The Govt. is losing support for gun reform

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Semantics Game is Afoot..

Has anyone else noticed the Gun Control groups are now being refered to as "Gun Safety Organizations" by the MSM?
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top