Thread: Obama Says He Won't Be Bound by Gun Control Ban in Omnibus

That second term thing is shaping up. More...

Sounds like the supreme leader has spoken. Doesn't care what the laws says. He will do what he wants.

Sorry bud, the "pocket veto" is reserved for governors.

So, when will Obwan proclaim himself "Ruler of the World" and rule entirely by proclamation?

Sick and tired of this "above the law" B.S.

Anybody has read the actual text of the statement ?

Originally Posted by fd15k

Anybody has read the actual text of the statement ?

That's crazy talk.

Originally Posted by Sling Blade

That's crazy talk.

Originally Posted by fd15k

Anybody has read the actual text of the statement ?

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

December 23, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 2055

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2055, the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012." This bill provides the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.

I have previously announced that it is the policy of my Administration, and in the interests of promoting transparency in Government, to indicate when a bill presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of H.R. 2055 raise constitutional concerns.

In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.

The Congress has also included certain provisions in this bill that could interfere with my constitutional authorities in the areas of foreign relations and national security. Section 113 of Division H requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress 30 days in advance of "any proposed military exercise involving United States personnel" that is anticipated to involve expenditures of more than $100,000 on construction. Language in Division I, title I, under the headings International Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, disallows the expenditure of funds "for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national," unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress. In approving this bill, I reiterate the understanding, which I have communicated to the Congress, that I will apply these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Certain provisions in Division I, including sections 7013, 7025, 7029, 7033, 7043, 7046, 7049, 7059, 7062, and 7071, restrict or require particular diplomatic communications, negotiations, or interactions with foreign governments or international organizations. Others, including sections 7031, 7037, and 7086, hinder my ability to receive diplomatic representatives of foreign governments. Finally, section 7041 requires the disclosure to the Congress of information regarding ongoing diplomatic negotiations. I have advised the Congress that I will not treat these provisions as limiting my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations.

Moreover, several provisions in this bill, including section 627 of Division C and section 512 of Division D, could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials in the execution of their statutory responsibilities. I have informed the Congress that I will interpret these provisions consistent with my constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

Numerous provisions of this bill purport to condition the authority of executive branch officials to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are constitutionally impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws. Although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees appropriate and serious consideration, our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. In particular, section 1302 of Division G conditions the authority of the Librarian of Congress to transfer funds between sections of the Library upon the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have advised the Congress of my understanding that this provision does not apply to funds for the Copyright Office, which performs an executive function in administering the copyright laws.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 23, 2011.

Three More Wins for Gun Owners

Thursday, December 22, 2011


H.R. 2055—the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012—has been passed by the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been sent to the President for his expected signature. This bill contains three NRA-backed provisions that will strengthen our Second Amendment rights and prohibit your federal tax dollars from being used to advance an anti-gun agenda.

Stopping Your Tax Dollars From Funding Anti-Gun Studies

One of the protections expanded and strengthened can be found in Sec. 218 of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (Labor-H) division of the bill. This section prevents the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using taxpayer dollars to promulgate junk science designed to paint legal gun ownership as a public health hazard. Since 2002, the NIH has spent nearly $5 million on this “research” even though their counterparts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have been prevented from funding similar studies since being blocked in 1996 by a NRA-backed provision. The following are just a few examples of the anti-gun research funded using taxpayer dollars:

• $2,639,453 was spent by the NIH to investigate whether adolescents 10-19 years old who were treated at the hospital for a gunshot wound were more likely to have consumed alcohol and/or carried a firearm during the time period surrounding their injury than victims of a non-gun assault. Basically, the researchers wanted to know why teenagers who possess firearms illegally and engage in underage drinking and consort with those who do the same-were likely to be involved in violent situations.
  
• $1,980,327 was allocated by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a division of NIH, to determine the relationship between gun violence and the presence of bars and liquor stores. The researchers posited that communities could lower homicide and suicide rates by improving zoning regulations for “alcohol outlets.”
  
• $35,933 in federal funding was used to “understand the determinants of firearm ownership and storage practices” and “measure attitudes and beliefs about firearms” among parents. The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through NIH, and aimed to solidify the notion that a “home free of hazards” was essential to children’s safety and well-being.

These junk science studies and others like them are designed to provide ammunition for the gun control lobby by advancing the false notion that legal gun ownership is a danger to the public health instead of an inalienable right.

No Tax Dollars to Lobby and Promote Gun Control

The second is a new NRA-backed provision that is found in Sec. 503 of the Labor-H division. This section prevents federal funds from being used for lobbying efforts designed to support or defeat the passage of legislation being considered by Congress, or any state or local legislative body. Too often, community action groups are utilizing federal money to lobby for increased regulation of firearms including trigger locks, bans on semi-automatic rifles, regulated magazine capacity, etc. This funding subverts the Second Amendment and allows anti-gun Administrations to fund grassroots gun control efforts using taxpayer dollars. We are grateful that H.R. 2055 prohibits further use of this gun control scheme.

Protecting Historic Firearms and Spent Brass Casings from Destruction

Finally, a long-standing provision, found in Department of Defense (DOD) Sec. 8017 division A, preserves the opportunity for American gun owners to purchase surplus firearms that are no longer of use to the U.S. military. This includes M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles and M-1911 pistols. Starting in 1979, different versions of this language have prevented these firearms from being needlessly destroyed. In 2009, Congress amended this language at the urging of the NRA to prevent the destruction of spent brass casings, a boon for gun owners and reloaders concerned about the rising price of ammunition.

Originally Posted by rufus

...

That's good. So apart from copy-pasting it, you've also read and understood it, right ?

From how I see it, it's not a clear-cut problem. There are some outlined disputes over authority, and it's not yet a done deal. They will conduct additional consultations, and will perform legal analysis to achieve a resolution.

Originally Posted by fd15k

That's good. So apart from copy-pasting it, you've also read and understood it, right ?

Just what are you implying?

Originally Posted by fd15k

From how I see it, it's not a clear-cut problem. There are some outlined disputes over authority, and it's not yet a done deal. They will conduct additional consultations, and will perform legal analysis to achieve a resolution.

Thank you captain obvious.

Originally Posted by rufus

Just what are you implying?

NRA and its subdivisions all being an interest group with a certain tactic will often put a spin on anything to attract more donations. It is of course for the goal we all appreciate, but let's be clear - they are not a source of accurate information.

Originally Posted by rufus

Thank you captain obvious.

Skies aren't falling, you're welcome.

I love how people like to say the sky is not falling, well OK... what will it take for it to be "falling" for you? if parts of the sky are starting to crack and fall, that is usually a red flag for me (and most). Kind of like the where there is smoke there is fire...or will be.

My point is with this administration EVERYTHING needs to be watched, we can not take anything for granted, especially our dwindling freedom.


"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
Ronald Reagan

"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty."
Ronald Reagan

Numerous provisions of this bill purport to condition the authority of executive branch officials to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are constitutionally impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws. Although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees appropriate and serious consideration, our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.

Wonderful, he says he's going to do what he wants no matter what appropriations are made or approved!

Here's some more on it

And some more

Originally Posted by fd15k

NRA and its subdivisions all being an interest group with a certain tactic will often put a spin on anything to attract more donations. It is of course for the goal we all appreciate, but let's be clear - they are not a source of accurate information.



Skies aren't falling, you're welcome.

Actually they are far more factual than most other sources. The NRA has won awards for factual reporting when not many others have.

Funny, I don't see squat in the actual statement about guns in any way shape or form.

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

Funny, I don't see squat in the actual statement about guns in any way shape or form.

Really? Has critical thinking skills left the planet?

Originally Posted by Barefoot343

My point is with this administration EVERYTHING needs to be watched, we can not take anything for granted, especially our dwindling freedom.

EVERYTHING in EVERY administration needs to be watched. There were a whole lot of folks who had their collective heads in the sand on Iraq (absolutely no pun intended).

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

Funny, I don't see squat in the actual statement about guns in any way shape or form.

Originally Posted by DMax

Really? Has critical thinking skills left the planet?

One thing for sure is that paranoia and its conspiracy theories are alive and well.