PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Executive Orders re New Gun Control


jdberger
07-11-2011, 12:20 PM
From the Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-control-regulations-exclusive.html):

Administration officials told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that starting as early as next week, Obama will begin a series of changes designed to tighten regulations and penalties under current laws—bypassing a fight in Congress with the pro-gun National Rifle Association in the process.

Here's the content of the Executive Orders:

A national electronic system designed to make background checks for handgun buyers simpler and faster, leaving an electronic paper trail under a law named for Ronald Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt.

A new reporting requirement that federally licensed gun shops report any person who tries to buy two long-arm weapons near the Mexican border over a five-day period.

Tougher sentencing guidelines for straw buyers that Holder’s department pushed through procedural hoops at the U.S. Sentencing Commission earlier this year.

PaperPuncher
07-11-2011, 12:27 PM
Ok, I'll say it, I am pleasantly surprised. I am still weary that there might be more but this is not as bad as I expected, still not getting my vote though :)

Maybe I can even go as far as to say this is pretty good.

MolonLabe2008
07-11-2011, 12:27 PM
A new reporting requirement that federally licensed gun shops report any person who tries to buy two long-arm weapons near the Mexican border over a five-day period.

Law abiding citizens buying multiple stripped lowers (or multiple complete long-arms) are going to be reported? WTF?

Tougher sentencing guidelines for straw buyers that Holder’s department pushed through procedural hoops at the U.S. Sentencing Commission earlier this year.

"Straw buyers?"

Weren't the BATF "straw buyers" in the "Fast and Furious" operation.

My sig says it all.

BlindRacer
07-11-2011, 12:29 PM
Hmm. 2 long arms in 5 days? So a dad that buys himself and his kid a 10/22 each to go have some fun, is now going to be under the eye of the feds? Great...

RRangel
07-11-2011, 12:30 PM
Law abiding citizens buying multiple stripped lowers (or multiple complete long-arms) are going to be reported? WTF?



So, is Holder going to sentence himself?

My sig says it all.

Oh, the irony.

RRangel
07-11-2011, 12:31 PM
Hmm. 2 long arms in 5 days? So a dad that buys himself and his kid a 10/22 each to go have some fun, is now going to be under the eye of the feds? Great...

Yes, that's what "sensible laws" are all about. Gun running is fine too, as long as it's government sanctioned. It's as if the real culprits to these gun banning elitists are the pro gun population.

Bhobbs
07-11-2011, 12:33 PM
Law abiding citizens buying multiple stripped lowers (or multiple complete long-arms) are going to be reported? WTF?



"Straw buyers?"

Weren't the BATF "straw buyers" in the "Fast and Furious" operation.

My sig says it all.

Stripped lowers are not long arms. That's why under 21 cannot buy them.

cdtx2001
07-11-2011, 12:35 PM
A new reporting requirement that federally licensed gun shops report any person who tries to buy two long-arm weapons near the Mexican border over a five-day period.

So how near is "near the Mexican border" going to be? Is Minot North Dakota too close to Mexico? In the relative scheme of things, Minot is nearer to Mexico than Hawaii is.

Droc101
07-11-2011, 12:37 PM
can this be passed without a general population vote? or does it go straight to congress?

blazeaglory
07-11-2011, 12:39 PM
can this be passed without a general population vote? or does it go straight to congress?


Its an Executive Order. Im pretty sure it takes effect immediately once written. It bypasses congress but can be repealed with a 2/3 vote I think.

This seems deceptively non restrictive. If this is all there is to it, Ill be happy. But what is "close" to the Mexican border? I live in SO CAL. Is that close?

G60
07-11-2011, 12:40 PM
Long gun reporting requirement = not cool.

Will the 'near Mexican border' clause make that sections something that can be defeated?

BlackRain17
07-11-2011, 12:41 PM
Law abiding citizens buying multiple stripped lowers (or multiple complete long-arms) are going to be reported? WTF?



"Straw buyers?"

Weren't the BATF "straw buyers" in the "Fast and Furious" operation.

My sig says it all.

This hypocrite and his administration's gotta go!!!!

Helpful_Cub
07-11-2011, 12:42 PM
can this be passed without a general population vote? or does it go straight to congress?

Executive Order doesn't involve Congress. Its like the boss of a company telling the jailor that he will do his job a little differently. He can Order it without going in front of the Board that controls the company. In this case he can have the ATF or the FBI do things differently.

blazeaglory
07-11-2011, 12:45 PM
Long gun reporting requirement = not cool.

Will the 'near Mexican border' clause make that sections something that can be defeated?


Seriously! I mean, it wasn't the little guys that were running the guns it was the government! And they want to report the citizens? The government is so hypocritical and idiotic that it bewilders my mind!

BigDogatPlay
07-11-2011, 12:47 PM
This is a problem....

... leaving an electronic paper trail...

Hopefully the NRA, and other pro-rights organizations, will remind the administration that the federal government is forbidden from keeping or maintaining any database or permanent record of transfers.

It's in FOPA, as well as in the legislation that established NICS, and they surely could look it up.

ETA: Read the Helmke quote in the linked article. He is clearly talking about the "gun show loophole", even though he's not using those words. I'm suspecting more and more that buried within proposed EOs is a requirement that all transfers be run through NICS nationwide, as all are now in California.

tiki
07-11-2011, 12:51 PM
Yawn.

johnthomas
07-11-2011, 1:02 PM
Folks, a thief starts off small, candy, cigs, computers, you get the gist. The comments I hear are, It isn't bad, is that all? We don't live near the border, won't affect me. It starts of small and grows. Any gun control is still gun control.

oldrifle
07-11-2011, 1:05 PM
I just heard on the radio if you buy more than one high power long gun at a time in the state of California (not just on the border, but anywhere in the state) it will be reported to the federal government. Well, I recently purchased several AR receivers at once (I like to buy in bulk)... I guess I would have been reported for purchasing multiple high power rifles under this new rule?

RRangel
07-11-2011, 1:13 PM
I just heard on the radio if you buy more than one high power long gun at a time in the state of California (not just on the border, but anywhere in the state) it will be reported to the federal government. Well, I recently purchased several AR receivers at once (I like to buy in bulk)... I guess I would have been reported for purchasing multiple high power rifles under this new rule?

It's doubtful and if so it would be illegal. Congress has only authorized the BATFE to require multiple handgun reporting. Long arms were specifically left alone. The commotion is about something that hasn't happened yet.

Though you can bet that if the whistle wasn't blown on Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration would be using concocted trace data, to attempt to push executive orders anyhow.

MolonLabe2008
07-11-2011, 1:14 PM
"Reporting" produces "Records." "Records" are stored in "Databases."

Well, the Obama administration is going to get what they wanted, a database of gun owners.

And there are already post saying 'Oh, this is not as bad as I thought it would be.'

Seriously folks?

Impeach Obama Now!

GaryV
07-11-2011, 1:15 PM
How can he legally create an "electronic paper trail" with the background check system? The Brady Bill, which created the NICS system, requires that all records of checks and information from those records be destroyed within 20 days, unless the sale was illegal. And FOPA makes any collection of such information in a federal database illegal. Since these are actual laws, passed by congress, how could an executive order require the creating of an "electronic paper trail" based on instant background checks?

Paul S
07-11-2011, 1:16 PM
While the supposed Executive Orders do not seem overly onerous it is the camel's nose in the tent. Incremental peripheral nibbling at 2nd amendment issues. When these work why not issue a few more that tighten things a little more.
And the philosophy of the anti-gun purists remains...legislate against the law abiding..ignore the criminals such as those involved in the fast and furious debacle.

frankm
07-11-2011, 1:17 PM
He's a socialist. What do you expect? If he could become Chancellor and suspend Congress, he would do it.

choprzrul
07-11-2011, 1:17 PM
Alan Gura was just on Fox News on a segment about this. He said, to the effect, "Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces, not commander in chief of the country." And he went on about how the 'rules' he comes up with have to be grounded in law, otherwise it will be unconstitutional.

Gura: 2x winner of the coveted USSC decision.

Obama: not so much....


My money is on Gura.

.

RRangel
07-11-2011, 1:20 PM
While the supposed Executive Orders do not seem overly onerous it is the camel's nose in the tent. Incremental peripheral nibbling at 2nd amendment issues. When these work why not issue a few more that tighten things a little more.
And the philosophy of the anti-gun purists remains...legislate against the law abiding..ignore the criminals such as those involved in the fast and furious debacle.

I would say they are downright "overly onerous," with no hesitation. What president does this? One who does not respect the rights of American citizens.

oldrifle
07-11-2011, 1:20 PM
^^^^ +9000 on that one, choprzrul

frankm
07-11-2011, 1:22 PM
Run out and buy your lowers now.

wash
07-11-2011, 1:37 PM
This is a problem....



Hopefully the NRA, and other pro-rights organizations, will remind the administration that the federal government is forbidden from keeping or maintaining any database or permanent record of transfers.

It's in FOPA, as well as in the legislation that established NICS, and they surely could look it up.

ETA: Read the Helmke quote in the linked article. He is clearly talking about the "gun show loophole", even though he's not using those words. I'm suspecting more and more that buried within proposed EOs is a requirement that all transfers be run through NICS nationwide, as all are now in California.
If FOPA can stop this, we have to measure our response.

Yelling about long gun registration will make us sound like tinfoil hat people to the majority of America who does not generally buy two "high power rifles" near the Mexican border in five days.

If we know how we can kill this, I think a good direction to take is that this is "One more illegal policy from the president." and just leave it like that.

Stonewalker
07-11-2011, 1:37 PM
For those that don't think records of gun ownership is dangerous, you should watch this clip by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.

The gist is
(1) One government in Germany (pre-nazi) enacted a gun registry in 1928
(2) Completely new nazi government inherits that registry.
(3) Nazis use the registry to disarm anybody they don't like.

Things could be very different in 10 or 20 years. What if the SCOTUS gets loaded with anti gunners in the next few election cycles and they override Heller and McDonald? Registration should OFF THE TABLE for anybody who cares about rights.

BNL9poKtFsE

putput
07-11-2011, 1:44 PM
+10

If FOPA can stop this, we have to measure our response.

Yelling about long gun registration will make us sound like tinfoil hat people to the majority of America who does not generally buy two "high power rifles" near the Mexican border in five days.

If we know how we can kill this, I think a good direction to take is that this is "One more illegal policy from the president." and just leave it like that.

SgtDinosaur
07-11-2011, 3:09 PM
In my opinion the line is already drawn in the sand. Any further infringment of our rights is unacceptable, no matter how innocuous. I want to see some of these laws and regulations go away; not increase.

cmaynes
07-11-2011, 3:21 PM
It sure seems to me the Republican, and even blue dog Democrats would be in protest with this- actually, I would hold more hope on Harry Reid and the Blue Dogs doing anything than the Dxxxxxx-bag Republicans....

Harry Reid knows the score on gun rights- he knows it VERY well- letters to his office would be a very good idea....

GrayWolf09
07-11-2011, 3:22 PM
How can he legally create an "electronic paper trail" with the background check system? The Brady Bill, which created the NICS system, requires that all records of checks and information from those records be destroyed within 20 days, unless the sale was illegal. And FOPA makes any collection of such information in a federal database illegal. Since these are actual laws, passed by congress, how could an executive order require the creating of an "electronic paper trail" based on instant background checks?

To the extent that an Executive Order conflicts with established law it would not be valid. I certainly hope that is the case here.

craneman
07-11-2011, 3:24 PM
Not one inch!!!

dad
07-11-2011, 3:26 PM
For those that don't think records of gun ownership is dangerous, you should watch this clip by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.

The gist is
(1) One government in Germany (pre-nazi) enacted a gun registry in 1928
(2) Completely new nazi government inherits that registry.
(3) Nazis use the registry to disarm anybody they don't like.

Things could be very different in 10 or 20 years. What if the SCOTUS gets loaded with anti gunners in the next few election cycles and they override Heller and McDonald? Registration should OFF THE TABLE for anybody who cares about rights.

BNL9poKtFsE

"The lessons of history have not been learned".....those are some words to remember and really think about!

rodeoflyer
07-11-2011, 3:30 PM
unfrigginbelievable.

choprzrul
07-11-2011, 3:36 PM
"The lessons of history have not been learned".....those are some words to remember and really think about!


Kristallnacht ??

.

scarville
07-11-2011, 3:38 PM
So how near is "near the Mexican border" going to be? Is Minot North Dakota too close to Mexico? In the relative scheme of things, Minot is nearer to Mexico than Hawaii is.
IIRC the ICE can set up their checkpoints within 100 miles of the border. If these EO's stands up then I expect the limit will be a least that far.

Trailboss60
07-11-2011, 3:42 PM
Maybe I can even go as far as to say this is pretty good.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7bdM08NgIpg/TP6Gr0HkDQI/AAAAAAAAAhc/ZfUD_95hMmc/s320/whiskey-tango-foxtrot.jpg
That sounds like a pretty sheepheaded comment...screw this BS!

I say that is bull****...this chump is acting as if there is some type of gun-emergency that is driving him to enact a presidential directive...as far as I know, no president has ever done such a thing regarding guns.
And since when do the laws pertain to border states only? Aren't the laws suppose to apply to all Americans equally? Are we now responsible for security of another sovereign nation, even though Obama's henchmen are responsible for the gunrunning?

I hope the story is true....drive more people from the Democrat party and kick his sorry *** out of office.

Chatterbox
07-11-2011, 4:12 PM
Near the Border = California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJlqnAJ7LbV3pdTi10P61FRJR6Jg?docId=7c5bb9a31 fd34a24babb807a4efbc5bd

BigDogatPlay
07-11-2011, 4:20 PM
If FOPA can stop this, we have to measure our response.

Yelling about long gun registration will make us sound like tinfoil hat people to the majority of America who does not generally buy two "high power rifles" near the Mexican border in five days.

If we know how we can kill this, I think a good direction to take is that this is "One more illegal policy from the president." and just leave it like that.

Agreed.... see here for a thumbnail on FOPA from NRA. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=447&issue=28) Emphasis is mine.

FOPA also expanded licensees’ rights to appeal a revocation, allowed dealer sales of long arms to nonresidents if the sale complied with both states’ laws, allowed recovery of attorneys’ fees in any prosecution that was meant to harass or abuse, limited government powers to require reports from dealers and forbade creation of certain gun databases.

And here's a tidbit on NICS (http://www.gunlaws.com/dojrule.htm) that the administration just may be overlooking.....

The FBI will not establish a federal firearms registry. The FBI is expressly barred from doing so by section 103(i) of the Brady Act.

The Bureau can keep audit logs for a short period of time. No permanent record of NICS... by act of Congress. The President can not whick that away with the stroke of his pen. If he EOs that some other agency in some other branch, not specifically mentioned in the Brady Act, keeps those records, the Congress can act pretty quickly to smack that down since the legislative intent was pretty clear at the time.

dad
07-11-2011, 4:21 PM
Kristallnacht ??

.

All of it, everything! That whole time period when the Nazis had control. The Rabbi saying, "The lessons of history have not been learned".....I interpret as, registration, then confiscation!

KWB977
07-11-2011, 4:26 PM
"A new reporting requirement that federally licensed gun shops report any person who tries to buy two long-arm weapons near the Mexican border over a five-day period."

Pointless, they will just go to another state......

wash
07-11-2011, 4:42 PM
What if border FFLs required a two gun minimum?

Flooding them might be fun.

proclone1
07-11-2011, 4:47 PM
I can't wait for the heavy election campaigning when [worthwhile] candidates from ANY party point to Obama and say "When unemployment was climbing back up and the recovery looked like it was doomed, your focus was on trying to restrict law abiding gun ownership."

I had reserved my judgements on BHO for a long time, but this is just criminally stupid what he's doing, what an absolute clown. Shame on american idol america for voting him in.

Shellshocker66
07-11-2011, 4:50 PM
"A new reporting requirement that federally licensed gun shops report any person who tries to buy two long-arm weapons near the Mexican border over a five-day period."

I would like a definition on what is close to the Mexican border? Technically would that be one day of driving close or more like 50 miles?

Somehow I think like Chatterbox posted its going to be the border states. Lucky us more gun laws in this state!

otalps
07-11-2011, 5:32 PM
I would like a definition on what is close to the Mexican border? Technically would that be one day of driving close or more like 50 miles?


In obama speak, I'd imagine Ottawa is pretty close to the Mexican border.

PsychGuy274
07-11-2011, 5:33 PM
Law abiding citizens buying multiple stripped lowers (or multiple complete long-arms) are going to be reported? WTF?


Aren't stripped lowers marked as "other" instead of "long gun" on a Form 4473? Would it then not be a problem?

IntoForever
07-11-2011, 5:49 PM
Hmm. 2 long arms in 5 days? So a dad that buys himself and his kid a 10/22 each to go have some fun, is now going to be under the eye of the feds? Great...

I see more tax dollars being wasted on this. Just what we need, more waste from a waste. It's the boiling frog theory on a much larger scale. Chisel away our rights and freedoms. Not like the elite care, they'll be long gone when OUR Country collapses. :mad:

stitchnicklas
07-11-2011, 6:01 PM
While the supposed Executive Orders do not seem overly onerous it is the camel's nose in the tent. Incremental peripheral nibbling at 2nd amendment issues. When these work why not issue a few more that tighten things a little more.
And the philosophy of the anti-gun purists remains...legislate against the law abiding..ignore the criminals such as those involved in the fast and furious debacle.

SO OBAMA JUST BROKE FEDERAL LAWS..???

time to write those impeachment papers up...

IGOTDIRT4U
07-11-2011, 6:02 PM
This is a problem....



Hopefully the NRA, and other pro-rights organizations, will remind the administration that the federal government is forbidden from keeping or maintaining any database or permanent record of transfers.

It's in FOPA, as well as in the legislation that established NICS, and they surely could look it up.

ETA: Read the Helmke quote in the linked article. He is clearly talking about the "gun show loophole", even though he's not using those words. I'm suspecting more and more that buried within proposed EOs is a requirement that all transfers be run through NICS nationwide, as all are now in California.

Alan Gura was on Fox News today around the noon hour and he was hot and ready to take this on. Basically, he said the president has NO power to create anything that resembles a law over an enumerated right, that's the job of congress.

anthonyca
07-11-2011, 6:39 PM
When the government or a politician breaks the law, nothing happens.

Trailboss60
07-11-2011, 8:50 PM
Agreed.... see here for a thumbnail on FOPA from NRA. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=447&issue=28) Emphasis is mine.



And here's a tidbit on NICS (http://www.gunlaws.com/dojrule.htm) that the administration just may be overlooking.....



The Bureau can keep audit logs for a short period of time. No permanent record of NICS... by act of Congress. The President can not whick that away with the stroke of his pen. If he EOs that some other agency in some other branch, not specifically mentioned in the Brady Act, keeps those records, the Congress can act pretty quickly to smack that down since the legislative intent was pretty clear at the time.


That should initiate an immediate injunction against the Obama gun control act of 2011...

FOPA;


No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

snowdog650
07-11-2011, 9:14 PM
Near the Border = California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJlqnAJ7LbV3pdTi10P61FRJR6Jg?docId=7c5bb9a31 fd34a24babb807a4efbc5bd

Well, there you have it. All you folks who have been waiting for Texas to secede from the Union ... start popping the popcorn.

VegasND
07-11-2011, 9:17 PM
You guys keep saying "tries to buy 2 or more"

Here in Nevada where the government extorts $25 for the brady check many of us buy multiple firearms to lessen our cost per firearm. The feds have drawers full of the multiple handgun purchase forms on folks like us -- why will the long gun crap make any difference to us?

Inch by Inch - that's the plan to get as much as possible. Along with hoping it'll look like he's actually doing something to please his supporters.

blazeaglory
07-11-2011, 9:42 PM
And what happens when that person moves to different address with all their guns? A little old lady moves in. When the time comes the government kicks down the door thinking to get you and your guns but only gives granny a heart attack...

snowdog650
07-11-2011, 10:01 PM
And what happens when that person moves to different address with all their guns? A little old lady moves in. When the time comes the government kicks down the door thinking to get you and your guns but only gives granny a heart attack...

That's just one of those "common sense" tactical operations to support and enforce those "common sense" gun laws.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

trashman
07-11-2011, 10:11 PM
I caught the news segment on the Executive Orders in the airport this evening; my first reaction was "if that's all they've got, then....ok...."

The feds have drawers full of the multiple handgun purchase forms on folks like us -- why will the long gun crap make any difference to us?


This ^^.

Although I'm opposed to any permanent database or registry of gun ownership, the Feds have never demonstrated that information management is a core competency.

Hell, California apparently can't even do a good job with their own state-sized registry...

--Neill

black_pacer_56
07-11-2011, 10:59 PM
I guess that this law does not apply to (K)alifornia since we are controlled and only can buy one gun per month! Lol!

nhattran_1528
07-11-2011, 11:14 PM
One per month only applies to new handgun purchases not long guns (correct me if im wrong) the executive order only applies to semi-auto with detatchable magazines with a caliber greater than .22

Maestro Pistolero
07-11-2011, 11:50 PM
Tougher sentencing guidelines forstraw buyersthat Holder’s department pushed through procedural hoops at the U.S. Sentencing Commission earlier this year.I'm good with it, as long as we try out these new guidelines on the supervisors who facilitated gunwalker first..

blazeaglory
07-11-2011, 11:51 PM
Ha I wish. Fair is fair right?

Why do they always think more regulation will solve the problem?

winxp_man
07-12-2011, 12:44 AM
"The lessons of history have not been learned".....those are some words to remember and really think about!



+1 People will now fall for every kind of law that seems like it will do some good. I DONT WANT THE MOTHER FU*|(ing GOVERNMENT HAVING ME ON ANY LIST PERIOD! This is all sugar coated pure and I mean 100% pure bull****! The fu@%KED up government screwed up and now the citizens pay FU%@K THAT ****! When will people learn from history that the government is not for the people anymore. Like Abe Lincoln said HE IS SCARED OF WHAT IS TO COME IN THIS NATION!!!

Trailboss60
07-12-2011, 7:04 AM
From JDberger's post;

UPDATE: The Justice Department announced Monday afternoon the program that would require gun vendors in states that border Mexico – California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – to report multiple purchases of high powered rifles within a five day period. The program will be administered by ATF.

In response, Rep. Darrell Issa called the new policy a “political maneuver” in a statement. “It’s disconcerting that Justice Department officials who may have known about or tried to cover-up gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious are continuing attempts to distract attention from clear wrongdoing,” Issa said.

Every Calguns person member should call Issa"s office and thank him for his dogged determination to see justice prevail, I can assure you that he is receiving some retaliation from the administration using backdoor methods...Chicago political thuggery works that way.

Washington DC Office • 2347 Rayburn House Office Building • Washington, DC 20515 • Phone: 202-225-3906 • Fax: 202-225-3303

California District Office • 1800 Thibodo Road, #310 • Vista, CA 92081 • Phone: 760-599-5000 • Fax: 760-599-1178


On it's very face, as others have said, if multiple purchases are really a problem, the buyers would move further north.
Yreka Ca. is geographically just south of Chicago...insert dufus emoticon

Now that the governments gun running scheme has been exposed Obama could claim that due to this new mandate, he has stopped the "river of guns" from flowing south, and we need to expand the directive to include all of the states.:rolleyes:

wazdat
07-12-2011, 7:08 AM
Alan Gura mentioned in Fox News article;

Attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued two recent Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, vowed to give intense scrutiny to any new initiative the president puts forward.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/11/gun-rights-advocates-wary-coming-obama-measures-in-wake-tucson-shooting/#ixzz1RtrC6yzr

Want some?!?

Get some!!!

PaperPuncher
07-12-2011, 8:14 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7bdM08NgIpg/TP6Gr0HkDQI/AAAAAAAAAhc/ZfUD_95hMmc/s320/whiskey-tango-foxtrot.jpg
That sounds like a pretty sheepheaded comment...screw this BS!

I say that is bull****...this chump is acting as if there is some type of gun-emergency that is driving him to enact a presidential directive...as far as I know, no president has ever done such a thing regarding guns.
And since when do the laws pertain to border states only? Aren't the laws suppose to apply to all Americans equally? Are we now responsible for security of another sovereign nation, even though Obama's henchmen are responsible for the gunrunning?

I hope the story is true....drive more people from the Democrat party and kick his sorry *** out of office.

Well, I was trying to look at it from a different perspective but it seems no matter what was going to come of this I was supposed to be ready to attack it and since I was not I guess that makes me sheepheaded for not seeing it the same as the rest of the crowd on this side of the fence.

Considering where this came from and the recent events that have been used to try to shape these new measures we lucked out this time. How much further could we have been set back?

New assault weapon ban, standard cap mag ban, further restriction on carry, etc. and what we got was tougher sentencing for people who break the law, a possible opportunity to get handguns in our hands faster, and a, albeit, poor attempt to manage firearms sales that may be headed across the boarder. Two of those items seem to be things we have all asked for at some point or another.

As far as guns going into Mexico illegally, I know the ATF screwed the pooch but I can also come to terms with the fact that they are not responsible for every single firearm that has done so. Anyone who believes otherwise could possibly labeled as I was by you.

Maybe I have misinterpreted the whole thing, maybe this is the end of gun ownership as we all know it, and maybe the sky is falling. I for one am happy to be working from this current position considering where we would have been if any of the other restrictions that were likely to be in these executive orders actually came to fruition. No matter how much you want to piss and moan about what is in these executive orders they were coming and there was nothing you could have done to stop it. As far as I am concerned this is a victory.

I get the "not on inch" argument but you have to remember that the other side only sees our side asking for miles (rightfully so) however SCOTUS is on board with reasonable restrictions. That should tell you that there will be no 100% victory for people who believe any restriction is unreasonable. Are these executive orders reasonable? I don't know. We can't know until we see the effect. At some point people are going to have to see eye to eye and find common ground. The only way to do that is to take a step back, realize there are two sides to every coin, and make an attempt to see them both. If we can't do that why would you think anyone would take the time to see our side of it?

Wernher von Browning
07-12-2011, 9:41 AM
And what happens when that person moves to different address with all their guns? A little old lady moves in. When the time comes the government kicks down the door thinking to get you and your guns but only gives granny a heart attack...

Why, that would be perfect. That evil Granny was sucking down all those Social Security and Medicare bennies as if she had any right to them. Haven't you been watching the news? The budget crisis is all due to entitlements. Get rid of those, and we all head for a Brave New World where the Mother State takes from each according to his abilities, gives to each according to his needs (and at age 66, it's off to the glue factory for you).

("I don't mooch like the sound of dese 'ere Boncentration Bamps...")

steelrain82
07-12-2011, 9:49 AM
The long arm requirement is for anything over .22 caliber with a detachable magazine. So evil black rifles are exempt here in California since those can't have a detachable mag correct? But hunting rifles with mags are reportable? What about c&r?

jdberger
07-12-2011, 9:57 AM
I say that is bull****...this chump is acting as if there is some type of gun-emergency that is driving him to enact a presidential directive...as far as I know, no president has ever done such a thing regarding guns.

GW Bush enacted a Presidential Order restricting the import of "assault rifles" after Patrick Purdy shot up a school in Stockton. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre) Clinton signed an executive order banning importation of guns and ammo from China in 1994 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf).

Exposed
07-12-2011, 10:03 AM
I see many 80% lowers and bending of flats in my near future. :)

jdberger
07-12-2011, 10:05 AM
I get the "not on inch" argument but you have to remember that the other side only sees our side asking for miles (rightfully so) however SCOTUS is on board with reasonable restrictions. That should tell you that there will be no 100% victory for people who believe any restriction is unreasonable. Are these executive orders reasonable? I don't know. We can't know until we see the effect. At some point people are going to have to see eye to eye and find common ground. The only way to do that is to take a step back, realize there are two sides to every coin, and make an attempt to see them both. If we can't do that why would you think anyone would take the time to see our side of it?

I'm not so sure that you get the "not one inch" comment.

Let's try things this way.

A week ago, Dave reached into your wallet and took $20.
5 days ago, Dave grabbed your wallet and took $17.
3 days ago, Dave took the sandwich out of your hand and ate it.
Yesterday, Dave again took $33 out of your wallet.

Today, you realized that you were broke and demanded that Dave buy you a sandwich and give you back $20 for the rest of the week. Dave responded that he was broke too, and that you should give him $10. When you protested, he suggested $5. When you continued to protest, he accused you of being unwilling to compromise - after all, $5 isn't that much money....

We, and I'm speaking about more than just me here, want our $70 and our flippin' sandwich back.

fabguy
07-12-2011, 10:07 AM
We can't let them have an inch, funny thing is, I was just discussing this with my brother in law ( he lives in Texas ) recently and put up a what if scenario, and he said Obummer couldn't impose an executive order on something like that because our government doesn't work that way, I said to him, it was as easy as a flick of a pen. Then I told him well, what if he makes ammo illegal, then after a few months, your guns are worthless if you can't own ammo, right? Can't wait to forward this link to him. He is young and has faith in our government, what a fool...... I feel bad for the next generation

PaperPuncher
07-12-2011, 10:16 AM
I'm not so sure that you get the "not one inch" comment.

Let's try things this way.

A week ago, Dave reached into your wallet and took $20.
5 days ago, Dave grabbed your wallet and took $17.
3 days ago, Dave took the sandwich out of your hand and ate it.
Yesterday, Dave again took $33 out of your wallet.

Today, you realized that you were broke and demanded that Dave buy you a sandwich and give you back $20 for the rest of the week. Dave responded that he was broke too, and that you should give him $10. When you protested, he suggested $5. When you continued to protest, he accused you of being unwilling to compromise - after all, $5 isn't that much money....

We, and I'm speaking about more than just me here, want our $70 and our flippin' sandwich back.

Did you read in between the ()

(rightfully so)

You do, however, seem to realize that Dave is broke and you are not getting your $70 back in full, in one lump sum payment. Maybe you can offer a payment plan? I can't see how it is more productive to just say "screw it, if I can't have my $70 back I am just gonna whine about it and ignore the fact that I still got my milk and potato chips".

So, can you tell me why you only asked Dave for $20? Seems like you gave him and inch, no?

Not so sure you get the argument.

jdberger
07-12-2011, 10:22 AM
We are offering the payment plan.

Today, we're asking for right to carry in selected states. Later, in the same states, we'll ask for Constitutional Carry. We'll also ask for National Reciprocity on CCW. Dissolution of the state residency requirements for purchase of a firearm, age restrictions to be commensurate with commonly accepted definitions of adulthood, etc.

But we're sure-as-hell not going to get there by buying Dave another f'ing sandwich.

violator22348
07-12-2011, 11:04 AM
You people are absolutely bat-**** insane. You ***** (rightfully, I might add), about the federal gub'mnt not enforcing the border (which they don't), ...you ***** about the illegal drug traffickers shooting farmers in Arizona and murdering people in all the border states (and you would be correct in doing so).....but when somebody (even a dip**** like a Obama can be right once in while) orders two long guns between a Monday and a Friday not allowable.....your head explodes in a spray of boogey-man mania. If Bush had passed these identical laws, you'd all be saying" finally, someones doing something about those illegals murdering us on the border---good job"

Jesus-H...give the Moron-in-chief a grain a of credit for at least trying stop those of us in border states from being shot by MS-13....

PaperPuncher
07-12-2011, 11:28 AM
We are offering the payment plan.

Today, we're asking for right to carry in selected states. Later, in the same states, we'll ask for Constitutional Carry. We'll also ask for National Reciprocity on CCW. Dissolution of the state residency requirements for purchase of a firearm, age restrictions to be commensurate with commonly accepted definitions of adulthood, etc.

But we're sure-as-hell not going to get there by buying Dave another f'ing sandwich.

No need to start dropping f-bombs. The point I am trying to make is that Dave is taking the sandwich via executive order, he could have tried and it would not have been a surprise if Dave tried to shut down the cafeteria. See it for what it is and move forward. Now we know Dave's plan and it is not even 1/10th as bad as one could have imagined and this gives us insight on how to best move our pieces across the board. So instead of trying to argue amongst ourselves something so trivial as me pointing out that this could have been worse maybe we just take it with a grain of salt and work on moving those things you mention above forward.

jdberger
07-12-2011, 11:30 AM
You people are absolutely bat-**** insane. You ***** (rightfully, I might add), about the federal gub'mnt not enforcing the border (which they don't), ...you ***** about the illegal drug traffickers shooting farmers in Arizona and murdering people in all the border states (and you would be correct in doing so).....but when somebody (even a dip**** like a Obama can be right once in while) orders two long guns between a Monday and a Friday not allowable.....your head explodes in a spray of boogey-man mania. If Bush had passed these identical laws, you'd all be saying" finally, someones doing something about those illegals murdering us on the border---good job"

Jesus-H...give the Moron-in-chief a grain a of credit for at least trying stop those of us in border states from being shot by MS-13....

Sorry, Sugar - but I fail to understand how scribbling down the name of a person who buys a couple of AKs within a week is going to deter the enforcers of a billion dollar smuggling operation who are able to build submarines in the jungle.

It's like limiting folks to one fork per household to deter obesity. - Or maybe requiring folks to fill out federal forms for Pop-Tarts.

IrishPirate
07-12-2011, 11:38 AM
so are people who live in Weed, CA going to be reported for buying 2+ long guns in 5 days? Las Vegas is closer to the boarder than Roseville, and they sell way cooler guns. I think this is crap and it creates a seperate class of citizen by saying "we're watching you guys closer than the other people just because of where you live".

i hope CGF, NRA, et al find something about this that they can fight.

otalps
07-12-2011, 11:46 AM
You people are absolutely bat-**** insane. You ***** (rightfully, I might add), about the federal gub'mnt not enforcing the border (which they don't), ...you ***** about the illegal drug traffickers shooting farmers in Arizona and murdering people in all the border states (and you would be correct in doing so).....but when somebody (even a dip**** like a Obama can be right once in while) orders two long guns between a Monday and a Friday not allowable.....your head explodes in a spray of boogey-man mania. If Bush had passed these identical laws, you'd all be saying" finally, someones doing something about those illegals murdering us on the border---good job"

Jesus-H...give the Moron-in-chief a grain a of credit for at least trying stop those of us in border states from being shot by MS-13....

Ummm, how about NO.:rolleyes:

1BigPea
07-12-2011, 11:57 AM
This is a move to get the gun control nuts back on his side and a terrible waste of tax payer money if implemented. Oh but wait, he's great at spending and wasting our tax dollars.

Yugo
07-12-2011, 12:01 PM
You people are absolutely bat-**** insane. You ***** (rightfully, I might add), about the federal gub'mnt not enforcing the border (which they don't), ...you ***** about the illegal drug traffickers shooting farmers in Arizona and murdering people in all the border states (and you would be correct in doing so).....but when somebody (even a dip**** like a Obama can be right once in while) orders two long guns between a Monday and a Friday not allowable.....your head explodes in a spray of boogey-man mania. If Bush had passed these identical laws, you'd all be saying" finally, someones doing something about those illegals murdering us on the border---good job"

Jesus-H...give the Moron-in-chief a grain a of credit for at least trying stop those of us in border states from being shot by MS-13....

:ban::troll::dots:

thenodnarb
07-12-2011, 12:05 PM
You people are absolutely bat-**** insane. You ***** (rightfully, I might add), about the federal gub'mnt not enforcing the border (which they don't), ...you ***** about the illegal drug traffickers shooting farmers in Arizona and murdering people in all the border states (and you would be correct in doing so).....but when somebody (even a dip**** like a Obama can be right once in while) orders two long guns between a Monday and a Friday not allowable.....your head explodes in a spray of boogey-man mania. If Bush had passed these identical laws, you'd all be saying" finally, someones doing something about those illegals murdering us on the border---good job"

Jesus-H...give the Moron-in-chief a grain a of credit for at least trying stop those of us in border states from being shot by MS-13....

Dude. Obama practically FUNDED the violence on the border. What makes you think this Executive Order is designed to STOP that violence?

M. D. Van Norman
07-12-2011, 12:09 PM
Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the border. The whole “illegal immigration” business is a diversion.

scarville
07-12-2011, 12:15 PM
We can't let them have an inch
If you give a politician an inch, he thinks that makes him a ruler.

1BigPea
07-12-2011, 12:20 PM
Dude. Obama practically FUNDED the violence on the border. What makes you think this Executive Order is designed to STOP that violence?

This!

ZombieTactics
07-12-2011, 12:24 PM
... Jesus-H...give the Moron-in-chief a grain a of credit for at least trying stop those of us in border states from being shot by MS-13....
This isn't a public school where you get extra credit for trying really hard. There is absolutely nothing in these regulatory changes which does anything about border-state crime.

In case you hadn't noticed ... MS13 really doesn't buy their weaponry in bulk in the U.S. through legal dealerships ... there are to many other places with better prices and fewer "hassles".

This much is obvious to my 14-year-old daughter. It should be even more so to the POTUS.

choprzrul
07-12-2011, 12:33 PM
This isn't a public school where you get extra credit for trying really hard. There is absolutely nothing in these regulatory changes which does anything about border-state crime.

In case you hadn't noticed ... MS13 really doesn't buy their weaponry in bulk in the U.S. through legal dealerships ... there are to many other places with better prices and fewer "hassles".

This much is obvious to my 14-year-old daughter. It should be even more so to the POTUS.

You mean like buying directly from ATF or DOJ ???

.

Wernher von Browning
07-12-2011, 12:37 PM
...my brother in law ... He is young and has faith in our government, what a fool...... I feel bad for the next generation


Like I said, I blame the schools.

It appears that the purpose of schools is to turn out indoctrinated, complacent, compliant groupthinking "citizens" who will respond to the theater that is modern politics, and not ask too many questions.

ddestruel
07-12-2011, 12:40 PM
If you give a politician an inch, he thinks that makes him a ruler.

Yup.

it all stops here and now.


not one more inch is going to be given without a fight and hopefully when we get done we'll be using the yard stick to measure the roll back


There is a big difference between "law abiding" and "criminal" i am tired of being treated like a criminal without ever having done anything wrong. 10 day waiting period, filling out paperwork so they can track my ammo purchases, arbitrarily denying me the right to CCW because my sheriff doesnt believe the general public should carry without a compelling reason, can't own this or that AR because of an "evil feature". my last speeding ticket was 14 years ago shoot i have to tip toe and check to make sure my HG is stored separately from the clip just so i can drive home from the ranch. If i have no criminal history, and have not presented them with reason to believe criminal intent then why the **** should i be putting up with their fishing expeditions that inhibit me from living freely and safely as i see fit.


I have a relative who bought a tommy gun just for the novelty of it back inb the 20's, he had that gun his whole life. he bought it because he was a law abiding citizen, bought an federal stamp and held onto it his whole life. Our company used to sell guns to our customers back in the 60's before 1968 after that it just became a cumbersome and labor intensive process. The costs tacked onto guns today are significantly higher and thus impacted by the layers of cumbersome and unjustifiable bureaucracy and fees.

at one point or another as a gun owner, trader or buyer you have to recognize the encumbering of this process is beyond reasonable and to many of us that happened back in 1968 to others it was before that. But public opinion, the general social acceptance of firearms and the processes to acquire them were slowly over the last centruy brushed off by many as antiquated and unnecessary in our society. to the rest of us every year has been more frustrating as we all knew what freedom was and your perception of what freedom is/was is clouded by many years of being denied true freedom. As a law abiding citizen we have a right to ask, demand to know why we have to sacrifice anything more in the name of "the greater good" the greater good hasnt been doing its job for a long time and now everyone including the SCOTUS and the public all seem to be waking up to that fact especially in regards to the 2nd ammendment. who knows how far the curtains will get pushed back ......it appears that it's going to take awhile for you to see the light

Wernher von Browning
07-12-2011, 12:42 PM
It's like limiting folks to one fork per household to deter obesity. - Or maybe requiring folks to fill out federal forms for Pop-Tarts.

Shut up, Berger!!! She might be reading this and you'll only give her ideas...

Wernher von Browning
07-12-2011, 12:43 PM
If you give a politician an inch, he thinks that makes him a ruler.

Oh, I like that. I think I'll steal it.

dawgcasa
07-12-2011, 12:46 PM
Alan Gura was just on Fox News on a segment about this. He said, to the effect, "Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces, not commander in chief of the country." And he went on about how the 'rules' he comes up with have to be grounded in law, otherwise it will be unconstitutional.

Gura: 2x winner of the coveted USSC decision.

Obama: not so much....


My money is on Gura.

.

And the amazing thing is that Obama was a professor of constitutional law in a prior life. So he's not stupid or uninformed. You know the saying "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"? In Obama's case it's the opposite. He's plenty smart and informed. It really is malice for those that don't share his liberal, socialized view of the world order that drives him to take unilateral actions to his goals. It's ironic when you think about some of his campaign speeches to drive transparency and bipartisanship in government. He's done the exact opposite once he reached his goal of the presidency. It was all a ruse.

Super Spy
07-12-2011, 12:58 PM
1 and 3 I don't see having any impact, and I'm in favor of an instant background check that would keep prohibited persons from buying firearms anyways. #2 seems a bit more onerous if you live within that zone, buying more than one rifle per DROS just means wasting less money supporting this stupid nanny state so I'm against that. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about buying guns one at a time.

ddestruel
07-12-2011, 1:13 PM
1 and 3 I don't see having any impact, and I'm in favor of an instant background check that would keep prohibited persons from buying firearms anyways. #2 seems a bit more onerous if you live within that zone, buying more than one rifle per DROS just means wasting less money supporting this stupid nanny state so I'm against that. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about buying guns one at a time.


I'd love to the the DROS go away and federal instant background check being instituted as applicible and sufficient in all states.

BlackRain17
07-12-2011, 1:21 PM
Like I said, I blame the schools.

It appears that the purpose of schools is to turn out indoctrinated, complacent, compliant groupthinking "citizens" who will respond to the theater that is modern politics, and not ask too many questions.

Why would you blame the schools? Do you really think the educational system in the US failed by accident? Of course not, if our government wanted to improve education, first of all, they would get rid of the teacher's union and its tenure BS. Then actually pay the teachers so that the good potential teachers wouldn't go into other fields that pay more money.

The whole educational system was meant to produce, dumb Americans. Our government do not want majority to be critical thinking citizens where they question the motives of our governments actions. I mean think about it, if everyone knew what our government was up to, "Operation Fast and Furious" for example, would be the headline news and the general public would be talking about impeachments but it's really not happening. Bottom line, majority do not care and our government wants to keep it that way.

HisDivineShadow
07-12-2011, 1:37 PM
Will this reporting requirement be triggered if you buy more than two mag-lock equipped rifles?

For the transaction to be reported you must purchase two longarms in one transaction that are:

A) Semi-automatic
B) Greater than .22 caliber
C) Accepts a detachable magazine

Will the bullet-button exempt them from requirement C?

Wernher von Browning
07-12-2011, 1:53 PM
The whole educational system was meant to produce, dumb Americans. Our government do not want majority to be critical thinking citizens where they question the motives of our governments actions. ...Bottom line, majority do not care and our government wants to keep it that way.

I thought I said that...:)

Trailboss60
07-12-2011, 3:39 PM
Well, I was trying to look at it from a different perspective but it seems no matter what was going to come of this I was supposed to be ready to attack it and since I was not I guess that makes me sheepheaded for not seeing it the same as the rest of the crowd on this side of the fence.

Considering where this came from and the recent events that have been used to try to shape these new measures we lucked out this time. How much further could we have been set back?

New assault weapon ban, standard cap mag ban, further restriction on carry, etc. and what we got was tougher sentencing for people who break the law, a possible opportunity to get handguns in our hands faster, and a, albeit, poor attempt to manage firearms sales that may be headed across the boarder. Two of those items seem to be things we have all asked for at some point or another.

As far as guns going into Mexico illegally, I know the ATF screwed the pooch but I can also come to terms with the fact that they are not responsible for every single firearm that has done so. Anyone who believes otherwise could possibly labeled as I was by you.

Maybe I have misinterpreted the whole thing, maybe this is the end of gun ownership as we all know it, and maybe the sky is falling. I for one am happy to be working from this current position considering where we would have been if any of the other restrictions that were likely to be in these executive orders actually came to fruition. No matter how much you want to piss and moan about what is in these executive orders they were coming and there was nothing you could have done to stop it. As far as I am concerned this is a victory.

I get the "not on inch" argument but you have to remember that the other side only sees our side asking for miles (rightfully so) however SCOTUS is on board with reasonable restrictions. That should tell you that there will be no 100% victory for people who believe any restriction is unreasonable. Are these executive orders reasonable? I don't know. We can't know until we see the effect. At some point people are going to have to see eye to eye and find common ground. The only way to do that is to take a step back, realize there are two sides to every coin, and make an attempt to see them both. If we can't do that why would you think anyone would take the time to see our side of it?



The whole reasoning for this Obama-proclamation is based on a false premise that legal gun owners/ dealers/gun shows are responsible for all of the guns in Mexico. From the start, it was obvious that many of the guns come from south American countries, container ships, and weapons lent to the Mexican military by the U.S. The weapons offered for trace evidence are then selectively culled from the confiscated herd, and voila! 70% of guns are "proven" to come from the U.S. Now in the middle of Holder's gun running scheme, this president supposedly knows nothing about, this arrogant president signals that he is going to play hardball on the gun issue and pass more restrictive gun control measures.
"I'll take my half a loaf" attitude has incrementally gotten us where we are regarding the draconian gun laws that we now have, incrementally he will attempt to muscle them away from us. All of the legitimate polls that I have seen tell me that the populace understands that restrictive gun control measures are not needed nor wanted, it repulses me that in the current political climate that this effort is being made.
The only language that politicians from the Chicago political thuggery club understand, is a swift kick to the nuts..euphemistically speaking of course.

77bawls
07-12-2011, 3:54 PM
Will this reporting requirement be triggered if you buy more than two mag-lock equipped rifles?

For the transaction to be reported you must purchase two longarms in one transaction that are:

A) Semi-automatic
B) Greater than .22 caliber
C) Accepts a detachable magazine

Will the bullet-button exempt them from requirement C?

Now I want a 22-250 semi auto. :(

mdwbbi
07-12-2011, 4:30 PM
For those that think this isn't all that bad, THIS....
The window is slowing expanding to encompass you...

The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public so that the window either “moves” or expands to encompass them. Opponents of current policies, or similar ones currently within the window, likewise seek to convince people that these should be considered unacceptable.

Other formulations of the process created after Overton's death add the concept of moving the window, such as deliberately promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas, with the intention of making the current fringe ideas acceptable by comparison (This might be a form of the “Door-in-the-face technique" of persuasion.).

Librarian
07-12-2011, 5:15 PM
Maybe I missed it in other threads...

CSN News (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/nra-will-sue-obama-administration-over-n) reportsThe National Rifle Association plans to sue the Obama administration over its new gun-reporting requirement in four states bordering Mexico.Did not find it on nraila (http://www.nraila.org/) yet.

Mute
07-12-2011, 7:47 PM
I don't see how the ATF can enforce this without violating equal protection under the law.

GettoPhilosopher
07-12-2011, 8:13 PM
I don't see how the ATF can enforce this without violating equal protection under the law.

Why, the marauding hoards of zombies illegal mexicans roaming the border states, eating brains, raping daughters, spitting on flags, and hating apple pie....duh. :P

oni.dori
07-12-2011, 8:31 PM
So, pretty much almost everything the BAFTE has been conducting "surveys" on lately?


Ok, I'll say it, I am pleasantly surprised. I am still weary that there might be more but this is not as bad as I expected, still not getting my vote though :)

Maybe I can even go as far as to say this is pretty good.

I agree, not AS bad as I was expecting, however anything stating:

...bypassing a fight in Congress...

is unacceptable, and should be illegal (not to mention, pretty much always flags that it borderline IS), as it circumvents all Constitutionally implemented laws and processes designed specifically to prevent gross abuses of power like this. He should be impeached automatcially for this alone.

Skidmark
07-12-2011, 9:19 PM
Must be a typo somewhere, I don't see the one where he's coming to take away our guns. I mean, this is Obama, after all... :eek:

oni.dori
07-12-2011, 9:32 PM
Must be a typo somewhere, I don't see the one where he's coming to take away our guns. I mean, this is Obama, after all... :eek:

Quasi-illegally circumventing the Constitutional process to limit firearms availability isn't just as bad? Abuse of authority/power to force through YOUR own agenda, even though it is COMPLETELY against the major consensus of the people you are SUPPOSED to be SERVING, isn't WORSE? Must have missed the memo on that one...

frankm
07-12-2011, 10:01 PM
And the amazing thing is that Obama was a professor of constitutional law in a prior life. So he's not stupid or uninformed. You know the saying "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"? In Obama's case it's the opposite. He's plenty smart and informed. It really is malice for those that don't share his liberal, socialized view of the world order that drives him to take unilateral actions to his goals. It's ironic when you think about some of his campaign speeches to drive transparency and bipartisanship in government. He's done the exact opposite once he reached his goal of the presidency. It was all a ruse.

Oh, you mean a commie.

Krak
07-12-2011, 10:30 PM
I can't wait for the heavy election campaigning when [worthwhile] candidates from ANY party point to Obama and say "When unemployment was climbing back up and the recovery looked like it was doomed, your focus was on costing tax payers billions more in unnecessary health care reform."


It'll be more like that.

tankarian
07-12-2011, 11:28 PM
Quasi-illegally circumventing the Constitutional process to limit firearms availability isn't just as bad? Abuse of authority/power to force through YOUR own agenda, even though it is COMPLETELY against the major consensus of the people you are SUPPOSED to be SERVING, isn't WORSE? Must have missed the memo on that one...

You're wasting your time. If Obama himself would be caught on tape busting your door down, putting you in cuffs and forcing you to watch him raping your sister, you can be sure he'd find a plausible explanation for all that being just a minor incident you are blowing out of proportion.
How do you think Hitler Stalin and Mao got their executioners? Look at the blackest pages of modern history... There are always people who's morals and notions of right and wrong, truth and untruth are completely replaced by political ideology.
Such people would tell you black is white and white is black - if that conforms to what their political leader tells them. And if you don't agree, they wouldn't have the slightest problem lynching you - if their leader tells them it's for a just cause.
Think that can't happen in America? It's already under way (http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2011/06/urban-liberals-attack-glenn-beck-and-his-family-.html).

Sgt. J Beezy
07-12-2011, 11:39 PM
Folks, a thief starts off small, candy, cigs, computers, you get the gist. The comments I hear are, It isn't bad, is that all? We don't live near the border, won't affect me. It starts of small and grows. Any gun control is still gun control.

+1

This is just the beginning...

Deucer
07-13-2011, 12:03 AM
The "not one inch" line of thinking always seems over simplified to me. I like to consider issues on their own merits. Here are my thoughts:

1) Faster background checks are a good idea in theory. Background checks to deny guns to prohibited persons are one of the few regulations that make sense to me. I just have no faith in the .gov to pull it off effectively and economically. I would have more faith that a non .gov system that allowed for instant background checks could be implemented economically. Any non-instant system is an infringement. Also, I take issue with the keeping of gun ownership information federally, which is illegal. The way prohibited persons are defined in the 1st place is also an issue to me, but that's a discussion for another time.

2) Ridiculous and unlawful. Enough said.

3) I don't think "straw buying" should be a crime unless you transfer a gun to a prohibited person. Current "straw buying" laws entrap both buyers and dealers with subjective rules which are too open to interpretation. Until there's an easily accessible, cheap instantaneous background check system that transferers can use to asses eligibility, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to buy a gun and immediately gift it to someone else. As such, I can't support an increase in sentencing guidelines.

Wherryj
07-13-2011, 9:29 AM
From the Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-control-regulations-exclusive.html):



Here's the content of the Executive Orders:

Quote:
A new reporting requirement that federally licensed gun shops report any person who tries to buy two long-arm weapons near the Mexican border over a five-day period.

Wow, it sure is a good thing that no one with bad motives could ever think of going to several different gun stores to make purchases of multiple long guns, or even space out purchases at the same store over a period of time/use multiple people to make the purchases.

RRangel
07-13-2011, 10:08 AM
The "not one inch" line of thinking always seems over simplified to me. I like to consider issues on their own merits. Here are my thoughts:

1) Faster background checks are a good idea in theory. Background checks to deny guns to prohibited persons are one of the few regulations that make sense to me. I just have no faith in the .gov to pull it off effectively and economically. I would have more faith that a non .gov system that allowed for instant background checks could be implemented economically. Any non-instant system is an infringement. Also, I take issue with the keeping of gun ownership information federally, which is illegal. The way prohibited persons are defined in the 1st place is also an issue to me, but that's a discussion for another time.

The question is, are background checks, not fast enough already? Who's asking the question? When taking the source into account, allowing these people to control the narrative and alter current firearm laws, is asking for trouble.

jdberger
07-13-2011, 10:20 AM
Wow, it sure is a good thing that no one with bad motives could ever think of going to several different gun stores to make purchases of multiple long guns, or even space out purchases at the same store over a period of time/use multiple people to make the purchases.

The point isn't so much that it's easy to get around the regulation - but that it isn't needed, it's discriminatory and probably illegal.

The reg is ostensibly in response ATF's discovery of guns running south. But there are a couple problems. One, the FFLs in the affected States were the ones who initially tipped ATF that folks were asking to buy multiple rifles. Self-policing works. Two, once they knew about the potential trafficking, ATF had the power to stop it. Instead, they decided to let the guns walk across the border into the hands of the Cartels. No regulation is going to stop the GOVERNMENT from running guns.

The reg will probably generate just under 20,000 reports that will have to be processed by ATF. In this time of financial crisis, when our seniors and most vulnerable are at risk of drastic cuts in safety-net funding - is it prudent to add another layer of expensive bureacracy to tackle a problem that doesn't really exist?

The reg is also discriminatory. It penalizes FFLs in Arizona but not in Nevada or Utah.

Finally, the reg is probably illegal. There are Federal restrictions on compiling and keeping a database of firearm purchasers. Additionally, the Senate Judiciary Committee has primary jurisdiction over policy related to the Justice Department.

jdberger
07-13-2011, 10:57 AM
The "not one inch" line of thinking always seems over simplified to me. I like to consider issues on their own merits. Here are my thoughts:

1) Faster background checks are a good idea in theory. Background checks to deny guns to prohibited persons are one of the few regulations that make sense to me. I just have no faith in the .gov to pull it off effectively and economically. I would have more faith that a non .gov system that allowed for instant background checks could be implemented economically. Any non-instant system is an infringement. Also, I take issue with the keeping of gun ownership information federally, which is illegal. The way prohibited persons are defined in the 1st place is also an issue to me, but that's a discussion for another time.

2) Ridiculous and unlawful. Enough said.

3) I don't think "straw buying" should be a crime unless you transfer a gun to a prohibited person. Current "straw buying" laws entrap both buyers and dealers with subjective rules which are too open to interpretation. Until there's an easily accessible, cheap instantaneous background check system that transferers can use to asses eligibility, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to buy a gun and immediately gift it to someone else. As such, I can't support an increase in sentencing guidelines.

There have already been proposals to moot the background check system. For instance, some sort of marking on your ID or Driver's license which would say, "Prohibited Firearms". No internet access needed and even private sellers could just take a quick peek at someone's ID to see if they are prohibited persons.

Cost? Substantially less than manning a bunch of phone lines and computer terminals.

Ctwo
07-13-2011, 2:39 PM
I don't see how the ATF can enforce this without violating equal protection under the law.

Isn't it akin to GFSZ, and that seems to be working just fine...

91B40
07-13-2011, 9:43 PM
What does it mean..."caliber greater than .22..."?
Does this refer to bore diameter or a larger cartridge than .22LR or what?
Also, evil-featured OLL AR's should be exempt from reporting in CA because none can have a detachable magazine.
Are stripped lowers exempt? They are, of course, a firearm under the law, but they don't have a caliber until they are united with an upper.