armed Civil Service that Dear Leader spoke of before? I find it mildly disturbing, and not because of what it does, which is nebulous and vague, but that it was signed by an person who has demonstrated a willingness to violate the Supreme Law of the Land for his political game, and has stated he won't "wait for Congress" on items he and his political party consider important. Perhaps this is all making a mountain out of a molehill, perhaps it is all much ado about nothing, fine, laugh at me and go on about your business, I've made mistakes before and I hope that is the case here, as well.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

Well said Jim K.

 

[kozak6]

This is just an Executive Order updating a previous nearly identical Executive Order regarding national defense resources preparedness in a long series of similar Executive Orders.

Of all the things that may or may not be troubling about such an EO, a rant about the true purpose being personal firearms confiscation is truly baffling and paranoid.

I mean..erm...they can have the bullets first..cold dead hands...blue helmets. Wolverines!

 

[Dr_B]

"Weapons" "Firearms" "Guns" - none of those words appear in the EO.

 

[Art Eatman]

IMO, it's less the content than it is the lowered standards for defining "national emergency". Once the condition of national emergency has been brought into play, few actions by the federal government can be resisted. If any, nowadays.

Remember that the term originated in those forgotten old daze when such an emergency was a time of war, and a war needed a declaration by the Congress.

 

[Black Duck Charlie]

I noticed the recurring use of the term "national defense" in the Executive Order. In fact, the only use specified and allowed in the EO is "national defense".

steve4102, in my opinion, has fallen prey to the fear-mongering of certain politicians.

I find it interesting, nay, amusing that certain people become upset when a President is not willing to "wait for Congress" - yet they seem to be more than ok with their own Governor not waiting for Congress.

 

[DCPinTX]

Jim - I'm just amazed at how the administration wants to use the Constitution for what they want to do and trample on it the rest of the time. To me, it's like the Bible - don't take a scripture (or anything in the Constitution) out of context. Certain rights were granted to the Federal Government and any not specifically granted were to be left to the states. The Feds have long over stepped their Constitutional authority and therein lies the problem. When there is not a "governing document" that they will recognize, we are at their mercy. I fear the change at the ballot box has been lost. The Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules - I'm not sure any stance taken by the average American citizen these days will do very much to turn this country around. I pray for God's intervention daily.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Snopes has some information on this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

 

[The War Wagon]

DEFINITELY a power grab. Looks to be paving the way for martial law or some such. Not that we haven't seen it coming since 1913 (look THAT up) or so...

 

[oneounceload]

I received this email and even though Snopes has something on it, a fellow responder to the email had another source that proved it as false

maybe it is, maybe it isn't - with the media doing everything they are in certain areas, I refuse to believe any of them

 

[Neverwinter]

I received this email and even though Snopes has something on it, a fellow responder to the email had another source that proved it as false

maybe it is, maybe it isn't - with the media doing everything they are in certain areas, I refuse to believe any of them

Given the track record of Snopes, I'll trust their information indicating that the claims are false.

Sent from Tapatalk

 

[henschman]

This kind of thing was BS when they did it during wars in the past, and it BS now... especially since there is no one attacking, or even capable of attacking us like the Japanese did in WWII.

Even the worst war or invasion could not justify the seizure of someone's property... not for the good of the state, the people, the collective, or anything else. To sacrifice one single liberty of one single individual, no matter whose name it is done it, is to put at risk the liberties of all. It would behoove people to remember that, in this age of warring interest groups fighting over the public teat.

 

[Swing]

Meh. I just read through it and am not seeing anything that suggests "firearm confiscation."

 

[Rob G]

I'm seeing a complete lack of "firearms confiscation" in that EO. Plus the Snopes thing pretty much nails the coffin shut for me.

 

[mquail]

DEFINITELY a power grab. Looks to be paving the way for martial law or some such. Not that we haven't seen it coming since 1913 (look THAT up) or so...

"So what is the problem? Well, considering that the authority of the DPA has never been meaningfully exercised, and that the pre-emption of authority claimed by the Clinton-era EO 12919 has been similarly dormant, why would the Obama administration choose this particular time to update an obscure and unused authority? It is this question many believe must be asked and answered, and sooner rather than later."



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_executive_order_controversy.html#ixzz1pfQ6DgOh

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_executive_order_controversy.html

 

[Carl N. Brown]

What sticks out in my memory was firearms confiscation by City of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. It was not the United States that stepped over that line, nor even the State of Louisiana. It was the city government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_firearms
Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Confiscation of firearms




Some lawyerly views on this EO:

http://volokh.com/2012/03/18/new-eo-on-natural-resources-defense-preparedness/
Jonathan H. Adler, "New EO on “Natural Resources Defense Preparedness”", Volokh Conspiracy, March 18, 2012.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/...redness-executive-order-power-grab-or-update/
Ed Morrissey, "“National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order: Power grab or mere update?", Hot Air, March 18, 2012.

...The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives....if there’s something significant added between this EO and 12919 and the Bush-amended versions of it in 2003 and 2008, point it out. Otherwise, this just restates the Bush-amended 12919 with current Cabinet nomenclature.

For instance, responsiblities that used to fall to FEMA are now under DHS which didn't exist when the last Natural Resources Defense Preparedness EO was issued.

 

[we are not amused]

While I hate like heck to defend the Obama Regime, I think this time the furor is unwarranted.

Yes it could be abused, but it would require an enormous National disaster or Emergency to implement, and to be effective, would require the active support of a huge portion of the population, and the passive support of most of the rest.

Yes, while I agree with art eatman that the definition of "National Emergency" has been defined downward in recent years, I don't think it has been degraded that much yet.
And while I agree that an armed invasion by a foreign Nation is unlikely, an attack by such is not.
A wide spread biological weapons attack or a electromagnetic pulse attack by an unfriendly nation or even terrorist is a realistic possibility, although short of a super volcano event, I hardly see a Natural disaster big enough to trigger the Act. On the other hand, Russia under the control of Putin does need to be watched, as does China. Not saying they are a current threat, but they could be again. And don't forget either North Korea or Iran, both of which are trying to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs to launch them. An EM Pulse attack by either of them is a possibility. Don't forget that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, fortunately Pakistan seems to lack an ICBM capability.

Threats, potential and real do exist, and one of the military's responsibilities is to devise plans to deal with such threats, like him or not, (and I don't) Obama is the President, and Commander-in-Chief. He would be remiss in his responsibilities if he failed to keeps such plans up to date.

I am far more concerned with Eric Holder and the "Fast and Furious" debacle and the apparent attempt to use it as justification for more gun control, and the possibility that President Obama may have known about it, than I am about this.

P.S. Several people have brought up the snopes web site as if it is a reliable arbitrator of fact. In my very firm opinion it is not! It is very partisan.