Executive Order, imminent?

[runco]

Could an executive order be forth coming or imminent, maybe already signed, just waiting for the right time to announce that bans assault weapons, high capacity mags, etc.?  Could the nation ripe with grief now tolerate it?  Given the state of people right now, and the recent election that bascially rubber stamps his policies, could this really happen?  Should we go out and buy all the ARs we can finance?  Seriously, could this happen in the next 24, 48, 72 hours?  

[DaveTN]

Nope.

[Will H]

It is possible, but very highly doubtful.  IMO

[RichardR]

They have to strike while the iron is hot.

[Guest bkelm18]

Whilst I do believe that an attempt for an AWB is on the way, I highly doubt it will be by Executive Order. I just don't see that happening.

[Garufa]

EO would probably be their preferred way to go about it but that pesky Constitution might get in the way.

 

I would not be surprised to see something tied in with whatever "deal" those morons up there come up with to avoid the "fiscal cliff".

[Major Kong]

This scenario is somewhat similar to the premise set in Matthew Bracken's book "Enemies Foreign and Domestic".

[Garufa]

This scenario is somewhat similar to the premise set in Matthew Bracken's book "Enemies Foreign and Domestic".

 

I keep meaning to read those books.

[Chucktshoes]

This scenario is somewhat similar to the premise set in Matthew Bracken's book "Enemies Foreign and Domestic".

That bought had already crossed my mind.

[Photoguy67]

Been thinking exactly the same thing.

[leroy]

Remember regulations and executive orders are subject to judicial review if they are challenged in court.  The federal court and the supremes have already ruled on this one.  The gun grabbers lost.

 

leroy

[runco]

Considering the circumstances, I believe many soft pro gun supporters could and would support a EO.  It would be sold this is only temporary until legislators weighed in.  Even a 6 mo. EO could be tolerated, considering the current pulse of the nation.  Even if one more mass killings happen, imagine the avalanche that would pursue.  Also, I could imagine someone tieing this AWB to the pending financial cliff.  The pres. and Dems give in to what republicans want in the finanical cliff, while the republicans will give the pres. and dems. what they want in new AWB and new laws that prohibit private gun sales, eveyone then is happy, happy, happy. 

[Oh Shoot]

Nothing will surprise me. I'm expecting Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton on Supreme Court, assuming she declines her heir apparent role of the Presidency, that sort of stuff. I'm expecting most every dire prediction that at least I have made to ensue. Supreme Court vs. White House may turn into a daily briefing.

 

I'm trying to stay in stoic historian mode, only alternative is to go full tilt bozo hermit and avoid all the info pipes.

 

- OS

[runco]

You do know what I am doing, I am building my justification to buy another AR, last month I bought the Sig M400, I already have a pre-ban Colt A2 6550 Government model (pristine condition), I would just like to add the Colt 6920.  I have absolutely no justification whatsoever prior to yesterday to buy one.  Then reading other boards, the EO idea got me thinking.    

[QuietDan]

I'm thinking that an EO end-run around Congress AGAIN, but this time on a sensitive topic, would make some things start tearing loose. I really don't think it would go well, that there would be significant push-back, some of the various States would take action to counteract or repudiate it, and "Over Reach" would be on everyone's tongues.

[Guest bkelm18]

I'm thinking that an EO end-run around Congress AGAIN, but this time on a sensitive topic, would make some things start tearing loose. I really don't think it would go well, that there would be significant push-back, some of the various States would take action to counteract or repudiate it, and "Over Reach" would be on everyone's tongues.

 

That's why I think an EO unlikely. The potential backlash would be enormous. The states and citizens would be much more likely to take it if it were an act of congress, but a sideways move such as an EO I think would start something BHO isn't prepared to handle.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm thinking that an EO end-run around Congress AGAIN, but this time on a sensitive topic, would make some things start tearing loose. I really don't think it would go well, that there would be significant push-back, some of the various States would take action to counteract or repudiate it, and "Over Reach" would be on everyone's tongues.

 

Well, seems we could hardly be much more of a divided country than we already are, but I guess it's possible, since I just don't think anyone can overestimate the extent of BHO's "vision" at this point, and the hubris behind it.

 

- OS

Edited December 16, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[daddyo]

I can see impeachment proceedings begun if O issues an EO.

[wvglockguy]

This scenario is somewhat similar to the premise set in Matthew Bracken's book "Enemies Foreign and Domestic".

Same here. While I am the furthest person away from being a conspiracy nut, I don't think it's above people in high places to have such a thing committed.

There are so many similarities between this and the incident Bracken started his book with its scary. Such as the way the news is twisting different stories of what kind of person the shooter was, how they have already found more guns and found out he was trying to buy more guns just before.

I know most people would say what I just said could/would never happen in America and I hope and pray its not the case. But as the Bible says in the last days 'evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse'.

[Oh Shoot]

I can see impeachment proceedings begun if O issues an EO.

 

The House can start them, but why, if the Senate won't try him.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

You do know what I am doing, I am building my justification to buy another AR, last month I bought the Sig M400, I already have a pre-ban Colt A2 6550 Government model (pristine condition), I would just like to add the Colt 6920.  I have absolutely no justification whatsoever prior to yesterday to buy one.  Then reading other boards, the EO idea got me thinking.    

If you are really concerned about this...wouldn't spare parts and ammo for the weapons you already have be a better investment?

 

As to the executive order question...while I've no misunderstandings about what he wants; he is a crafty persona and I doubt he'll do something that dramatic this close to the most recent tragedy...I think hell try more conventional means first (i.e. legislation) while quietly going for regulations through his various cabinet agencies (HHS, Justice, Homeland Security, etc) to whittle away at firearms.

[TexasAggie]

Regarding executive order and re-regulating assault guns without legislative approval, you cannot change rules that are already clearly defined in the United States Code. The Congress and the Courts do not look highly on such actions enacted by executive order. Changes to the USC require an act of congress, and with a Republican held House of Representatives, I don't see any meaningful changes that can be enacted. 

 

I do expect some attempt by Obama to start a national "debate", and that's perhaps a good thing (no harm in expressing points of view). 

Edited December 16, 2012 by mcrichar

[QuietDan]

Regarding executive order and re-regulating assault guns without legislative approval, you cannot change rules that are already clearly defined in the United States Code. The Congress and the Courts do not look highly on such actions enacted by executive order. Changes to the USC require an act of congress, and with a Republican held House of Representatives, I don't see any meaningful changes that can be enacted. 

 

I do expect some attempt by Obama to start a national "debate", and that's perhaps a good thing (no harm in expressing points of view). 

Regarding "some attempt by Obama to start a national "debate", and that's perhaps a good thing (no harm in expressing points of view)"

 

Actually, I do see harm in this, and here's how: It won't be an actual national 'debate.' All points of view will NOT be expressed in the percentages that exist in the country. The "points of view" will be manipulated by the media, and anti-gun forces will get the lion's share of attention and support. It would be like holding a debate in which the anti-gun creatures get an hour to make their points, and pro-gun forces get three minutes to make their points, with the moderator mocking them and interrupting the whole time.

 

THAT is the type of "national debate' they'll be looking for. It will be masterfully manipulated.

Edited December 16, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest 6.8 AR]

This scenario is somewhat similar to the premise set in Matthew Bracken's book "Enemies Foreign and Domestic".

So plausible it's scary. It wouldn't take much of anything for it to be happening the way Bracken laid it out, as

we speak.

[Oh Shoot]

Regarding executive order and re-regulating assault guns without legislative approval, you cannot change rules that are already clearly defined in the United States Code. ..

 

Oh really? The recent Dream Act Lite done by EO that flies in the face of US immigration law comes to mind.

 

- OS

Edited December 16, 2012 by Oh Shoot