Obama assumes Executive Power over regulating guns

[U8395279]

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

.

Read More

 

[jim97701]

So bomamas in bed with loonberg and the pillow talk is running rampant, maybe Michelle, Feinstein and pelosi can have a three way and the whole cuckin flan can have a gun grabbin love fest! It is time to stock, lock and load!.

 

[41Slinger]

Exec away Ohole, YOU DON'T COUNT IN MY USA.

 

[David Bowman]

Whatever....

In about a year, when there is a new president, my guess is that everything that was done will be undone.

 

[jackrv]

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

 

[etrain16]

Well I guess it's time to do away with Congress altogether then. Heck, we could save a ton of money if we had just the President making all of the policy decisions, making all the laws, and telling us everything we need to know and feel.

The idea seems really familiar, I just can't put my finger on it. Is that a dic(k)tatorship? Monarchy? Well, he is the dic(k) tater in charge.

I have a feeling if he takes this step and bypasses congress, it will likely backfire for Democrats in 2016. The polling data is showing a clear march away from gun control in America. Even a majority now oppose assault weapon bans. People are already pissed enough about what Obamacare is doing to their wallets. It would just be more great fodder to use against Hillary and any other big name anti-gun Democrat.

I can't wait until this blowhard is gone. I hope he stays very quiet in his retirement years.

 

[Stomper]

"Blowhard"? More like a "Suckhard".

 

[slimmer13]

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.

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".

 

[Member 5605]

Long live the king.

Time to eradicate congress and the Supreme Court.

What we need to be relying on is the fair circuit court judges and the larger federal court judges. We don't need a Supreme Court to lay down what is and isn't constitutional in the land.

Heil the King.



/sarcasm

 

[Stomper]

We shall go from a Republic to a new GALACTIC EMPIRE!!

-Palpatine

 

[freestoneangler]

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.

 

[jbett98]

Whatever....

In about a year, when there is a new president, my guess is that everything that was done will be undone.

Not if Hillary gets elected.

 

[freestoneangler]

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

I don't believe that true. It might not be easy, but it is possible as precedence for this has been established.

Executive orders can be overturned by either of the other two branches: the Supreme Court can do so through a case that is brought in front of them and Congress can do so by passing legislation that would conflict with the order or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. The president still has the right to veto a decision from Congress, which Congress can override as always with a two-thirds majority that would end the executive order. However, this is nearly impossible because of the supermajority vote that is required as well as the fact that individual lawmakers can be left very vulnerable to political criticism. To date, two executive orders have been overturned by other branches. This includes the previously mentioned Truman order as well as a 1996 Clinton order that attempted to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Executive orders can also be overturned by future presidents.

This has already been done by Barack Obama in regards to a few of George W. Bush's orders. One of the most popular executive orders to be overturned by presidents was the Mexico City Policy (also known as the Global Gag Rule), which has become a form of "tug of war" between the Republican Party and Democratic Party regarding abortion. It was first instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and required all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a form of family planning in other countries. The policy remained intact through the George HW Bush administration until Bill Clinton rescinded it in January 1993, but was immediately put back into effect by George W. Bush until Obama again ended it in January 2009.

But is all starts with our votes; sending Barry and Michelle packing for Hawaii, and the Clintons having to call the movers and cancel what they are almost assuredly thinking is a done deal.

 

[PaulB47]

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

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.

 

[boogerhook]

I won't sweat UBCs. Just a side remark, though, existing laws - the one against straw purchases - did not prevent Farook's neighbor from buying the 2 ARs used in the rampage. It's not going to prevent anything but the simplest of impulse purchases, and that's a maybe.

 

[thorborg]

Our Congress is usurped.

Congress shares culpability ; Usurpendipity, started with the lazy congressional money grubbers shirking their responsibilities by delegating them to agencies with total autonomy and no accountability. Now, it's a rat hole with a very complicated lock on it's door.

 

[PiratePast40]

......
The idea seems really familiar, I just can't put my finger on it. Is that a tatorship? Monarchy? Well, he is the tater in charge...

Hope you don't take offense to me parsing and chopping up your comments. I just love the title "tater in charge"!

 

[Charliehorse]

Executive orders can be overturned... and Congress can do so... by refusing to approve funding to enforce it.
The president still has the right to veto a decision from Congress...
(which Congress can override as always with a two-thirds majority that would end the executive order. However, this is nearly impossible because of the supermajority vote that is required as well as the fact that individual lawmakers can be left very vulnerable to political criticism.)

This is why all the hoopla about "Congress has the power of the purse!" is a bit of hyperbole. Because a Bill to block or defund still doesn't become law without an Executive signature.

 

[Dave Workman]

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>

 

[bolus]

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