Executive Order, imminent?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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). 

I didn't realize he recognized legislative approval, except for health care. He's a man on a mission this time, also. He has a track record with the executive orders and I don't doubt he will try it. Bloomberg would be on his side. The way he is spewing his big mouth, I'm not surprised he isn't calling for it, too.

Edited December 16, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[runco]

I was reading on "Truth About Guns", and this arthor wrote:  "Originally mooted as an emergency measure to deal with U.S. to Mexico gun smuggling, the ATF registry morphed into a pilot program.  Which will now automatically renew.  The registry was created by Executive Order, bypassing Congress and violating federal rules against the creation of any federal gun registry.  After a trip to court, the long gun registry was unleashed".  If you want to read the whole article for yourself, here is the link:  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/obama-executive-order-banning-assault-rifles/#more-178607

 

I honestly believe under the pre-text of an emergency measure, a EO on assault weapons can easily be signed.  What congressman would stand on the floor of the House and Senate in the wake of what just happened, and shout that a AR, AK, etc. should not be banned.  I believe BHO will strike while its HOT.  Becuase if this goes into a debate, and over time, people have short term memories, an AWB would likely not pass.  Be mindful, BHO is a lame duck now.  He has nothing to lose.  He can show fellow democrats there is nothing to fear, the american people have endorsed him and his idealogy, just look at the most recent election, and just like sheep, the dems. will think they are bullet proof.

[Guest bkelm18]

 

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.

 

And that's different from the way it's always been how...?

[Oh Shoot]

... Be mindful, BHO is a lame duck now. He has nothing to lose.

 

A president who has been reelected and who has not even started his second term is far from the proper definition of a lame duck, but I get your drift.

 

The "nothing to lose" is certainly right, and that is only further empowering, and he will be at his peak of power until the midterms, and unless he were to lose the Senate, will continue strong to the end.

 

 If you believe he succeeded in "fundamentally changing America" in his first term, I'd say we've seen a good bit less than half of the transformation yet. Thank de lawd for the House, and I sure hope that balance doesn't shift in the midterm or we might as well turn out the lights cause the party will be ending soon after.

 

- OS

Edited December 16, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[runco]

A president who has been reelected and who has not even started his second term is far from the proper definition of a lame duck. 

 

I know, but my point is, he does not have to make political decisions, only his agenda decisions which may or may not be interwoven into the dem. idology. 

[Oh Shoot]

I know, but my point is, he does not have to make political decisions, only his agenda decisions which may or may not be interwoven into the dem. idology. 

 

Oh, as I mentioned, I gotcher drift, and certainly agree.

 

- OS

[enfield]

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

 

Consider the possibility that the government created the incident.  Scary, huh?

[daddyo]

Consider the possibility that the government created the incident.  Scary, huh?

 

And also the possibility that the incident won't have any effect on the Second Amendment or the ability to carry for self-protection. That would be the ultimate irony. 

 

I believe that the US government has blood on its hands for restricting the ability of someone in that school to protect those children. Besides the man who pulled the trigger, they bear significant responsibility for creating a situation where those children and teachers were completely vulnerable to the insanity of a madman with a gun.

[Will Carry]

I predict that there will be a ban on high capacity semi-automatic rifles and maybe even high capacity handguns. You notice I did not use the term "assualt rifles".  All we can do is write our elected representatives and ask him/her not to vote for this ban.

[AU_88]

My question is how many people will lose their jobs?

 

But, would a ban mean you could no longer buy complete guns and lowers or would all of the parts except registered parts be included?  Makes me want to get a new lower.

Edited December 16, 2012 by AU_88

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It doesn't take much of a leap to make the argument that the government caused the whole mess, but we are

part and parcel to the problem by the fools we elect, also.

 

I predict that there will be a ban on high capacity semi-automatic rifles and maybe even high capacity handguns. You notice I did not use the term "assualt rifles".  All we can do is write our elected representatives and ask him/her not to vote for this ban.

You only ask with people you know. I'd suggest politely asserting to them, or just telling them who their constituents

are made up of. That applies in this state, primarily, but others should do it that way in their states, also.

 

Any time you have to ask something of someone who should know better, it's time to run his or her ass out of office.

Edited December 16, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Major Kong]

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.

Maybe they could pull Candy Crowley away from the trough and have her moderate it...

[Oh Shoot]

Maybe they could pull Candy Crowley away from the trough and have her moderate it...

 

Now that she's BHO's BFF, she can verify all the bogus anti-firearms claims on the fly, too. 

 

- OS

[daddyo]

Fear not...

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/despite-obamas-appeal-for-action-new-gun-control-unlikely-experts-say-666473/

Edited December 16, 2012 by DaddyO

[Ed Zachary]

...The potential backlash would be enormous....

 

Even so, BO already knows that, with the support of the entertainment industry, the American public will swallow anything and beg for more.

[ttocswob]

By year's end, IMHO.

[Guest bkelm18]

...The potential backlash would be enormous....

 

Even so, BO already knows that, with the support of the entertainment industry, the American public will swallow anything and beg for more.

 

Probably not, but in any case not sure what Hollywood has to do with it. There are plenty of people in this country who are smart enough to know how serious an affront to liberty an EO is and they are quite willing to make a stink over it. Just look at how enormous the gun control debate has gotten in this country over the past couple days. Just goes to show, people aren't going to roll over, and they certainly won't swallow it if BHO tries to pull a fast one, at least not yet. You are right, BHO knows it, and I still highly doubt he would do anything drastic via EO. He may issue one that strengthens enforcement of current laws, but he won't go so far as issue an AWB via EO. That's something that'll go through congress.

[xRUSTYx]

Talked with the boys at D&T about this today .... We are mostly in agreement that if something were to happen, it will likely be the Gunshow/Private Party sale loophole.  If an individual is selling to another, a transfer will end up having to be performed at a gun store, much like having a gun transferred in from out of state.

[Garufa]

Talked with the boys at D&T about this today .... We are mostly in agreement that if something were to happen, it will likely be the Gunshow/Private Party sale loophole.  If an individual is selling to another, a transfer will end up having to be performed at a gun store, much like having a gun transferred in from out of state.

 

That without a doubt is coming.  Can't wait to see what transfer costs will be like in a year or two. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think he will try an EO, to no avail.
I doubt a magazine ban would fly,
also. It's obvious he'll try, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

I'd imagine they would be looking for ways to have information shared with the FBI from sources now prohibited that cause a NICS rejection, such as mental health information of a non-adjudicated nature. Maybe keeping of purchase information instead of the currently mandated destruction.