I can practically see it now...

Hasn't it been drilled into the public's head by our good friends at the NRA that further regulation of gun manufacture and ownership is absolutely unnecessary, and that what is needed mostest of all is enforcement of the laws already on the books? An executive order allocating additional resources to do exactly what the NRA has been saying for decades should make the NRA and its supporters insanely happy, shouldn't it?

Unless . . .

people expecting him to slap massive taxes on ammo or unilaterally reimpose an AWB will be disappointed. The reality is that there is little he can do beyond working on the fringe of existing law.

Waiting and seeing. Could be useful stuff.

Like 'Hey guys, stop sitting, watching a straw purchaser flip 150 guns over 9 months before you bust him. One and done.'.

That would be good. Increasing the incentive carrots for states to comply with federal NICS reporting. Etc.
Some material stuff within his scope of power.

Weapon and allowing to sue gun stores that sell to the crazies is two I would love to see

if they don't have a verifiable trail of "craziness" and who gets to determine who is, and who isn't, crazy?

Question for you. Two people walk into YOUR gun store. YOU are behind the counter. One is in a suit and tie, one is dressed in shambles and mumbles to him/herself. One of them is crazy. Neither has a record and both pass the NICS background check. To whom do you refuse to sell?

Also, liability insurance will NOT cover criminal acts. What then?

We have a president. Not a king.

More of a wish list

This might deter some from buying guns. Then again, maybe not. The crazies will still find a way to show their man/womanhood. A big gun on your hip must mean something to the fruitcakes who think guns are a good thing.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what an EO can do. It just changes how the exexcutive branch implements an already existing law. It cannot create a new law.

The article linked in the OP mentions executive actions.

Either way, it's going to be weak since he really is limited in his powers.

...our MSM would be conflating those terms.

Nah, not our MSM media. Never!

Failed miserably, now he has to step up and do the things we needed the Congress to do.

E.O. do not have the force of law. They set policy for the Executive branch but that is all.

What is today, can be "not" tomorrow.

not a magic wand.

I was amazed how you couldn't find an illegal drug any where in the United States. This gun EOs will do wonders for us.

because of some executive order, prohibition was to stop alcohol. That didn't work out so well. It gave rise to the mob which made them rich.

just let the radical left enjoy this moment. These E.O or Executive Actions or whatever they are called is just like masturbation. Feels good but is pointless and really doesn't accomplish anything.

country starts breathing sighs of relief.

That's what I hope

will it be to "law abiding gun owners" who already have guns or to folks scared that Obama is taking away guns and we better get them fast...

that seems reasonable...you know, stuff like having some training in use and storing of guns, that sort of thing...wouldn't that be OK? And why isn't it SOP now?

x digger? Yes, you do, come on now...

glad to see your surface, buddy...just in time...

or at least resonant in the 21 century like every other civilized nation in the WORLD...

The branch that you'd need help from, to do the things you outlined above-- is the legislative branch.

Say it with me: "lej-is-ley-tiv".

if that is what you think, but (sigh) that is what you think...

No one, repeat, no one, said anything aabout the powers of thelegis. branch. You are making up this whole argument. Please stop. I am on to you so run along home, yer mama is lookin' for you...

.. about things like safe storage or training is which of the following:

a) The Legislative
b) The Judicial
c) The Executive

It's multiple choice, you've got a 1 in 3 shot..

Oh, X, what would I do without you mansplaining this to me?

I don't know how that institution of higher education here in New Haven EVER bestowed that Master of Arts in Liberal Studies (M.A.L.S.) summa cum laude upon me...

I have to assume you need some work.

An art degree, you say? That explains a lot.

Arts but a Masters in Liberal Studies. Such a degree encompassed the arts, but also political science, economics (reading/commenting on original sources such as Karl Marx, Keynes, Aristotle, John Locke, Adam Smith (who is largely misunderstood by most people), Malthus, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, Jevons and Menger,Joseph Schumpeter, and Galbraith. And being grad school, I had to read original texts, not pre-digested stuff you may be reading...

You see, X, you can obtain a Master's Degree that isn't simply limited to visual art. The term encompasses a more diverse field of studies.

I hope this has been helpful to you. You don't want to embarrass yourself...

The executive branch does not have the power to do the things that you (not the president) have suggested should be in the EOs.

Or did a ninja sneak up and post on your keyboard while you weren't looking?

We don't know what is limited by case law at the federal level, including but not limited by Heller, and what is not. His E.O. will always be challenged under some bullshit "doctrine" dreamed up in the minds of RW gun enthusiasts who let their ideology get in their way of clear thinking. That's a given.

Given that, I think we need to wait, read the E.O. carefully, and then discuss more deeply.

Why don't you tell me what you hope it will say? From your perspective, what can be done constitutionally by an E.O.?

It's a legislatively undefined area, which means it's within the BATFE's power to regulate. They've taken a 'we know it when we see it' approach in the past.

If they lower it to selling one firearm makes one 'in the business' (effectively ending private transfers), I doubt such a change would survive a challenge to states' regulation of intra-state commerce (as opposed to inter-state.) Does selling a couch on craigslist make you a furniture store, requiring a business license and an ADA compliant bathroom? Of course not.

But if they lowered it to something like five every twelve months, I think that would pass muster.

I'm wondering if there aren't any arcane doctrines of law that will be brought in here. I don't know but there may be one to get around the quandary pose selling a couch. We'll see.

I think your "five every twelve months" sound reasonable.

And the President can't change laws, such as who can own a gun or how guns have to be stored, or what kind of training gun owners must have, with an EO.

considered settled law until Heller is overturned (and may that day come soon!). But I feel fairly certain that our President has as strong a bench of experts in Constitutional Law as you can get and they are helping him write it, don't you agree?

And any legal expert worth a damn is going to tell him that he can't make up or change laws with an EO, which is what would be necessary in order to do what you want him to do.

who is a Harvard Law graduate, doesn't know something about Con Law 101?

I mean, aren't we being silly here?

You're the one that's expecting him to do things that he can't do. That's on you, not him.

I fully expect that he is guided by not only his own knowledge of Con Law but those around him who advise him on such matters. It certainly doesn't entertain the idea of wholesale confiscation of guns, violating the 4th amendment, etc. There are finer points that haven't been totally adjudicated in a court. We'll see, won't we?

It was you:

CTyankee (47,631 posts)

20. so maybe Obama's EO anticipates that and makes some stipulations for buying/owning guns...





that seems reasonable...you know, stuff like having some training in use and storing of guns, that sort of thing...wouldn't that be OK? And why isn't it SOP now?

So now "training in use and storing of guns" is the same as a ban on guns? I think most people would say that is reasonable. But perhaps it isn't. I don't know but I am eager to see what it is.

Geez, even the First Amendment has some exceptions and has been amended through case law.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

And while what you're suggesting is absolutely reasonable, it isn't possible with an executive order, it would require legislation.

it through. Set him straight. Send him an email ASAP. He will be so embarrassed if he doesn't heed your advice!

The Administration has said nothing at all that even comes close to what you're saying he should do. Why? Because they know it isn't possible. The President and his team are much too smart to even consider trying to implement your suggestions. And let's be clear, they're YOUR suggestions, not the President's. Don't try to lay unconstitutional actions at his doorstep when it's you that suggests he should violate the Constitution.

The only hints given have pertained to broadening the definition of "gun dealer" and tightening the definition of "gun collector". Both of which would make background checks mandatory for more sales, and both very reasonable and well within his discretion under an executive order.

you will defend him, I am sure...

or who you claim I'll be defending. The only one I've defended on this issue is President Obama.

How about canning the passive-aggressive bullshit, and just come out and make your accusation, whatever it might be?

I am sorry. I have been battling a very bad case of shingles for two months and I've been in a great deal of pain. I do not want to misrepresent your views because that is not how I conduct political arguments and I think you know that.

I'm glad that you are defending President Obama. I think he wants to do the right thing in the face of an implacable enemy.

And I think he'll do all that he can legally do.

And I'm sorry about the shingles - I've not had them (yet), but I remember how awful they were when my father suffered from them. Hoping you feel better soon.

..."executive actions"...

Poll after poll after poll has shown that extreme gun control measures are less important to most Americans than the economic insecurity they are now feeling.

important.

I would consider that extreme.

I doubt that the courts would uphold such a ban and IMO the President realizes that.

would be considered extreme in this country but not in every other civilized democracy in the world. Could it be we are a bit um, "out of step" with all of the rest of the civilized world on this issue?

I don't think Obama needs to concern himself with that. He's far too astute to hamstring the Democratic presidential candidate with an unenforceable EO.

I hope we don't lose more in 2016. Actually we don't have much left to lose.

I looked it up and read several entries found by Google. Here's one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdowns_of_1995%E2%80%931996

So, again, what source is claiming that loss was due to the assault weapons ban? I see other reasons cited over and over again (as they are in this link), pretty much the same reasons...

[div class='excerpt']"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life


Some of us were involved in politics back then, and paid attention.

but that aside, it seems like you side with the NRA here (as I read what Clinton wrote which sounded like something a republican would rejoice in).

So I wonder...

be in mostly red states, or red areas of some states.

While it doesn't take an NRA member to see it, it takes an inordinate amount of NRA cash but you can speak for that organization more than I can...

There were 3.5 times as many votes for Obama in Texas than there were in Connecticut in 2012.

But if you want to keep your urban outlook, and assume it's applicable to the rest of the nation, don't be surprised when reality disabuses you of that notion.

But hey, what does Bill know, he was just the president. It's not like he has an art degree.

Or is he just deluded, poor thing?

Free clue: Have a read of Joe Bageant's book- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0015DWNMY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

on my research into the Fauvist Movement in western art, which was quite short lived but produced some fine works by major artists famously including Henri Matisse. However, this coming Friday I will be putting up a thread on Edwardian Opulence, art of that era that was an exhibit at Yale a few years back and I saw at least two times while it was here. Please drop by on Friday around 5 pm (it's always in GD), I would love to have you visit and comment.

of each of those states so...

but what do I know with my Fine Arts undergrad degree. I'm guessing you have a Ph.D in either Poli Sci or History, yes? Maybe Princeton or oh, maybe a Harvard man, like Ted Cruz (and my ex, which is one of the reasons he IS my ex now and has been for over 30 years -- am now married to a lovely liberal who has a grad degree in Poli Sci from U WI, Milwaukee). Happy, we are.

..."The White House has spent the last few weeks finalizing several new measures in response to a string of mass shootings that have cast a cloud over Obama’s presidency."

Cast a cloud? Mass shootings have something to do with the Obama Presidency? Has "thehill" been purchased by Rupert?

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying...

I see the public as largely OK with targeting the silly seeming loopholes that enable bad actors to get guns.

Make that happen, and then politicians learn that common sense restrictions actually resonate with the voters, and don't cause the sky to fall.

Once this becomes an issue we can grapple with, we can then move the process of getting a mature and realistic comprehensive system of regulating gun sales, and gun ownership, forward.

we will have most of the problems solved.

and short of what HillIary says is needed. He will do this because he wants to be with the views of the majority of people in this country.

.. which are perjury in most cases. Less than 1% of prohibited persons who are rejected by NICS are ever investigated, much less prosecuted.

Much as a cadre of DU wants a ban, I think they're laughably out of touch with the reality of the powers of the executive branch.

Amend that fucker.

entitled "Virtue, Self Interest, and the Origins of the American Republic." Where can I send you a copy (it is digitally on a 3x5 floppy, which I have but alas...)? My prof gave me a grade of Honors, so I was very pleased.

Give me an address, I'll xerox my hard copy and it's as good as yours. I think you'll be very thrilled to read it and provide you with an insight as to my comprehension abilities when it comes researching

The course encompassed a time in the development of our democracy spanning after the adoption of our U.S. Constitution to about 1830. To write such a paper, I needed to understand the basis of our republic's new vision of rights, or should we say the development of our understanding of our rights. Many people don't know this but our country was essentially peopled by out and out drunks. There was a terrible problem, as documented in one of the books I read in my research, with drinking (mostlyhard cider, some places beer and ale) was "The Alcoholic Republic."

I also did a paper on the lack of interest in the arts (which some patriots called "decadent", which is of vital interest to me today as I do art research in my retirement.

I love having discussions about what you quaintly call "civics" (I'm sure you learned it that term way back in junior high). Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a bit (!) out of your grade level...

I'm glad to know that you're familiar with the Enlightenment philosophy-- I surely won't catch you spouting the silly idea that rights are 'granted' or 'conferred' by the bill of rights, and that repealing an amendment would take a right away.

I'll expect you to pipe up an let such posters know when you see that drivel.

stuff I hear the gun lobby spout. It seems that they are all caught up in the simplistic terms of "granted" or "conferred" rights -- not that that discussion isn't valid, but it is reduced to consideration of rights in terms of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. I expect the discussion to include full consideration of what is acceptable "exceptions" since after all, we have limits to our First Amendment rights and our Fourth Amendment rights. Perhaps I am being silly, but I expect a more sophisticated and nuanced debate than just what you have cited.

I am not an attorney for the ACLU but I worked for their NY office and their Legislative office in D.C. (as a legislative assistant). While I was there I heard the very interesting debate their National Board of Director had as regards their official policy on gun control legislation. The debate included some arguments by exceptional civil libertarians that are now, sadly, deceased. I don't know if their policy has been amended since then. It might be, in light of today's situation which was very different from then (in the 1970s).

I'll get right on it...

.. stripping rights without some judicial scrutiny. Bravo.

I'll mark you down as against making someone on the 'terrah' list ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm. (You'll be siding with the ACLU.)

I'll be happy to see you disabuse such proponents of their position when it comes up.

Now you're off on the 5th and 14th amendments and I wasn,t even talking about them. Geez, let's see what our president has in mind...if you voted for him wouldn't you cut him some slack here?

firearm. What a horrendous idea.

I'd think that someone who's read and understands the debates surrounding creation and adoption of the US constitution would comprehend that due process was one of the founding principles underpinning our system of government.

Ah well, I guess you can lead a horse to water..

institution of higher learning. And my grandkids are being indoctrinated in PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Did you know they are learning EVOLUTION! It's a commie plot, I tell you...they'll come for yer gunz and then they'll come for YOU! Beware, stock up on ammo...

Feel free to ignore the principles you purport to support, when it comes to things you dislike-- that doesn't make you liberal or a commie, just a hypocrite.

You see, in order for principles to mean anything, you have to apply them equally. Otherwise, they're just a silly preference.

That's okay, we can all see how you roll.

Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

you are now going to a land far, far away...as you have been banished from mine.

since the so called "Bill of Rights" doesn't grant rights in the first place, of course you can place limits. Even Scalia said there were limits to the 2nd Amendment. All that said, these E.O.'s won't do anything since they are probably only applying to background checks. All the recent mass shooters passed their background checks.

The one I read about today tweaks the definition of what selling firearms as a business is.

There will still be private sales as there are now without background checks (if allowed in the applicable state law of course).

The major change seemed to be that if a person sells more than 25 guns a year they would now need a FFL and have to background check buyers.

Last year (almost one a day) and people still argue against doing anything about it.

/facepalm

regulations as a matter of public safety.

Same old, same old.

against any thing sensible in this thread is amazing to me. An out right ban by the President wouldn't be proposed or would it be legal, but you'd never know it by looking at some of these responses.

worship their guns. They read the same stuff online put there by the gun lobby and its mostly crazy interpretations of the 2nd amendment and constitutional law in general. They are all experts in Con Law and the President of the United States who is a Harvard Law School graduate doesn't know shit. It takes a "willing suspension of disbelief" to do believe what they do.

All the usual suspects,

Because some of us know that

1. This won't do anything significant to reduce gun violence. All the recent mass shooters passed their background checks.


2. These E.O.'s have the potential to cause the defeat of the Democratic Nominee next year. My girlfriend, who needs a hysterectomy, loves her insurance thank you very much.

Obama for grabbing their guns. Hell if they already accuse you, might as well do it.

he can do about this as President. I'll be interested to see what he comes up with, though.

believe that what they come up with won't be challenged under some bs doctrine that the NRA cooks up -- after all, that's what they spend all their time and money doing.