Gun Issues page 35

2293 posts

Flag Post

Now, as a foreigner, I may have the wrong end of the stick but:

What is an executive order?

Executive orders are directives issued by the president that carry the weight of a federal law. A somewhat nebulous concept, these orders have no specific basis in the U.S. Constitution although the power is typically understood to arise out of Article II, which states that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

A U.S. government website say the orders are used to direct and manage the federal government.

They have typically been used to alter existing laws instead of creating new ones, and Congress can override an executive order by passing legislation that opposes it.

The Supreme Court can also overturn them, as it did in 1952 when President Harry Truman attempted to seize control of U.S. steel mills using an executive action.

(*my emphasis)

To whit;

No tyranny or ‘bypassing congress’… All the info I’ve found in a quick search says the same thing, (in precis) no president needs congress’ approval to ‘tweak’ existing legislation and IF congress or the courts disagree with the way said order alters an existing law, they can negate it. Yes, such orders can be controversial but they’re far from unique to Obama.

Trying to find a precis of the orders… have only found these so far:

Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks and requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands.

Requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers.

Giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.

And I can’t say that I disagree (or see how they in anyway infringe on the legitimate owner’s ability to own a firearm) with any of them with one proviso… I’m reading that last one as ‘keeping guns out of the hands of kids/convicted criminals/the mentally ill/etc’ (e.g. programmes to support the existing laws on ownership, etc).

Until I find what the others were I can’t comment one way or the other.


Edit: This link seems to have all 23.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Well, well. Looks like we have gone from a Representative Republic to a Tyranny. We don’t need no stinking congress when we can just sign an executive order, 23 of them it seems. I can hear the lawsuits being filed as we speak. Obama may have overstepped his authority with this dictum. He might have tipped his real agenda with this bypassing of our congress. Remember all of the coddling by the left? Well, get ready boys, the king is in the house. This very well might end in an impeachment. The king may fall.

Oh yes, how dare he do something every other President king has done hundreds, sometimes thousands, of times before. Even if it’s perfectly within the Constitution and has checks in place, you’re right, trying to enforce and already existing law more-so totally makes one a tyrannical king.

Seriously, why do you keep clinging to the laughably weak claim that making executive orders makes one a “king”?

 
Flag Post

Those orders are;


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Can’t see anything too controversial in there… in fact, a good proportion of it is exactly the sort of thing JHCO & others have been calling for…

A. Greater national focus on mental health care (20, 21, 22 & 23)
B. Make more information available to help provide better background checks (1, 2, 3 & 6)
C. Promote safer gun ownership (7, 8 & 15)
D. Provide funds to support armed protection for schools (18)
E. Better planning & preparation for such acts (19)
F. Greater focus in law enforcement on preventing gun crime / (more severe?) prosecution of those breaking existing laws. (12 & 13)

None of these executive orders directly result in any alterations to, or indeed new, legislation although, with the support of congress, I can see that 4 & 8 could.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Seriously, why do you keep clinging to the laughably weak claim that making executive orders makes one a “king”?

It fits in with the other claims he often makes, talking about how the current US government is trying to turn the US into a clone of the UK. The UK has a royal family, so clearly the US is going to have a royal family in charge. Obama becomes king, and his children inherit the throne as the electoral system is abolished to make way for the new monarchy.

If you follow his usual delusional line of reasoning it does actually make perfect sense.

 
Flag Post

You cant stop people from using guns unless you make them not want it. As long as people want them; they will figure out ways (even illegal ways) to obtain them. It’s like prohibition; the people WILL WIN, no matter what you do.
As I said before, unless you can make them to not want it, you can’t stop them. The only way to be 100% sure all people won’t want one is mind-control. Of course, a country who’s government has the power of mind control and employs it on their citizens is not really a democracy. We dont want to become a dictatorship now, do we?
Yes, this may be not people want to hear, but it’s most likely the truth (i dont assume to know everything; and perhaps there is a better answer). Dont complain about this answer cuz “it’s evil” or “It’s wrong cuz I said so”. Plz give good logical reasoning.

 
Flag Post

There has been a lot of concern about executive orders for years. Bill Clinton was a fan of EO’s and the courts struck down many of them.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

You might read a little history of our basic laws and maybe you will understand what EO’s are supposed to be. Of course if you don’t have the patience to read our laws, ignore them. I know how reality bothers those who wish to only see what they want to see.

http://www.lawandliberty.org/above.htm

I will post an excerpt for you. Keep in mind that this article was written when Clinton was president.

“V. What Are The Legitimate Powers of The President?

Having examined what the Constitution says about making the laws that the people must obey, and noting the consistent application of “checks and balances” which operate on the law-making process, we move now to the powers of the President. Alexander Hamilton gave an answer to those who queried what was the true nature of the Presidency. “The administration of government, in its largest sense, comprehends all the operations of the body politic, whether legislative, executive, or judiciary; but in its most usual and perhaps in its most precise signification, it is limited to the executive details, and falls peculiarly within the province of the executive department.” But, even though the Executive branch is the logical, efficient administrator of Public Policy , the office is, nevertheless, subject to the constraints of checks and balances. We may glean the implications without much effort, thankfully, from the direct language of the founders on the subject. For example, although much is made of the president acting as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the truth is that the founders did not envision such control except in the limited circumstances of war. Congress may declare a war after which the President is given command authority. Hamilton said, “The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union.” Remember, the Constitution provides that only Congress may call the militia into active service. The entire scope and breadth of present-day Federal disregard for the Constitution is quite beyond the scope of this paper, but the author’s view, after rather extensive study, is that the “new constitutionalism” is firmly rooted in the New Deal programs of FDR.

Hamilton continues in the Federalist Papers to offer a complete description and explanation of the powers of the Executive as intended by the Constitution. Primarily, the office needs to be shielded from the corrupting influences of both foreign and domestic special interests. “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desires in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” Hamilton may have been looking into a crystal ball for the terrible corruption from which the founders so laboriously endeavored to protect us, has been accomplished in the present day by President William Jefferson Clinton. The most corrupt administration in the history of American politics has become the poster-child for everything that Hamilton envisioned when Americans failed to insist on proper checks and balances in the governing process."

As you can see, the presidents powers are not infinite. This is something democrats don’t seem to be able to understand and it is causing a lot angst among people who love freedom. Obama doesn’t seem to know the constitution and has probably never read it….or he just doesn’t give a damn what it says. Here is an article (two parts) explaining the history of the EO and what it has become.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/236/
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/235/

The EO was never in the Constitution and has been abused over the years.

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

Now, you can read these links and know the truth or you can go on with your BS and ignorance.

 
Flag Post

Thank you Don, I was going to look for them later.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by hangman95:

You cant stop people from using guns unless you make them not want it. As long as people want them; they will figure out ways (even illegal ways) to obtain them. It’s like prohibition; the people WILL WIN, no matter what you do.

No, its not just like prohibition. Just 2 facts complete destroy the idea that it could or would be similar. Fact 1. Guns are not a consumable. Fact 2. Guns are not as easy to produce as alcohol and base production Costs are much higher.
Just these two facts totally screw the economics that were the drive behind the criminal energy used in regards to the smuggling and sale of illegal alcohol during the prohibition.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I don’t expect you to read any of the links as you are one of the most ignorant people on this subject I know of. You are blinded by your prejudice and lack of knowledge of both our constitution and firearms.

And you’re totally not saying that because she isn’t very fond of you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by hangman95:

You cant stop people from using guns unless you make them not want it. As long as people want them; they will figure out ways (even illegal ways) to obtain them. It’s like prohibition; the people WILL WIN, no matter what you do.

No, its not just like prohibition. Just 2 facts complete destroy the idea that it could or would be similar. Fact 1. Guns are not a consumable. Fact 2. Guns are not as easy to produce as alcohol and base production Costs are much higher.
Just these two facts totally screw the economics that were the drive behind the criminal energy used in regards to the smuggling and sale of illegal alcohol during the prohibition.

I’m sorry Johnny, but you are absolutely wrong. Our government can’t even control illegals coming over our boarders. They can’t control the influx of drugs either. What makes you think they will be able to control the demand and influx of firearms? Even England, with their ridiculous firearms laws can’t stop the influx of firearms into their country.

If you think firearms are hard to make, go look at youtube or the link to Home Gunsmith Forum I gave you earlier.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

If you thing firearms are hard to make, go look at youtube or the link to Home Gunsmith Forum I gave you earlier.

He said it was to do harder than alcohol.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I am saying it because it is true.

And I’m sure you’ve convinced yourself of that.

Her knowledge of firearms is on the level of my 3 year old granddaughter.

inb4sheshowsmoreknowledgethanyourgranddaughter

Though, given how you feel towards guns in general, I wouldn’t be too surprised if she’s already learned all major parts of a gun and/or how to clean one.

 
Flag Post

You know, if she, or anyone else, has learned that from me…it would make me happy.

I will pass on a tip for those who have guns. Polish them after cleaning and before oiling on the outside with auto polish like 2000 Washes. You can apply this inside the bore, in the barrel channel, the stock, etc. This will keep the gun from rusting for years or until the next cleaning. This works for knives too.

what does inb4 mean

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:



Now, you can read these links and know the truth or you can go on with your BS and ignorance.

I don´t know who you think your talking but the one sprouting Bullshit about EO’s, the Constitution and Congress on the last dozen or so Pages has been you.

Obama doesn’t seem to know the constitution and has probably never read it….or he just doesn’t give a damn what it says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#University_of_Chicago_Law_School_and_civil_rights_attorney

Fact is Obama has probably forgotten more about the constitution than you will ever know about it. Especially since all your sources feed you with false information, sometimes intentionally other times because you lack ability to understand the difference between Anecdotes/Opinions about the history of the constitution and the constitution itself. For example your touting around the Federalist Papers and other writings about the Constitution as if they were the constitution itself, leading to serious confusing on your behalf what is and what is not Part of the Constitution.
To fucking spell it out for an idiot: It does not fucking matter what Hamilton or anyone else wrote about what the Constitution should or should not do, its what was actually written into the constitution what matters. You can wank off all you want when you find some founding Father or the other expressing similar political views as yourself about the constitution, it does not effect the constitution in anyway. Because reading the actual fucking Constitution, the guy either was lying or did not get what he wanted(which is the most likely case, since the founding Fathers actually held to various political beliefs about the constitution and the result was a compromise).
For example pointing out that Father of the Constitution X thought it was okay for the People to violently over-through their government, does not make it a constitutional right.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

what does inb4 mean

It stands for “In before” and is used when you think something is likely to happen.

 
Flag Post

Thanks Tenco.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by tenco1:

Seriously, why do you keep clinging to the laughably weak claim that making executive orders makes one a “king”?

It fits in with the other claims he often makes, talking about how the current US government is trying to turn the US into a clone of the UK. The UK has a royal family, so clearly the US is going to have a royal family in charge. Obama becomes king, and his children inherit the throne as the electoral system is abolished to make way for the new monarchy.

If you follow his usual delusional line of reasoning it does actually make perfect sense.

I have a burning desire to know what jake would say about EO’s were a Pres. to issue one that establishes much greater RESTRITIONS on not only Gay marriage, BUT most all OPENLY Gay representations. This could even go so far as to eliminate all such references in TV & movie dramas?

How would he feel about EO’s were a Pres. to issue one that establishes a near-COMPLETE ban on abortions?

How would he feel about EO’s were a Pres. to issue one that makes ANY “desecration” of the American Flag a crime?

Yes, jake most certainly DOES APPEAR TO HAVE some hugely paranoid delusions about the power//fallout of EO’s.
EVEN AFTER I have shown him that Congress can rescend them by a 2/3’s vote….the same as overriding a Presidential veto. THE SAME AS. THE SAME AS….meaning that Congress IS STILL IN CONTROL, should it have a rational MAJORITY.

Yet, he opts to arrogantly IGNORE such information that totally deflates his position that EO’s are now making Obama a KING.
Well, fuck….I kinda like that anyway: King Obama
Just kidding.
I’m NOT all that much a fan of the politician Obama.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

OMG! You are really going with Wikipedia? Is this supposed to show me how intelligent Obama is?

Says the person who often relies on YouTube as sources.

Yes, I’m going there.

Ok, let’s say he is a scholar on the constitution. That means he is ignoring the document and dismissing the rule of law.

By using a part of it to run the country. Right.

Are you trying to tell me the founding fathers didn’t know what they put in the constitution?

No, he was saying that the founding fathers didn’t get everything they may have wanted into it.

Really? And you are suggesting I shouldn’t put any stock into what they say about the document they wrote?

Not act like it’s part of the document, no.

Wow! I guess you are too blinded by your own prejudices.

Slightly better that reading what isn’t written.

 
Flag Post

I’m kind of surprised Johnny is up, usually it’s you and I at this time of night.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I’m kind of surprised Johnny is up, usually it’s you and I at this time of night.

Well I’m pretty sure he lives in Germany, so I think it’s late/early enough for him to be awake.

 
Flag Post

I just can’t believe you went there!

Tenco, according to our constitution, it is not the presidents job to run the country. He is an administrator of government and the states run themselves. This is not a new thing as it started with FDR. Our country has had a problem since FDR, but it is accelerating under Obama. Each state is an independent entity and each state is supposed to control within it’s borders. Federal government has taken a lot of these powers from the states.

I think the founding fathers did get everything in the constitution that was agreed upon by all of the members of that first constitutional convention. The bill of rights were left out because they figured the rights of the people would be protected by their constitution, but were later added because of the kickback from the state representatives, but you know this.

I find it so odd, and a bit disturbing that so many people from other countries are so worried about our country and it’s laws and culture. You knew some of the courts were using foreign law in some of their decisions but I believe the supreme court put a stop to that. Not for sure on that as it may be the states doing that.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Karma! You are up too? I am not a fan of EO’s, no matter who or what party issues them. I feel it is usurping the presidential role and bypassing Congress.