Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future

[MassMark]

I wonder if the [strike]law abiding gun owners are[/strike] NRA is going to get anything in return for this latest power grab.

Edited slightly...

 

[Twigg]

I still haven't come anywhere near firing through all the ammo I bought during the last Obama gun buying stimulus program. Let me catch up first before we have another one....

You may need whatcha got in the next year and a half. I'd stash another couple of cases iffin' I were you.

<snip>lets worry about gun controll, that will solve things.

FIFY. You forgot the Jedi wave.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So far all we have is a trial balloon. They're testing the waters. If they get a lot of push back they'll drop the idea or neuter what goes into effect. Don't be surprised to see some form of toothless regulation that allows the administration to claim a victory but has not real impact. Still, it's wait and see.

 

[andrew]

So far all we have is a trial balloon. They're testing the waters. If they get a lot of push back they'll drop the idea or neuter what goes into effect. Don't be surprised to see some form of toothless regulation that allows the administration to claim a victory but has not real impact. Still, it's wait and see.

^this.

Look at the venue -- HuffPo. This was meant to get the moonbats salivating and lined up to support The One.

 

[wannabmudn]

I still haven't come anywhere near firing through all the ammo I bought during the last Obama gun buying stimulus program. Let me catch up first before we have another one....

Need help?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

^this.

Look at the venue -- HuffPo. This was meant to get the moonbats salivating and lined up to support The One.

Really, I was just joking. In reality this is a subtle economic stimulus designed to get us to start spending even more on guns and ammo.

 

[namedpipes]

The reforms, which are being crafted by the Department of Justice, come after a series of meetings with relevant stakeholders in the Second Amendment debate.

Obviously this is a joke. I have had NO such conversations with anyone at the DOJ and I'd wager nobody else here has either.



So seriously, nobody remembers Biden was the author and force behind the AWB? This REALLY comes as a shock?

 

[mousegunfan]

So the lying Illegal Gunrunners in the Obama regime are going to draft new gun laws? You just can't make this stuff up!

The point of Gunrunners was gun control as being trial ballooned here. They were going to use those statistics to prove their point. It backfired on them, they now have lost their credibility. This doesn't seem to stop them. Another Obama proposal with no specifics. Anti's who think it's ok to propose law by executive order better remember their will be a pro gun president again one day. Maybe this president will issue an executive order that all Americans must own and carry firearms.

 

[ARV]

It's exactly what it sounds like. A higher power law...without our yay, or Congress. We may remove it with the next asshat in power but it doesn't stop it from screwing us now.

The shooter was a mental case, and was recorded as such. But apparently, these a**h***s in power refuse to see this?, sigh....

There you have it. It makes perfect sense to them...HE was a mental case, just as WE are mental cases (in their eyes) because we own & enjoy "evil baby-puppy killing machines" (guns) and for some strange reason think the words of some dead guys written 200+ years ago apply to us. Everyone knows they meant the 2nd to be for the national guard. They look at us as one and the same. He was one who snapped, and we are "waiting" to snap.(please, note the sarcasm)
I know its hard to go from rational thinking to picturing how a liberal thinks, but it is possible with the right amount of pain medication on hand. I need a couple aspirin now.

 

[dwarven1]

In reality this is a subtle economic stimulus designed to get us to start spending even more on guns and ammo.

'Cause after all, it worked so damn well in November 2008.

 

[namedpipes]

If the reasoning to make this an Executive Order is to bypass Congress and effectively dictate a law that nobody other than the president has approved...

How could this even remotely be Constitutional?

 

[dwarven1]

If the reasoning to make this an Executive Order is to bypass Congress and effectively dictate a law that nobody other than the president has approved...

How could this even remotely be Constitutional?

And you think that this is a concern of HRM Obama why?

 

[CLMN]

Look at the venue -- HuffPo. This was meant to get the moonbats salivating and lined up to support The One.

HuffPost. Need anyone say anything more?

"News" for the worst of the loony lefty moonbats. As much credibility as Anthony Weiner... or less.

CLMN

 

[namedpipes]

And you think that this is a concern of HRM Obama why?

Because he's shown so much regard for the Constitution up to now, that's why!

As *soon* as he realized that critical portions of the healthcare bill were unconstitutional he cancelled the whole progr... um, well, on other stuff he's been a staunch defender of the Con...

Never mind. I see your point.

 

[EC1]

And you think that this is a concern of HRM Obama why?

For those who forgot, the Presidents oath of office:
{Article 2 of the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath "before he enter on the Execution of his Office."}

“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ”

 

[copterdoctor]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...se-readies-gun-control-stance?test=latestnews

 

[center442]

You're all assuming that any Executive Orders he issues will be anti-gun and anti-gunowner. C'mon, give the guy a chance! Perhaps he's seen the light and is going to tell ATF and other government agencies to stop enforcing uncontitutional gun laws. When he was campaigning he did say he wasn't going after our guns. Sheesh, there's so much negativity here.

 

[Jose]

If the reasoning to make this an Executive Order is to bypass Congress and effectively dictate a law that nobody other than the president has approved...

How could this even remotely be Constitutional?

Executive Orders have to be based on Public Law.

Have you ever read one? If so you might notice that they all start like this:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and in order to (do whatever this EO is supposed to achieve), it is hereby ordered as follows:

This is what an EO is and where their authority comes from:

The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

Here's more on the ways that Executive Orders are challenged and overruled by the legislative and judicial branches:

If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers.

Source: http://thisnation.com/question/040.html

 

[Radtekk]

For those who forgot, the Presidents oath of office:
{Article 2 of the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath "before he enter on the Execution of his Office."}

“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ”

Waitaminit... Does that mean somebody can take an oath to "execute" the Office of the President? Not that I'm suggesting anything...

 

[drumenigma]

"Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation,'" the president wrote.

His definition of commonsense does not match that of anyone who believes in the constituion. When a Dem uses the word things like "ban" or "restrictions" would fit just as easily.

 

[Maninblue1861]

thing is, he will do something that will seriously impeed what we can own and buy, and everyone will just take it. this guys end running the constitution via executive powers needs to be stopped, and we as a whole need to do something about it. if not we are no better than the sheeple, without a damn reacharound.

 

[dwarven1]

For those who forgot, the Presidents oath of office:
{Article 2 of the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath "before he enter on the Execution of his Office."}

“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ”

And how do you think he's doing on that so far? Remember that he's supposed to be a "constitutional scholar", whatever that means. Personally, I think that those are just words to him, with no meaning at all.

You're all assuming that any Executive Orders he issues will be anti-gun and anti-gunowner. C'mon, give the guy a chance! Perhaps he's seen the light and is going to tell ATF and other government agencies to stop enforcing uncontitutional gun laws. When he was campaigning he did say he wasn't going after our guns. Sheesh, there's so much negativity here.

Man... YOU started drinking early today!

 

[joeendris]

For those who forgot, the Presidents oath of office:
{Article 2 of the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath "before he enter on the Execution of his Office."}

“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ”

He was born here, right? /sarcasm

 

[EC1]

And how do you think he's doing on that so far? Remember that he's supposed to be a "constitutional scholar", whatever that means. Personally, I think that those are just words to him, with no meaning at all.



Man... YOU started drinking early today!

Exactly just words, or his interpretation of them regardless of precedents which have been set by jurists.

 

[Snow]

Pre-election is not the time to introduce something which will sway the middle away from him. I imagine we'll see a largely political move here, symbolic more than anything else.

I'm not holding my breath for a major push (ala AWB) here, but rather a smaller nod in the direction of better enforcement of existing laws (like the states that aren't obeying the NICS improvement act).

Then again, to most of the country, the AWB wasn't a huge slap in the face of gun rights but rather a completely reasonable restriction on dangerous activities, so who knows?

Wait and see, I guess.

 

[OzoneEater]

There is only one thing that should stay on your mind. Hillary Clinton, The UN, or Obama. They have NO legislative power. Clinton is only Sec of State. The UN?..... yea right. The President is the Executive Branch of our two other Branches of Government. He is not of the Legislative Branch who makes law. The Judicial only interprets the law. End of the story. We're right. They're wrong.

 

[namedpipes]

Executive Orders have to be based on Public Law.

To guide or clarify how the President believes the law should be interpreted or applied.

Not to impose new laws that he can't get passed in any other way...

 

[center442]

Man... YOU started drinking early today!

I've noticed that since November of 2008 my consumption of Jack Daniels has greatly increased. If that hammerhead gets elected again I may have to start buying by the case.

I'm pretty well stocked with guns and ammo, now I have to work on my liquor supply. 2012 is approaching.

 

[Rob]

He said the plan already months ago. I so many words: NICS failed. In my magic lava lamp I see an overhaul of that system (all dealers do it even at gun shows, etc) and a more intrusive big brother catch-all web designed to deny a gun to anyone who has ever j-walked. Or whatever.

I'm not seeing an AWB via executive order. Not before an election. After [puts gun to head], then yeah it'd be right there on the table front and center alongside granting all illegal aliens citizenship right now and opening the boarder to Mexico for humanitarian reasons due to all the violence in the country.

 

[exo]

"Reform". Pfft. Like healthcare "reform". Like credit/debit card "reform". Like banking "reform". What a crock. Yeah, he will "reform" it to his own liking.

REAL reform would be repeal of the brady bill, GCA '68, and NFA '34.