Obama Signs Sweeping Gun Control

[DMC]

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html) last month.
With relatives of some of the 20 children killed (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-victims/index.html)in the Connecticut rampage looking on, Obama signed 23 executive actions -- which don't require congressional approval -- to strengthen existing gun laws and take related steps on mental health and school safety.
He also called on Congress to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, to restrict ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds, and to expand background checks to anyone buying a gun, whether at a store or in a private sale at an auction or convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


In other news:


If you want to know what they will do, just read my past statements.

1. They will ban the manufacture of high cap mags, but allow the sale of existing mags.
2. They will leave the assault weapon ban to the states and local governments, but they will impose a restriction on manufacturing.

Everything they do will concern "from here forward". There are millions of high cap mags in existence in the hands of private owners (thanks to the previous high cap mag ban). Those will increase and price and the market will be flooded with them. People who never owned one will now own an AR-15 style rifle and several extended magazines.

There will be no uprising, why? Because even the guy in the video (idiot) has decent means, and fat sheep don't break down fences to find greener pastures. It takes a lot to get people to risk their lives to prove a point, and right now that's all it is. It's still a partisan thing, very cyclical, it will subside.

[DMC]

Now if I sell you my gun, we have to let them know about it. Wait, they don't know who has what gun, how the fuck do they expect to be able to enforce the background check law? Oh I see, at gun shows. Well, someone has to allow private citizens with no FFL to perform a background check on another private citizen just by having his information.

More shit, nothing will change, lol libs.

[Winehole23]

so then, you have nothing to be worried about, "sweeping gun control" drama queen.

[Wild Cobra]

so then, you have nothing to be worried about, "sweeping gun control" drama queen.
I'm still waiting to see what he thinks he can do.

The suspense is killing me!

He sure has been a lame president lately.

[Winehole23]

still waiting? it isn't a secret. if you care so much, why haven't you read up on it? the 23 executive orders have been posted multiply in this forum.

[Wild Cobra]

still waiting? it isn't a secret. if you care so much, why haven't you read up on it? the 23 executive orders have been posted multiply in this forum.
They aren't executive orders yet.

I think he is testing the waters to see what reactions he gets.

Deep down, he's just a liberal pussy.

[Winehole23]

well then, you have nothing to worry about either.

[Winehole23]

is he the next Hitler/Stalin, or just a liberal schlemiel? please pick a lane.

[Wild Cobra]

well then, you have nothing to worry about either.
Did I say I was worried?

[Winehole23]

not worried about Obama? that'd be a first.

[Wild Cobra]

not worried about Obama? that'd be a first.
I'm not worried about what he might get accomplished concerning gun control. I simply don't see it in the cards. I could be wrong. I have been before.

[Winehole23]

I'm not worried about what he might get accomplished concerning gun control.An eminently reasonable point of view, being that new gun restrictions have basically zero chance of passing in the House. A lot of forum conservatives have been pissing their pants over this.

[Wild Cobra]

An eminently reasonable point of view, being that new gun restrictions have basically zero chance of passing in the House. A lot of forum conservatives have been pissing their pants over this.
I think you would agree that I'm not a typical conservative.

[Winehole23]

There's no one quite like you, Wild Cobra. Not that I've met, anyway.

[boutons_deux]

The NRA and Koch-Backed ALEC Have Fought Gun Buyback Programs Across Country

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is threatening legal action if the Tucson Police Department tries to destroy the guns it acquired through a voluntary gun buyback program -- thanks to legislation advanced by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and then passed in Arizona.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook, Connecticut massacre, cities around the country held voluntary gun buybacks: community-wide events where local law enforcement offers small incentives like gift cards or cash in exchange for citizens turning in their unwanted guns. Tucson officials offered $50 Safeway grocery store gift cards (funded by private donors) and collected 206 firearms. But the NRA wants those guns back in circulation.

"If they destroy [the guns], they will be in violation of state law," said Arizona gun lobbyist and national NRA Board member Todd Rathner.
Just a few months earlier, the corporations and legislators on the ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task Force had adopted a version of the "Firearms Destruction Prevention Act" (also known as the "Disposition of Firearms in State and Local Custody Act") as a "model," at the behest of the NRA. Both the ALEC/NRA model and the Arizona law have the same functional impact.

When the bill was introduced in the Arizona state Senate, twenty out of its twenty-six sponsors were known ALEC members. As the Center for Media and Democracy (publisher of PRWatch) has documented, Arizona ranks among the top states in the country in terms of legislators receiving corporate-funded "scholarships" for trips to ALEC meetings, where they rub shoulders with special interest lobbyists at fancy resorts.

"Koch has had no role in any ALEC-sponsored legislation concerning gun laws," Koch Industries declared in a statement released after the Sandy Hook shooting.

But according to Bloomberg News, which reported on the August 2011 ALEC meeting, the ALEC task force that adopted the "Firearms Destruction Prevention Act" as a model bill included representatives of Koch Industries. And as the Center for Media and Democracy's Executive Director Lisa Graves has documented, Koch Industries was a member of ALEC's Criminal Justice/Public Safety & Elections Task Force for many years (until it was disbanded), where Koch would have had a vote on approving all model bills, including the NRA's gun bills. The NRA's gun agenda also flourished during the many years that Koch representatives sat on ALEC's national corporate board, and even during the period when Koch Industries chaired ALEC's board.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13959-the-nra-and-koch-backed-alec-have-fought-gun-buyback-programs-across-country (http://truth-out.org/news/item/13959-the-nra-and-koch-backed-alec-have-fought-gun-buyback-programs-across-country)

And yet HEAVY LOBBYING gang ALEC operates as non-registered lobbyist and tax free.

[Wild Cobra]

As Paul Harvey would say, What's the rest of the story?

[boutons_deux]

As Paul Harvey would say, What's the rest of the story?

Your blind ideology missed the first part, why do you think you would get any part?

[Wild Cobra]

Your blind ideology missed the first part, why do you think you would get any part?
NRA suing.

Check.

They claim destroying guns are against the law.

Check.

What is the rest of the story? How does the law read? For what purpose may it be illegal to destroy them?

Have the law handy by chance?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC trying to find a way to give ALEC a pass. That's nice.

[Wild Cobra]

Is it in the law or not?

[DMC]

so then, you have nothing to be worried about, "sweeping gun control" drama queen.

Just using CNN's title tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Who Tout Mental Health As Response To Gun Violence Opposed Landmark Mental Health Law

SEN. JOHN BOOZMAN (R-AR): (voted no as a then-Representative): “Firearms are the tools, not the cause. If we are serious about reducing gun crimes, we need to get to the root cause which includes addressing mental health issues in our country. That is where we need to focus on finding a solution.” [1/16/2013]


REP. JOE BARTON (R-TX): “The gun control movement hurts honest citizens and businesses, not the criminals who care nothing for the law. I believe we can better reduce the misuse of firearms by strongly enforcing laws already on the books. We also need to improve our mental health screening system so troubled, violent individuals can be identified and treated more quickly.” [1/16/2013]


REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): “We need to have a serious conversation about mental health, psychiatric drugs, and the potential impact violent video games and movies have on our kids. I will closely review the President’s proposals, however I am concerned his approach is a pre-determined attempt to redefine our Constitution. I am not going to allow this administration to trample on the Second Amendment or put new restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms and ammunition.” [1/16/2013]


REP. HOWARD COBLE (R-NC): “Mental illness is an enormous factor in most of these tragedies, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Federal and state governments must address the issue of gun access by those who are mentally ill and find ways to curtail violence in our culture.” [1/16/2013]


REP. ANDER CRENSHAW (R-FL): “I think we can all agree: no one wants to see another needless, senseless death committed in this country with a firearm. Along the road to that goal, a complex and multi-layered debate over firearms, education, mental health, Second Amendment rights, and more is unfolding.” [1/16/2013]


REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): “Mental health issues that have languished for decades may be a fertile ground for bipartisan efforts to make a true difference. Perhaps, a good first step toward curbing gun violence may well be rebuilding the sanctity and importance of the family and the home where there can be education, training and an honest conversation about guns, without treading on the Constitutional protections from criminals intent on invading the home.” [1/16/2013]


REP. TOM LATHAM (R-IA): “In upholding our Second Amendment rights, we must also be mindful not to diminish the tragedy of recent events and the work to find sensible ways to prevent such horrors from occurring in the future. No person of sound mind could commit mass gun violence, and it is important that we consider mental health and other root causes that contribute to these terrible crimes as we move forward with this debate.” [1/16/2013]


REP. TOM PRICE (R-GA): ?“All Americans want our communities to be safe places to live, learn, work and play. As we review how best to prevent mass shootings and the loss of innocent lives we should make a robust analysis of America’s mental health system a priority. A proper diagnosis and comprehensive treatment are critical to ensure we are identifying indicators of violent behavior that may lead to horrific crimes. To do otherwise would mean we continue to fail not only those afflicted with mental illness, but also their families, our communities and our nation.” [1/16/2013]


REP. MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX): “I believe a more responsible approach is to take significant steps to address mental illness and the root causes of such violence in our society.” [1/16/2013]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01/17/1460601/republicans-claim-mental-health-gun-violence-solution/

NRA has been deflecting all blame for the epidemic away from itself, gun owners, gun industry and onto mentally ill, so you know damn well they would support any talk of spending tax dollars on a useless, ineffective program like mental health.

[EVAY]

All the headlines that refer to 'sweeping' changes or 'massive' changes are absurd to me.

I read through the 20 some-odd executive action items and came away unimpressed. It seemed to me that most of the action verbs in most of the items were ringing with "assist" or "write" or some other sort of "we are going to try to get these things done" by "additional interagency cooperation with existing law enforcement" sort of weak, bureaucratese language.

The only big items were the background checks going universal and the attempted ban on automatic weapons and 10+ ammo clips, which he indicated in no uncertain terms was in the hands of the legislature, not his.

And we all know that this congress is not going to pass any of those items.

All of the conservative media and the NRA have gone into histrionics over a real nothing, as far as I can tell.

I think the NRA looks absurd for the advert on TV that they put out, but then I tend to think that they look absurd most of the time. Not everything is an attack on the second amendment.

[boutons_deux]

NRA President Rewrites History: ‘The NRA Has Been Very Supportive Of Doing Background Checks’ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/17/1462051/nra-background-checks/)

KEENE: The NRA has been one of the biggest supporters of the so-called NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check] system which provides background checks. In the past, when they were talking about checks at gun shows, most guns sold at gun shows do involve a background check because they are sold by licensed dealers.

The NRA has deliberately and methodically opposed background checks, and pursues this tactic both before and after (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/19/1358101/nra-shooting-laws/) mass shootings. In April, the NRA endorsed a Colorado bill that repealed state-run background checks (http://news.yahoo.com/nra-supports-colorado-bill-repealing-state-background-checks-003500218.html) on firearms. When the group opposed a bill in Delaware that would require checks on sales at gun shows, it conspiratorially floated (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201106070005) the “true intent of this legislation is to move towards an ultimate ban on all private sales.” Far from being open to background checks at gun shows, as Keene suggested, the NRA would raise alarm (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2010/2/gun-shows-in-minnesota-under-attack%21.aspx) whenever states sought to end this loophole.

Still, the gun show loophole is not the whole story. Thanks to the NRA, at least 11 states automatically restore ex-felons’ (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all) access to guns once they served their term, and many states allow violent felons to petition for firearms.
Background checks have near-universal support. According to a new NYT/CBS poll, over 90 percent (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/updates-on-the-gun-violence-debate-6/?smid=tw-share#poll-widespread-support-for-background-checks) of the country — including Republicans and gun owners — agrees on this gun violence prevention measure.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/17/1462051/nra-background-checks/

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul To Challenge Obama's Gun Control Executive Actions

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is proposing legislation to nullify President Obama's executive actions on gun policy, claiming that the president's actions are a breach of constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
During a Wednesday appearance on Fox News' "Hannity," the Republican senator outlined his plan to challenge Obama's anti-gun violence package.


"Our founding fathers were very concerned about us having separation of powers. They didn't want to let the president become a king." Paul said. "In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation."

Paul continued: "I'm afraid that President Obama may have this king complex sort of developing ... I think there's a history of this arrogance."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/rand-paul-obama-gun-actions_n_2491823.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=011713&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Yet Another right wing Constitutional expert re-writing the Constitution to sucker and inflame his KY bubbas.

[Th'Pusher]

Rand Paul To Challenge Obama's Gun Control Executive Actions

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is proposing legislation to nullify President Obama's executive actions on gun policy, claiming that the president's actions are a breach of constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
During a Wednesday appearance on Fox News' "Hannity," the Republican senator outlined his plan to challenge Obama's anti-gun violence package.


"Our founding fathers were very concerned about us having separation of powers. They didn't want to let the president become a king." Paul said. "In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation."

Paul continued: "I'm afraid that President Obama may have this king complex sort of developing ... I think there's a history of this arrogance."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/rand-paul-obama-gun-actions_n_2491823.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=011713&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Yet Another right wing Constitutional expert re-writing the Constitution to sucker and inflame his KY bubbas.

What specifically on his executive order list would breach the separation of executive/legislative powers?

[ElNono]

There's no one quite like you, Wild Cobra. Not that I've met, anyway.

:lol

[DMC]

All the headlines that refer to 'sweeping' changes or 'massive' changes are absurd to me.

I read through the 20 some-odd executive action items and came away unimpressed. It seemed to me that most of the action verbs in most of the items were ringing with "assist" or "write" or some other sort of "we are going to try to get these things done" by "additional interagency cooperation with existing law enforcement" sort of weak, bureaucratese language.

The only big items were the background checks going universal and the attempted ban on automatic weapons and 10+ ammo clips, which he indicated in no uncertain terms was in the hands of the legislature, not his.

And we all know that this congress is not going to pass any of those items.

All of the conservative media and the NRA have gone into histrionics over a real nothing, as far as I can tell.

I think the NRA looks absurd for the advert on TV that they put out, but then I tend to think that they look absurd most of the time. Not everything is an attack on the second amendment.

Seem pretty effective to me. They warn pre-election that Obama will try to take your guns, and now they can say they were right even if they weren't. Most Americans have no idea but they get into an uproar when you talk about taking their shit.

[clambake]

even funnier that "they" listen.

[DMC]

even funnier that "they" listen.

Only funny because it's a bit benign at the moment. When they move it's like a school of fish, and doesn't have to make sense. One goes and they all go.

[phxspurfan]

I noticed that many of these shootings have involved high schools. We should ban high school.

[Winehole23]

Just using CNN's title tbh.noted, "sweeping gun control" irony guy.

[EVAY]

Seem pretty effective to me. They warn pre-election that Obama will try to take your guns, and now they can say they were right even if they weren't. Most Americans have no idea but they get into an uproar when you talk about taking their shit.

You don't think that they end up looking foolish for having done just what you said? I.E., "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING"!, only to find out that there is not even a fine mist going on outside?

[Winehole23]

The head of the National Rifle Association says the organization has no problem with tighter background checks of gun purchasers.http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20130117_ap_nrachiefsaysgroupacceptsbackgroundchec ks.html

[boutons_deux]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20130117_ap_nrachiefsaysgroupacceptsbackgroundchec ks.html

what he didn't say is that NRA has achieved

1) blocking any NIH studies on gun violence, an obvious PUBLIC health disaster

2) forcing ATF to keep only paper records on guns, horribly crippling searches.

3) in fact Repugs/NRA have successfully cripped almost all record keeping on guns, crippling all kinds of research that would show more guns cause more gun deaths, etc, etc.

etc, etc, etc.

fuck the NRA, fuck the firearms industry, fuck ALEC, and fuck all the gun-fellators.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am relieved that no one showed up on my door step trying to confiscate my guns.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I noticed that many of these shootings have involved high schools. We should ban high school.

I think we should ban your stupidity

[Winehole23]

boutons: seems to me your gripe would more be with supine and craven legislators, than with an interest group petitioning on its own behalf.

[DMC]

noted, "sweeping gun control" irony guy.

I'm the one who said there will be no real changes, dipshit.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm the one who said there will be no real changes, dipshit.

so then... why bitch about it?

[DMC]

You don't think that they end up looking foolish for having done just what you said? I.E., "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING"!, only to find out that there is not even a fine mist going on outside?

Not if it gets them what they wanted. This has played out enough times to be somewhat predictable by now. People now see it as opportunity.

[DMC]

so then... why bitch about it?

Did you see me bitching? Most of the bitching isn't about what will happen, but about what some are trying to make happen.

[Winehole23]

bitching about bitching. venerable forum pastime.

[HI-FI]

I noticed that many of these shootings have involved high schools. We should ban high school.

:tu
Shit is like a prison anyways. real talk though...it's funny how many of these shootings occur at public schools. I realize that statistically that makes more sense, sense more people go to public school, but private schools seem to be rarely afflicted by this problem.

[Clipper Nation]

Rand Paul To Challenge Obama's Gun Control Executive Actions

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is proposing legislation to nullify President Obama's executive actions on gun policy, claiming that the president's actions are a breach of constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
During a Wednesday appearance on Fox News' "Hannity," the Republican senator outlined his plan to challenge Obama's anti-gun violence package.


"Our founding fathers were very concerned about us having separation of powers. They didn't want to let the president become a king." Paul said. "In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation."

Paul continued: "I'm afraid that President Obama may have this king complex sort of developing ... I think there's a history of this arrogance."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/rand-paul-obama-gun-actions_n_2491823.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=011713&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Yet Another right wing Constitutional expert re-writing the Constitution to sucker and inflame his KY bubbas.
Would you mind showing us where the Constitution explicitly allows the President to give executive orders? And no, "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" doesn't mean "if you don't get your way, ignore Congress and push your agenda regardless"....

[Winehole23]

how was Congress ignored or new law made? be specific, if you can.

[Drachen]

is he the next Hitler/Stalin, or just a liberal schlemiel? please pick a lane.

I keep asking this question, if he is so completely incompetent how is he this super america-killing mastermind.

[Winehole23]

wrt to the question of Consitutionality, all presidents have issued orders. supporting clauses at: Article II, Section 1, clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, clause 5.

how, btw, are presidents supposed to faithfully execute the laws or fulfill the duties of office without giving orders?

[Clipper Nation]

how was Congress ignored or new law made? be specific, if you can.
I'm speaking on executive orders in general, not really specifically on the gun control issue, as boutons seems to think that by invoking the separation of powers, Rand Paul is somehow trying to "rewrite the Constitution"...

The fact is, legislative power is vested in Congress, period, end of story.... they create the laws, and the executive branch is only entitled to faithfully execute the laws that Congress passes... executive orders are a decidedly legislative action taken by the executive branch, which contradicts the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.....

[Winehole23]

was new law made in this case? please try to be specific.

[Clipper Nation]

was new law made in this case? please try to be specific.


I'm speaking on executive orders in general, not really specifically on the gun control issue

[Winehole23]

seems to be ample historical precedent for executive orders. not sure what your problem is here, so long as the president doesn't step on Congress's toes or make new law.

btw, how can the president perform his duties or execute duly passed laws without giving orders?

[ElNono]

@CN could you at least cite executive orders 'in general' that created new law and the SCOTUS didn't invalidate for that exact reason?

[ElNono]

I mean, even George Washington issued executive orders, IIRC... apparently even the founding father understood he had that power...

[DMC]

seems to be ample historical precedent for executive orders. not sure what your problem is here, so long as the president doesn't step on Congress's toes or make new law.

btw, how can the president perform his duties or execute duly passed laws without giving orders?

Nice equivocation there.

[Winehole23]

how so?

[Winehole23]

CN said there was something wrong with executive orders in general. I referred to precedence, cited supporting clauses and asked a simple question. How is that equivocation?

[boutons_deux]

United States Presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States#Executive_ branch) manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order#cite_note-1957print-1) since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress), some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegated_legislation)), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

[Clipper Nation]

I mean, even George Washington issued executive orders, IIRC...
Not the same thing as today's executive orders (i.e. public legislative documents with the force of law), which didn't come about until the 1900's....

[Clipper Nation]

@CN could you at least cite executive orders 'in general' that created new law and the SCOTUS didn't invalidate for that exact reason?
Well, wars have been declared via executive order for years despite the power of declaring war being expressly delegated to Congress and Congress only, for starters....

[Winehole23]

apparently Congress no longer wants the power, and the Supreme Court hasn't invalidated it, but I tend to agree with you there.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, wars have been declared via executive order for years despite the power of declaring war being expressly delegated to Congress and Congress only, for starters....In just about every case, Congress expressly handed that power off.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm speaking on executive orders in general, not really specifically on the gun control issue, as boutons seems to think that by invoking the separation of powers, Rand Paul is somehow trying to "rewrite the Constitution"...

But Rand Paul's proposed legislation is specific to Obama's EOs on gun control, so you agree that this is total bullshit and a complete time waste?

[ElNono]

Not the same thing as today's executive orders (i.e. public legislative documents with the force of law), which didn't come about until the 1900's....

That's not correct. It's exactly the same.

The President can 'tweak' existing law (ie: by changing it's execution, a power granted to the executive), and THAT has the force of law.

The executive cannot create new law through executive order, and in the instances it has done so, it has been invalidated by the SCOTUS.


Well, wars have been declared via executive order for years despite the power of declaring war being expressly delegated to Congress and Congress only, for starters....

Except for the part that Congress delegated that authority to the Executive. Congress is well within it's right to remove that authority, and why it has not done so is entirely Congress' fault.

[DMC]

CN said there was something wrong with executive orders in general. I referred to precedence, cited supporting clauses and asked a simple question. How is that equivocation?

I'm sure you know there's a difference between Executive order and an order from the executive.

So when the POTUS says "come to my office" to the SoS, is that an Executive order?

Not all orders by the POTUS are classified as Executive order.

These are things we already know.

[SnakeBoy]

But Rand Paul's proposed legislation is specific to Obama's EOs on gun control, so you agree that this is total bullshit and a complete time waste?

Complete bullshit yes, but it is never a waste of time for a politician to try and scare people into sending them money. I'm sure many did...


Dear Snakeboy,

The gun grabbers in Washington have launched an all-out assault on our right to keep and bear arms - and they're hell-bent on destroying the Second Amendment.

And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama is preparing to use Executive Orders to RAM through whatever the gun grabbers can't get through Congress.

Well, America doesn't have - nor need - a King.

And as I told Sean Hannity last night, I'm prepared to do everything in my power to stand up to "King Obama" and stop his all-out assault on the Second Amendment.



Despite his "King Complex," President Obama doesn't have the Constitutional authority to write legislation.

And next week I plan on introducing the "Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act" - designed to nullify any anti-gun Executive Order issued by Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, this arrogance is nothing new when it comes to Barack Obama.

When Congress failed to ram through the radical environmentalists' cherished "Cap-and-Tax" scheme, Barack Obama attempted to use regulatory fiat to implement it.

From invading Libya without the approval of Congress to the so-called "Dream Act," President Obama has a history of abusing his Executive powers to do whatever he chooses.

Our Founders fought a revolution to STOP this kind of madness.

And if you value your God-given right to keep and bear arms, it's absolutely critical you fight back by signing your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY.

Snakeboy, America isn't supposed to have an imperial President.

And the Founders created a government based on separation of powers to prevent the President from ever becoming a king.

As Montesquieu said, "there can be no liberty when you combine the executive and legislative powers."

But Barack Obama disagrees - and he's garnered so much power and arrogance he believes he can do whatever he wants.

You and I must stop him.

So please sign your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY.

And if you've already signed your Second Amendment Protection Pledge, I hope you'll agree to make a generous contribution to help RandPAC fight back.

Your generous contribution will help RandPAC mobilize millions of pro-gun Americans to turn up the heat on Congress to stop any gun bans - whether through legislation or executive fiat.

But the gun grabbers are wasting no time in their all-out war to destroy the Second Amendment.

So time is running short to mobilize an army of grassroots Americans to send a loud-and-clear message to Congress:

"Vote for gun control - and find a new job."

So please sign your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY, and make the most generous contribution you can possibly afford.

Together, you and I will stop the assault on our Second Amendment freedoms.

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S. Barack Obama is preparing to use regulatory fiat to RAM through whatever the gun grabbers can't get through Congress.

Our Founders fought a revolution to STOP this kind of madness.

So if you value your God-given right to keep and bear arms, it's absolutely critical you fight back by signing your Second Amendment Protection Pledge IMMEDIATELY

[Drachen]

NRA suing.

Check.

They claim destroying guns are against the law.

Check.

What is the rest of the story? How does the law read? For what purpose may it be illegal to destroy them?

Have the law handy by chance?

The law basically says that any property which is confiscated must be resold or given away. The nra is attempting to have these buybacks classified as confiscations.

[Winehole23]

I'm sure you know there's a difference between Executive order and an order from the executive.

So when the POTUS says "come to my office" to the SoS, is that an Executive order?

Not all orders by the POTUS are classified as Executive order.

These are things we already know.your point being?

be specific about the classifications, if you can. what exactly do you differ with?

[Winehole23]

again, what was the equivocation? is there something wrong with executive orders in general, or, if not, what's your problem with these?

[Winehole23]

firearms have been regulated ab initio. the founders clearly did not see federal regulation of firearms as abrogation of the right to bear arms, else they wouldn't have done it.

[Winehole23]

In “Gunfight,” his provocative, highly uneven new book about the fight over gun control (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html?scp=18&sq=mayors%20against%20illegal%20guns&st=cse), the constitutional law professor Adam Winkler writes that “gun rights and gun control are not only compatible; they have lived together since the birth of America.” He argues that “despite the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment, Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of state constitutional law. Today, nearly every state has such a provision in its own constitution, clearly protecting an individual right unattached to militia service.”

He also argues, however, that America has “always had gun control.”


He writes: “The founding fathers instituted gun control laws so intrusive that no self-respecting member of today’s N.R.A. board of directors would support them. Early Americans denied the right to gun ownership even to law-abiding people if they failed a political test of loyalty to the Revolution. The founders also declared that free white men were members of the militia and, as such, were forced to appear with their guns at public ‘musters’ where government officials would inspect the weapons and register them on public rolls. When pressing public necessity demanded it, the founding fathers were also willing to impress guns from law abiding citizens, even if those citizens were left without guns to defend themselves from a criminal attack.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/books/in-gunfight-adam-winkler-traces-the-gun-control-battle.html?pagewanted=all

[Winehole23]

The founding fathers who wrote the Second Amendment didn’t believe the right to keep and bear arms was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anywhere he wanted. While they believed that the right to have arms was an individual right and that government should never be able to completely disarm the people, they balanced gun rights with public safety.


The founders barred large portions of the population from possessing guns, including slaves and free blacks, who might revolt if armed. The founders also restricted gun ownership by law-abiding white people, such as those who refused to swear allegiance to the Revolution.


Those weren’t traitors fighting for the British. They were among the approximately 40 percent of the citizenry who, in exercise of their freedom of conscience, thought 13 disorganized colonies taking on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea.
The founders also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws. Men over the age of 18 were expected to serve in the citizen militia, armed and ready to defend the nation. They would be forced to appear, with guns in hand, at musters where they and their guns would be inspected. The founders had an early form of gun registration: States conducted door-to-door surveys to identify where guns were in case the government had need of them.
The founders even had their own version of an “individual mandate.” In 1792, Congress required all free men of age to outfit themselves with a military-style firearm.


Gun control was commonplace in the Wild West, too. Frontier towns in the west — places like Deadwood, S.D., and Tombstone, Ariz. — had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. When a visitor arrived in a frontier town, he was required to check his guns with the marshal. The gun owner would receive a token to reclaim the guns when he left town.


The illegal carrying of a firearm was the second most common basis for arrests in the old west — right behind drunk and disorderly conduct. Gun violence was also rare, and gunfights extraordinary. Frontier towns averaged less than two homicides per year. Turns out there really wasn’t any need to get out of Dodge.

http://savannahnow.com/column/2012-08-02/winkler-nra-used-back-gun-control#.UPj7O2e2-7Q

[Winehole23]

even in Heller, the US Supreme Court upholds Federal regulation of firearms in principle.

[Wild Cobra]

The law basically says that any property which is confiscated must be resold or given away. The nra is attempting to have these buybacks classified as confiscations.
I was hoping it at least checked serial numbers first for if it was stolen. And what if stolen just the day before? The owner may not even know it's missing for a while, depending on who had access...

It doesn't bother me if they are destroyed, but at least make sure they aren't stolen goods. Most these gun programs I have read about have a "don't ask" policy, which is awesome for thieves.

[boutons_deux]

"stolen goods."

if the guns are stolen, the supposedly paranoid fantasist owners were lazy and careless about securing them. fuck 'em.

[Th'Pusher]

Complete bullshit yes, but it is never a waste of time for a politician to try and scare people into sending them money. I'm sure many did...
:lol at that Randpac contribution letter. I can see the likes of DMC and CC shouting fuck yeah as the shoot off their pistols Yosemite Sam style while pulling out their checkbooks.

[DMC]

your point being?

be specific about the classifications, if you can. what exactly do you differ with?

lol no

[Winehole23]

lol weak sauce

[Winehole23]

The Washington Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-cites-broad-agreement-on-universal-background-checks-for-gun-sales/2013/01/10/2369cc6c-5b4b-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html) that the White House is likely to push for universal background checks for gun buyers. This will be no panacea for gun violence, but it is probably the gun-control policy most likely to make a difference.

Under current law, licensed firearms dealers are required to run instant background checks on all buyers. However, once an individual person owns a gun, he is not required to take this precaution when selling it — it’s illegal to knowingly sell to a felon, but knowledge is not always present, and it’s hard to prove even when it is. (These private sales are what people are talking about when they refer to the “gun-show loophole.” It has nothing to do with gun shows — the same rules apply there.)

This poses obvious problems for law enforcement. The police can trace a crime gun to its original buyer — dealers are required to keep sales records for 20 years (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html#4473-nics-denied) — but if that person says he sold it to a stranger through a classified ad, the trail goes dead. The precise numbers are hard to peg down, but research shows clearly that a large (http://davekopel.org/2A/IP/gunshows2.htm#CrimeGuns) percentage (http://policeissues.com/Sources.pdf) of crime guns are procured through private transfers.


This was true even before background checks started in the 1990s. After all, it would be pretty stupid to buy a gun from a store, fill out the paperwork (which has been required at dealers since 1968 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/guns/documents/tracing-2.html)), and then leave the weapon at a crime scene. Instead, criminals buy guns from other people without paperwork, have someone else fill out the paperwork and pass the check at a dealer (these “straw purchases” are a major source of weaponry for Mexican drug cartels), or steal guns.


Universal background checks would help us hold people accountable for giving guns to criminals. When the police traced a gun to the original buyer, that person could no longer simply say he didn’t have it anymore; unless he’d documented a sale and conducted a check (or filed a police report claiming it was stolen), he could be investigated for an illegal transaction. This would make straw purchases more risky and prevent criminals from buying guns freely from private citizens.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337478/background-checks-robert-verbruggen#

[spursncowboys]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/books/in-gunfight-adam-winkler-traces-the-gun-control-battle.html?pagewanted=all
Never read that book. Always wanted to. What was 'government officials' in his reference? The State government officials?

It seems like the founding fathers wanted more people to have guns than were allowed to vote...

[Winehole23]

Never read that book. Always wanted to. What was 'government officials' in his reference? The State government officials? presumably, but honestly, I don't know.


It seems like the founding fathers wanted more people to have guns than were allowed to vote...it would seem so. it would also seem they did not view regulation and registration as an abrogation of the right to bear arms. the right to bear and state regulation of firearms arose together.

[spursncowboys]

presumably, but honestly, I don't know.

it would seem so. it would also seem they did not view regulation and registration as an abrogation of the right to bear arms. the right to bear and state regulation of firearms arose together.

Well for the state. With the intent that the state would know and not the federal govt. I'm assuming.

It's hard to take out all the changes from the US and try and isolate one sub-category and decide if they would have approved. I don't know if they would have approved of things that have led to what the federal government is today. 16th amendment, FBI, commerce clause, etc.

[Winehole23]

Well for the state. With the intent that the state would know and not the federal govt. I'm assuming.to clarify, you'd be ok with gun control at the state level?

[Winehole23]

for example, the new law in NY?

[Winehole23]

*crickets*

[TDMVPDPOY]

The law basically says that any property which is confiscated must be resold or given away. The nra is attempting to have these buybacks classified as confiscations.

how is it confiscation, if the owner willingly hands it in? lol NRA trying to change words and putting words into ppls mouth while sugar coating it

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol This is awesome. So when the state goes to buy office furniture or anything else for that matter from wherever its 'confiscated?'

[spursncowboys]

to clarify, you'd be ok with gun control at the state level?

I don't think my view is relevant but no I would go 110% trying to get out anyone who voted against law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun-concealed, open or in their home.

the SCOTUS has decided that states and cities can decide if they want to ban guns (like DC). Like imminent domain and ACA I disagree with but it is what it is.

and crickets....really?

Is that some kind of comment that I was avoiding your questions?

[Winehole23]

I don't think my view is relevant but no I would go 110% trying to get out anyone who voted against law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun-concealed, open or in their home.fair enough. that's what elections are for.

[DMC]

lol weak sauce

lol comically obtuse and failing... ^

[Winehole23]

can't back up your own bs or pompous verbiage, so you sling shit. old hat, tbh.

[Winehole23]

quality of bs counts. yours sucks.

[boutons_deux]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

5 hurt in shootings at gun shows in Ohio, Ind., NC

MEDINA, Ohio (AP) — Accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio left five people injured Saturday, the same day that thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter firearm limits. At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, state Agriculture Department spokesman Brian Long said.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41685/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=cgmN0fyo


:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Less guns, less GUN SHOWS = LESS GUN deaths, injuries

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Fellate those guns, gun-fetishists.

[Winehole23]

you got some violent fantasies. sure you're not packing?

[boutons_deux]

you got some violent fantasies. sure you're not packing?

WH :lol gfy

and go pack some fudge