Pending Gun EO Chatter, Update See Post #114

[DaveTN]

I understand and fully support that you do whatever you have to do to keep this fine place online. I read and reread the executive order link you provided and maybe I just don't understand everything...you know...being old and all but this is what I understand about all this.
 
An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.[/size]
 
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.[/size]
 
President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.
If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional. Feel free to correct me . I'm not a lawyer or even college educated...just a concerned citizen.

The first thing I thought of was the saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I think it’s a bunch of BS that he is saying he will meet with the AG Monday to decide what they can do. I’m sure he has been in constant conversations with his legal staff and the AG. But at this point we have no idea what he is going to do. Other than he will probably announce it at his last State of the Union on January 12th.

He can do pretty much whatever he wants if no one stops him. We have a system of checks and balances that allow Congress to override whatever he does, but that requires a 2/3 vote; good luck with that. The courts could rule it unconstitutional, but that could take years and even then the SCOTUS doesn’t have to hear it.

He just wants to say he did everything he could and then have Hillary carry on with it. If it gets overturned; they don’t really care; anyone who’s IQ is higher than their age knows this will have zero impact on violence or terrorism.

I’m sure all the top legal minds are standing by at their respective news stations to comment on the legalities of what he does or what he says.

The biggest victory we could have would be for individual states to stand together and say “No, we will not comply”. Several states have already said they will not comply with any new Federal laws on gun control. We shall see.

[300winmag]

First, the president cannot make all gun sales go through FFL's.  That would require a bill passed in the House and Senate and then signed by the president.  That type of bill is not going to pass through Congress.

 

I think Congress would be on shaky legal ground by even passing a bill requiring all intrastate private gun sales to go through an FFL.  Congress can only regulate interstate commerce and that is how they get away right now with the feds requiring out of state private sales and of course commercial sales to go through FFL's.  How is the sale of a private piece of property where both the buyer and the seller are residents of the same state involved with interstate commerce?  That would be quite a stretch for intrastate sales to be classified as interstate commerce.  What next, will we be required by the federal government to sell our homes and cars by hiring a realtor and car dealer?  

[dawgdoc]

Didn't they have to change the weapons-free school law so that it read something like it is illegal in the school zone to possess a gun ever used in interstate commerce just to get around the uncostitutional power grab?

Not saying it makes sense, but I would imagine they would try to use that angle.

[TGO David]

The President will huff, and puff, and not much will be done in the end.  I do think that the intransigence of the gun community, along with the interest groups (NRA, GOA and the like) have brought us here.  We're holding onto the fish too tight, IMO.

 

So it's OK if they erode our rights gradually, in your mind.  Surely there is some leftist Liberal hell-hole you could move to that better aligns with your views.

[runco]

In my view, its nothing more than a check mark pandering to the political base while trying to pull in the fence riders.  While congress and the courts sort out the signature, we the people elect a new president.  If another D gets in, the sorting will continue with momentum to carry on with the EO, but if a R gets in, well we can only hope a EO to end a EO will occur not soon after the swearing in.  In the meantime our little world remains muddy and the polarization of the public continues with a exponential factor.

[Trekbike]

 Congressional Republicans could offer universal background checks & closing the "gun show loophole" for something far more valuable to the shooting community: gutting Title II of the NFA.

 

 

Okay I'm going to ask this question again for I think the third time this week in various threads, and unless I missed it, no one has show me a way.  

 

How can the "gun show loophole" be truly enforced without a national gun registration database tracking the flow of firearms?    

[runco]

Okay I'm going to ask this question again for I think the third time this week in various threads, and unless I missed it, no one has show me a way.  

 

How can the "gun show loophole" be truly enforced without a national gun registration database tracking the flow of firearms?    

Roving ATF storm troopers at the shows watching for transfers w/o 4473.

 

I honestly don't think its about the enforcement, but rather showing the public BHO & the democrat party did something...........enforcement is a different matter which BHO doesn't care about. 

[btq96r]

So it's OK if they erode our rights gradually, in your mind.  Surely there is some leftist Liberal hell-hole you could move to that better aligns with your views.

 

Like I said, I don't see background checks as an infringement, so to me, they don't represent an erosion of our rights.  What is an erosion of our rights is having to get special permission and pay a special fee on top of the market rate for some of the same individual issued equipment our law enforcement and military have, along with being told where I'm allowed to carry a weapon.  The keep and bear part.  I'd rather focus on fixing that.

 

If Title II gets stricken down, it would take 60 votes in the Senate in the worst case scenario to break a filibuster to put it back into place.  That's a protection I'd like to have, and if it means I can't meet a guy in a parking lot and buy a gun from him without the paperwork, I'd take that deal. 

 

And I'm doing just fine here in TN, thanks.

 

 

 

How can the "gun show loophole" be truly enforced without a national gun registration database tracking the flow of firearms?    

 

The same way any law is truly enforced.  Haphazardly and through threat of punishment for non-compliance that can only be actioned after the commission of a crime with evidence collected to support a conviction.

[Trekbike]

 

I honestly don't think its about the enforcement, but rather showing the public BHO & the democrat party did something...........enforcement is a different matter which BHO doesn't care about. 

 

So it's not enforced, then when there's no effect on "stopping gun violence", then what's the next law that will be passed to placate the liberals?   

[TMF]

Okay I'm going to ask this question again for I think the third time this week in various threads, and unless I missed it, no one has show me a way.  

 

How can the "gun show loophole" be truly enforced without a national gun registration database tracking the flow of firearms?    

 

Obviously that is the next logical step.  Once they pass a law which makes private transfers illegal, they'll have their argument for national registration.

Edited January 2, 2016 by TMF

[Hershmeister]

Background checks are just as much as infringement as voter id checks - if libs are against id checks then they go f themselves on background checks

[runco]

Tiny tiny tiny baby steps.

[Trekbike]

Obviously that is the next logical step. Once they pass a law which makes private transfers illegal, they'll have their argument for national registration.

Yep. That's the way I see it as well. I just wish a good number of gun owners would realize that's the next step in their plan and not be willing to roll over so easily.

[TMF]

Yep. That's the way I see it as well. I just wish a good number of gun owners would realize that's the next step in their plan and not be willing to roll over so easily.

 

And this is how I explain it to people on the fence.  I honestly don't have an issue with background checks.  I know that may make me unpopular, but if there was a quick and easy way to do background checks during private sales, I don't see there being a negative to that.  However, since the government could screw up a wet dream, we know it wouldn't be quick and easy.  In the end, we'd get screwed for sure, because whatever they set up will be inefficient, and likely add costs onto us.

 

While added ass pain is enough for me to be against it, the main problem I have is this being part of the master plan for registration and confiscation; and this is how I explain it.  They can't create a law which makes private transfers illegal and be able to enforce it; at all.  It would be impossible.  What would end up happening is the law would pass, and then the liberals would argue that it isn't enforceable, and the only way to enforce it would be a national gun registration.  By that point it would already be too late.  Once a law is made, there is no going back, and liberals would be able to sell a national registration at that point.  So no, the libs can shove it on this one.  I don't trust them because they lie, and have already made their plans very clear.  They don't care about gun crime; they care about disarming those who are not responsible for gun crime.  There is no other logical conclusion for their rhetoric.

[DaveTN]

Yep. That's the way I see it as well. I just wish a good number of gun owners would realize that's the next step in their plan and not be willing to roll over so easily.

I don’t really see anyone rolling over. He’s going to do what he’s going to do and no one can stop that. What happens after that is up to Congress and/or the courts.

They don’t need gun registration to ban private sales. They do it like they do anything else; you sell to an agent or an anti-activist and they document it, or someone gets caught in a crime and they say they bought it from you; you get arrested a jury decides if they are believable or not.

As I said before, they aren’t really interested in enforcing it; just saying they did all they could.

Will they want more gun EO’s or legislation? Of course they will, but the only people that will support it in many states are those that are done in politics. There is a reason he didn’t do this at the end of his first term. And I think this is minor compared to what he will try to do before he leaves office.

[macville]

Consider this, the courts have long held that restrictions on firearms are only legal if they help reduce crime/kepp the public safe. But I think we would all agree that background checks don't stop a single crime or keep the public safe. So how can background checks be constitutional if they don't stop any crime?

[xjsnake]

Consider this, the courts have long held that restrictions on firearms are only legal if they help reduce crime/kepp the public safe. But I think we would all agree that background checks don't stop a single crime or keep the public safe. So how can background checks be constitutional if they don't stop any crime?

 

They will point to people that were denied sales for previous convictions and say that the law kept guns out of the hands of those 'dangerous' individuals.

[DaveTN]

Consider this, the courts have long held that restrictions on firearms are only legal if they help reduce crime/kepp the public safe. But I think we would all agree that background checks don't stop a single crime or keep the public safe. So how can background checks be constitutional if they don't stop any crime?

 
 

They will point to people that were denied sales for previous convictions and say that the law kept guns out of the hands of those 'dangerous' individuals.

Exactly. We are fully aware that this won’t do anything. Most (if not all) of the shooters could have legally purchased guns. There will always be people willing to sell guns to criminals if the price is right or they will steal them in burglaries. Look at how bold the recent burglary was here (G&L I think).

If the legislature can’t get the votes to overturn an EO, and the SCOTUS decides to stand silent; it could take years to undo this. States can say they won’t comply, but states can’t protect you from Federal prosecution.

[btq96r]

...the master plan for registration and confiscation

 

Registration would be a muddled issue and its legality under the Constitution (via the "necessary and proper clause" no doubt) is murky at best.  But even registration wouldn't be the death knell to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Hell, there might even be some dark humor in the government knowing just how Herculean a task the have if push comes to shove.

 

Like it was in Lexington and Concord, confiscation is where it all matters, where the line will need to be held if it ever comes to pass, and held with force.  A very unpleasant thought.  How many will be willing to defend that line is the $100k question, with how many willing to enforce it the bonus question.  Are people on both sides willing to give up a cush standard of living, to say nothing of putting their own lives and the lives of their families on the line for this? 

 

 

Consider this, the courts have long held that restrictions on firearms are only legal if they help reduce crime/kepp the public safe. But I think we would all agree that background checks don't stop a single crime or keep the public safe. So how can background checks be constitutional if they don't stop any crime?

 

As I understand it, legislative "intent" makes the deciding point on that.  Intent being wide open enough to park an 18-wheeler gives the onus to the legislature.  The ruling on the ACA subsidies for the federal exchange come to mind as a good example of courts upholding intent, and I know not everybody is on board with that standard.

[Mike.357]

so what exactly prevents Zero from making an EO which includes banning guns and turning them in ?

 

Why not shoot for the moon?

[Reservoir Dog]

so what exactly prevents Zero from making an EO which includes banning guns and turning them in ?

 

Why not shoot for the moon?

 

Because he can't.  If he could, he would have done it already.  Even if he did, a court injunction would quickly follow.  A similar thing will happen if he mandates private transactions go through a FFL, or if he defines a length of time you have to own a gun before it becomes your "personal" firearm.  EOs have to have a basis in legislation/regulation, and I know of no federal statutes that would give him that authority.

[DaveTN]

so what exactly prevents Zero from making an EO which includes banning guns and turning them in ?

A SCOTUS ruling that owning guns is a right under the 2nd amendment with reasonable restrictions. That coupled with the fact that states would not comply. (Although that may not help an individual).

Nothing stops him from banning AR's and waiting on the courts or Congress to act.

[300winmag]

We are lucky to live in a republic where there are three branches of government and the president cannot just change up the US Code on his own.  It is important to remember that Obama is very limited when it comes to firearms laws.  He can stop imports of certain firearms and ammunition, just like Bush #1 and Clinton did because importation falls under customs, but he cannot stop the manufacture of firearms and ammo here.  A president cannot on his own change the US Code in order to make all gun sales go through dealers or make certain or all guns illegal.  He can get behind initiatives behind states' efforts to make gun sales go through dealers, just like what has recently happened in Washington and Oregon. 

 

It's important to remember that in itself a background check is not the worst thing.  The bad thing is that EVERY firearm transfer would happen at a dealer with dealer paperwork and you will pay extra for that to sell your own piece of private property.  Also, requiring all sales to go through a dealer is basically backdoor gun registration.  The anti gun folks aren't satisfied with individuals being able to call a phone line to make sure someone is not a felon.  No the whole point is registering all sales through dealers by making folks fill out dealer paperwork on everything.  Basically, the anti gun folks want the California gun sales laws (everything going through a dealer and now handguns and long guns also registered) nationwide.  Those laws are just meant to hassle honest people.

[runco]

Let you in on a secret:  Government is great at creating problems so Government can grow larger to solve problems. 

[300winmag]

If universal background checks (the way California does it) are not about backdoor gun registration, then why is it the anti gun folks do not go with a system like North Carolina has where you use your handgun carry permit or a purchase permit?  At least in North Carolina you can show folks your handgun carry permit or a purchase permit when you buy from a private seller in NC, but the sale does not have to go through a FFL and there is no registration with the state.  I'm not saying I would want to go that direction because I don't think it prevents crime.  I do think though the NC system is much better than California's gun sales law because you can buy privately from individuals and there is no gun registration.  The handgun carry permit or the purchase permit is your background check to show people selling that you have a clean record.

Edited January 2, 2016 by 300winmag