Obama assumes Executive Power over regulating guns

[edison bulb]

Ask Obama and Bloomberg if this honestly sounds realistic about "Universal Background Checks". Does Obama, Bloomberg, and Ceasefire Oregon believe "Thug #1" and "Thug #2" are going to comply with the law? Or will it only target the law abiding?? Hmmm....


SCENE: Deep in the hood, SE Powell, a run down apartment somewhere....


THUG #1 (convicted felon): Sup homie. I got a stolen Beretta without a safety for sale right now, just $750 cash and it is yours.

THUG #2 (convicted felon): Oh dope man oh dope! Okay, okay, here's your $850! Now give me those three boxes of ammo too and we gots ourselves a real deal.

THUG #1 (convicted felon): Whoooaaa there homeboy, slowdown! Slowdown! Ya heard about SB 941?

THUG #2 (convicted felon): No whats dat?

THUG #1 (convicted felon): Well, that is the Universal Background Check in Oregon, where all private gun sales such as this one, need to have a background check done for the buyer at a gun shop.

THUG #2 (convicted felon): Awwwww, maaaan! Do we have to?

THUG #1 (convicted felon): Thanks to senator Prozanski, Bloomberg's money, and Kate Brown...yes...that is the law now homie.

THUG #2 (convicted felon): Well let's get in the car homie and drive up to the gun shop so I can pass that background check (***gulp!!***), I hope!!!

 

[boogerhook]

that's neo-realism ;-)

 

[Charliehorse]

Obama, Bloomberg meet on gun control; Okla. Sheriff has different idea

President Barack Obama and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg met Wednesday to talk gun control, according to CNN, which Second Amendment activists see as a bad sign.

<broken link removed>

As his message stated, "It may come a time that you as citizens may be called upon to help defend the citizens of this county against all enemies foreign and domestic that want to do us harm or kill us."

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

With Cruz in office I hope we wont have to put up with this harassment anymore.

 

[nammac]

Lawyers within the Justice Dept have this week informed Obama that he has the legal authorization to act on his own in making background checks mandatory across the entire United States. He does NOT need to wait for Congress to pass legislation on this issue, according to his legal advisors.

Obama also contacted and spoke with another advisor in the private sector by the name of Bloomberg, who gave him further advice on the matter.

Our Congress is usurped. Did Bloomberg somehow pay off Obama to do this? Just how much power and influence do his Billions of dollars give him?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/obama-mike-bloomberg-gun-control/index.html

.

Smarten up Mr and Mrs America, it's time for a drastic change from the Marxism we have been subjected to for the last 7 years.

In 13 months the village will get their Marxist idiot back and America gets a shot at redeeming itself and it's freedoms...

 

[David Bowman]

Not if Hillary gets elected.

Maybe so, but I will still have my guns.

 

[U8395279]

Do you happen to have a link that says this? The one from CNN says "potential order" and it is "tied up in legal and administrative questions".

You know, it looks like you are right. This is not a done deal after all. I apologize that I thought it was. Obama obviously has staff working on this, but the legal issues have not yet been resolved. While Obama very badly wants to make this happen, the Justice Dept will need to have a legal argument to make in order to defend such an executive order in court.

Perhaps Obama will back off on his plan, if the consensus is that the courts will soundly reject the order as being illegal.

i'm no lawyer. But this sure would seem like an executive overreach to me.

 

[slimmer13]

You know, it looks like you are right. This is not a done deal after all. I apologize that I thought it was. Obama obviously has staff working on this, but the legal issues have not yet been resolved. While Obama very badly wants to make this happen, the Justice Dept will need to have a legal argument to make in order to defend such an executive order in court.

Perhaps Obama will back off on his plan, if the consensus is that the courts will soundly reject the order as being illegal.

i'm no lawyer. But this sure would seem like an executive overreach to me.

Absolutely.

EOs change how existing laws are interpeted. I can't see how UBCs can be not seen as new legislation and can't see it standing up to scrutiny.

 

[Sstrand]

slimmer
You say that an EO on UBCs can't stand up to scrutiny. NIETHER CAN OBAMA but he still gets everything he wants!?!?!?!?!?

Sheldon

 

[U8395279]

Absolutely.

EOs change how existing laws are interpeted. I can't see how UBCs can be not seen as new legislation and can't see it standing up to scrutiny.

Well, the arguments that the anti's have used all along is that this, and others issues, are LOOPHOLES in the existing law.

Does the President have the power to address "Loopholes": flaws that are in existing laws?

No specific provision in the U.S. Constitution and no US statute explicitly permits or governs executive orders. So honestly, I don't understand how they ever came about in first place.

 

[uberguy]

I believe, no matter who gets in, the existing EOs will stand.

not so - executive orders are like policy at a business, can be changed or kept at the discretion of the person at the top of the food chain

 

[Camarobear]

Hillary4prison2016!

Make Congress live on a Private or Lance Corperals salary. Free guards, Marines on duty, Same free health care that Marines get.

Make it Combat Veterans that have Honorable discharges a requirement for Office.

Open up a Civil Service to everyone. Allow the term to clean their record. Get Citizenship...

How about we house all our homeless and Veterans.

Oh and remove every Executive Order unless its a positive good after 30 days.

 

[erudne]

#1 Obama has sold 1 million new guns in 7 years and we have another year to go.
#2 I expect to see a major attack on election day and the elections suspended for at least 3 months with concurrent riots and the dreaded Bubba Push Back/national Martial Law
#3 Martial Law will resemble Sharia Law and become permanent

 

[uberguy]

Do you happen to have a link that says this? The one from CNN says "potential order" and it is "tied up in legal and administrative questions".

I image so, since private in-state firearms transfers are outside even congress legislative domain, which is based on the interstate commerce clause, I have no idea what possible legal basis the president could base such an order on.

 

[slimmer13]

Well, the arguments that the anti's have used all along is that this, and others issues, are LOOPHOLES in the existing law.

Does the President have the power to address "Loopholes": flaws that are in existing laws?

No specific provision in the U.S. Constitution and no US statute explicitly permits or governs executive orders. So honestly, I don't understand how they ever came about in first place.

Well the existing law would be the brady bill which basically says that liscenced dealers need to do a BGC and private citizens may not KNOWINGLY sell to a PP. You sure wouldn't think that 20+ years later the POTUS could go back and essentially change the bill but that is my high school education interpretation and with the inmates running the prison, who knows how it will turn out.

 

[U8395279]

I image so, since private in-state firearms transfers are outside even congress legislative domain, which is based on the interstate commerce clause, I have no idea what possible legal basis the president could base such an order on.

The definition and interpretation of the interstate commerce clause has been stretched a great deal in recent decades. I would not count on it preventing any legislation.

Just listen to some of the people speaking in this video below, and how they are interpreting it. As the video notes: "the clause has been turned upside down".

It would seem that the Constitution is becoming less and less relevant to the Federal government. So why should the government uphold the 2nd Amendment?

.

 

[Raidingtime]

That's the safe way to bet. Despite the existence of a few overturned orders, the vast majority remain in place.

However this is a desperation move on Bloomy's and Obama's part. The cost will be very high, while the benefit to the ruling class almost nonexistent. No, all 300 million (500 million?) guns are not going to end up on some registry. People will simply ignore an order they don't think is legitimate - and even if others do put up with it, it still means nothing. Oregon has "closed the gun show loophole", to what end?

Keep in mind NICS already tells them who the gun owners are, and roughly how high in the "gun nuttery" quotient. They don't have to know exactly where every gun is. The rubber meets the road if they try a confiscation, and the shooting starts. Then their list of guns will be of no use to them.

Personally, I highly doubt confication is in our future. The ruling class may be stupid, but they aren't that stupid.

So go ahead and keep buying guns. Run a background check or not, as you please. It doesn't matter.

You must be talking about that sb941 thing... Yeah about that

 

[Raidingtime]

how does that work? who enforces an executive order? The FBI is for federal laws, not orders.

You would think as a pretty smart guy he would see the precedent problem. He has an order for background checks, the next President orders a stop to all muslims entering the country, the next one orders all non-Christians into camps, the next one starts labeling citizens as terrorists and starts shooting them with drones. Interesting part of history to be witnessing

And this is what I'm afraid of

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Now's the time for the life long Democrats and traditional Liberals to realize the Progressives have High Jacked their "Go To" or default if you will, Political Party.

We are on the verge losing freedoms that have allowed this Country to thrive and prosper all these Years. Freedoms that include the 2nd A.

Give this Country a break and Vote against who your Unions, Professors, MSNBC hosts and Celebrities etc. say is the smart choice.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

In all honesty, a sudden overreach of power concerning 2AR may be the catalyst needed to get the "on the fence folks" attention and to pick a side. The progressive liberals believe things will go their way and have been steadfastly paving the roads and salting the mines for the past decade.

An act like this should raise the hackles of the legislative branches since this effectively (as has been pointed out already) tells them they no longer matter in making domestic laws. The use of EO for gun control opens up the door for basically everything. In fact, this may be the ignition source for a major referendum on limiting POTUS power to exercise EO (restricting use of such power).

So, in a way, I'm hoping the dick-tater does this. We'll get to see exactly how the citizenry feels about whether our heritage constitutional law and process continues or we begin a new form of government.

The liberals are betting the farm on the Gen-X and Gen-Y being ambivalent on this subject and, if successful, this being the launching point for their "re-making of America" ...remember that phrase?

As the greatest generation and boomers leave the planet, their odds of achieving this, sadly, increases. Yes sir, now is the time to have the stand off... while our odds of thwarting this are as good as they may ever be.

You're one of those "glass half full" kinda guys. Good trait to have in these troubled times. I hope you're right.