PDA

View Full Version : What Obama can and can't do with an executive order.


Jonb.
01-09-2013, 10:32 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-national/?third_party=obama-cant-do-much-on-guns-by-executive-order

sd_shooter
01-09-2013, 10:54 PM
Encouraging. Good article.

big red
01-09-2013, 10:59 PM
thank you for putting this on a thread and maybe it will help diminish the number of threads and people getting themselves worked up over Oabam's pen with it's imaginary powers.

DannyInSoCal
01-09-2013, 11:04 PM
It reminds me of the scene in Tombstone -

"I don't think I'll let you arrest us today Behan...."

Tincon
01-09-2013, 11:06 PM
thank you for putting this on a thread and maybe it will help diminish the number of threads and people getting themselves worked up over Oabam's pen with it's imaginary powers.

Gun owners are apparently very easy to troll. Biden is probably reading and laughing his *** off.

fred40
01-09-2013, 11:16 PM
Gun owners are apparently very easy to troll. Biden is probably reading and laughing his *** off.

Obama gets away with a lot of shiett. He knows it too and doesn't give a flying fvkk.

odysseus
01-09-2013, 11:23 PM
There technically is not much room for Obama to do in Executive orders, but I am sure he can cause gun owners a lot of pain. We shall see.

However it is not without the fact that what he thinks he can do is not taken to task, and the courts are not always in his favor. And really, this is about DNC party shenanigans.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/5/court-questions-obama-recess-appointments/?page=all

SilverTauron
01-09-2013, 11:24 PM
Gun owners are apparently very easy to troll. Biden is probably reading and laughing his *** off.

That he is doing, but not because we're being trolled.

From the article:

The things Obama can get done through executive order are much smaller. They include "changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,"

Has anyone actually READ the ATF regulations on the 1968 GCA and how they enforce gun laws in America? The reason the 1986 FOPA was passed in the first place is because the ATF was taking the 1968 Gun Control Act and using it to jam up gun owners on a routine basis.

Inaccurate FFL records due to a mis-read serial number? CRIME! JAIL!

Sold 6 guns last year so you could buy new ones? YOURE DEALING WITHOUT A LICENSE! TO THE PRISON WITH THEE!

Its not whats written, but how its enforced. Obama doesn't have to pass another law nor write one in via Executive Order. All he need do is tell the ATF to "throw the book at gun owners" and that's all it will take to screw us. An aggressive ATF crackdown would make every gun owner second guess the legality of just getting out of bed in the morning.

Iggy
01-09-2013, 11:40 PM
Is that why the new headlines read that the ATF has its hands tied and without leadership?

Dantedamean
01-09-2013, 11:45 PM
That he is doing, but not because we're being trolled.

From the article:

The things Obama can get done through executive order are much smaller. They include "changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,"

Has anyone actually READ the ATF regulations on the 1968 GCA and how they enforce gun laws in America? The reason the 1986 FOPA was passed in the first place is because the ATF was taking the 1968 Gun Control Act and using it to jam up gun owners on a routine basis.

Inaccurate FFL records due to a mis-read serial number? CRIME! JAIL!

Sold 6 guns last year so you could buy new ones? YOURE DEALING WITHOUT A LICENSE! TO THE PRISON WITH THEE!

Its not whats written, but how its enforced. Obama doesn't have to pass another law nor write one in via Executive Order. All he need do is tell the ATF to "throw the book at gun owners" and that's all it will take to screw us. An aggressive ATF crackdown would make every gun owner second guess the legality of just getting out of bed in the morning.

This may be a path he chooses to take, well see. However with the way he has been working, I suspect his efforts will be less in your face.

IVC
01-10-2013, 12:03 AM
thank you for putting this on a thread and maybe it will help diminish the number of threads and people getting themselves worked up over Oabam's pen with it's imaginary powers.

We cannot be complacent, especially in the light of the declared media war on guns and gun owners. A certain amount of "healthy paranoia" is in order to keep us on our toes, as long as it doesn't lead to panic of defeatist attitude.

Kid Stanislaus
01-10-2013, 12:06 AM
It's important that his FIRST response to the Con. shooting was to appoint a committee. That's a standard stalling tactic in Wash. D.C. The sting of the last debacle when the Dems cracked down on guns has yet to wear off.

waddlingweezol
01-10-2013, 12:57 AM
Not to derail, and I was going to start a thread with this question until I saw a link to an article that could have answered it, but that link isn't working for me. So I'll ask here:

If Obama can stop imports of rifles by changing his interpretation of sporting purpose, can he also stop imports of handguns? Glocks, HK's, CZ's etc? By Executive Order that is.

stix213
01-10-2013, 1:22 AM
Article made me want to join the National Tank Association

Travis590A1
01-10-2013, 1:32 AM
Not to derail, and I was going to start a thread with this question until I saw a link to an article that could have answered it, but that link isn't working for me. So I'll ask here:

If Obama can stop imports of rifles by changing his interpretation of sporting purpose, can he also stop imports of handguns? Glocks, HK's, CZ's etc? By Executive Order that is.

Luckily glock has a factory in the U.S. ;)

Sent from my LG-P925 using Tapatalk 2

motorhead
01-10-2013, 1:33 AM
import bans are scary.

johnny1290
01-10-2013, 1:38 AM
They do this stuff to confuse us, and it works.

Obama can do whatever he wants, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Like with NDAA, he said at first there's no indefinite detention, then there is, but I won't sign it, then he signed it.

rhurtado
01-10-2013, 1:40 AM
This "executive order" can be a real problem for us because, unfortunately, Obama can in fact do this...

IVC
01-10-2013, 1:53 AM
Article made me want to join the National Tank Association

Is that some sort of Rosie O'Donnell's comfort food organization?

stix213
01-10-2013, 1:59 AM
Is that some sort of Rosie O'Donnell's comfort food organization?

Lol

It is mentioned at the very bottom of the article. We only can't drive tanks on the freeway because there is no NTA protecting tank rights ;)

Sakiri
01-10-2013, 2:28 AM
This "executive order" can be a real problem for us because, unfortunately, Obama can in fact do this...

Someone didn't read the article.

Cobrafreak
01-10-2013, 5:15 AM
National Tank Association! Where do I sign up! :) but seriously, I think the article is a breath of fresh air. Obama can't do as much damage as Pelosi can for us in CA it seems like. Say goodbye to Saiga. They will probably be prevented from entering the Country. It's a good thing they last forever.

mt4design
01-10-2013, 6:02 AM
Did anyone do any research in to the author of the article?

Elspeth Reeve?

Believe she has her heart in the right place?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/gif-guide-most-bannable-semi-automatic-weapons/60728/

A GIF Guide to the Most Bannable Semi-Automatic Weapons

"There's no question that lots of law-abiding citizens love these guns. What's being questioned is whether their hobby -- and the really cool YouTubes it produces -- are worth the risk of some non-law-abiding crazy people getting their hands on them."

http://www.redstate.com/tag/elspeth-reeve/

Elspeth Reeve Manufactures More Moral Outrage

which is in reference to her piece here

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/just-how-racist-obama-phone-video/57353/

Elspeth Reeve Is a Lying Hack

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/23409/elspeth-reeve-is-a-lying-hack/

There are a lot more opinions out there that should give anyone on this side of the issue pause in taking her word as unbiased about anything.

CDFingers
01-10-2013, 6:50 AM
Yes: good article. I like how it calls out the folks with hair afire.

I don't think anything more stringent than CA laws will happen in DC.

CDFingers

jmlivingston
01-10-2013, 6:55 AM
I should have realized that the tank video in the OP's linked article had made its way to youtube..... I was assigned to the National Guard company it belonged to when that incident happened, thankfully it was stolen out of the maintenance yard and not directly from our own lot!

pU2oZYcx6QY



It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Biden meetings yesterday and today. I certainly expect that Obama will use a series of Executive Orders to make changes, hopefully it is in the arena of being more rigorous regarding mental health reporting.

tetris
01-10-2013, 8:20 AM
There is more that he can do. For instance, he has tried in the past, and can try again, to ban the national shipment of ammo by reclassifying powder or primers as a controlled explosive via the BATFE. This was done already with model rocket engines after 9/11.

In effect, this would make the manufacture, storage and shipment of ammo so expensive that it would be a de facto ban.

Alternatively, he might direct the BATFE to interpret the assembly of an AR lower to an AR upper as "gunsmithing" and require the appropriate FFL-- or other related extreme interpretations of existing law. I'm sure the list is endless.

tetris
01-10-2013, 8:29 AM
If Obama can stop imports of rifles by changing his interpretation of sporting purpose, can he also stop imports of handguns? Glocks, HK's, CZ's etc? By Executive Order that is.

The 1968 Gun Control Act added a "sporting purpose" test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a "points system" for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun.

Yes, it looks like he could in fact apply the importation ban to more rifles and handguns!

SlobRay
01-10-2013, 8:32 AM
Yes: good article. I like how it calls out the folks with hair afire.

I don't think anything more stringent than CA laws will happen in DC.
CDFingers

God forbid that the rest of the Nation has to deal with these laws or worse (NY,IL,NJ,MA), because when I retire or the Army lets me leave this communist state and go back home (WA), I will smash my bullet button, convert my mags back to standard capacity and buy a suppressor or two.


Ray

dieselpower
01-10-2013, 8:42 AM
Freaking hilarious...

So what you guys are saying is screaming fire in a crowded theater is illegal because no one is going to get burned....

Biden isnt screaming fire, he is telling you there will be a fire...and someone WILL BE SCREAMING fire soon.

All of you want to think the VP, who held a gun-control press conference and said EOs were going to be used in the very near future can believe he was talking about planting flowers and NASA stuff.

The rest of us who understand they are going to do what they want and that will cause a freaking backlog of crazy stuff that is going to take YEARS to get sorted out are taking action NOW.

REX-84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84) is the perfect example of what an EO can do.

The guys in media (on our side) are not even thinking of all that can be done with an EO.

With one signature the BATFE can be the largest, most funded agency in America, with HUGE sweeping power, even more then the IRS. And while we are talking about the IRS, they can be tossed into the mix as well since their unchecked powers over the civilian population are there right now.

good luck with that plan for the best type of logic...no that has never got gun owners in trouble.

how about reading on the GCA vote controversy and tell me how "legal" congress and the POTUS keep things... yeah you can trust they will not do something illegal...

SilverTauron
01-10-2013, 8:44 AM
Not to derail, and I was going to start a thread with this question until I saw a link to an article that could have answered it, but that link isn't working for me. So I'll ask here:

If Obama can stop imports of rifles by changing his interpretation of sporting purpose, can he also stop imports of handguns? Glocks, HK's, CZ's etc? By Executive Order that is.

He can order the ATF to make life hell for importers. At the end of the day gun companies are businesses with the goal of making a profit, and if the ATF makes certifying handguns for import and sale to the US too expensive and time consuming, many companies will just pull the plug on the US market.

Sure, some companies do have US factories like Glock, Beretta, and Sig Arms. Yet, its not as cut and dry as just "moving" the production from Italy to the US. Most Glocks sold here are made in Austria, with the US built guns going overseas to nations which don't have trade agreements with Glock HQ in Austria. Beretta's Maryland factory reportedly is so busy they're busting at the seams making guns on contract.

Thus, if hypothetically the ATF tells Beretta they can't import pistols anymore, two things happen which are bad for gun owners;one, the number of guns we can buy goes down significantly. Two, the "Made in USA" versions will suffer a price spike. The US factories are currently making guns in conjunction with foreign imports to satisfy our demand-if the overseas supply is cut off and Beretta is forced to make all their US sold pistols stateside, we're now limited to whatever they can produce in Ackokeek MD. Lower supply & higher demand= price increase. You may be able to buy a 92FS Made in USA despite an ATF import restriction, but it'll be a $1000 gun.

That's just the market dynamic. There's also the parts aspects too. An import ban would mean no more off the shelf Springfield 1911s , since the frames are forged in Brazil and shipped to the US for final hand finishing.

Regrettably, there's nothing can do about opposing an Executive Order except bring a suitcase of cash to the blackjack table which is the US Judiciary and hope we don't bust.

donw
01-10-2013, 8:46 AM
We cannot be complacent, especially in the light of the declared media war on guns and gun owners. A certain amount of "healthy paranoia" is in order to keep us on our toes, as long as it doesn't lead to panic of defeatist attitude.

^^^well spoken and should be heeded as being of sound advice.

i put NOTHING past this administration in it's effort to impose it's will on the country...

luvtolean
01-10-2013, 8:54 AM
If you found this article encouraging, I think you should go re-read it.

It's as anti-gun as I'd expect from the Merc.

loose_electron
01-10-2013, 8:56 AM
Article made me want to join the National Tank Association

The video was great...

dieselpower
01-10-2013, 8:58 AM
He can order the ATF to make life hell for importers. At the end of the day gun companies are businesses with the goal of making a profit, and if the ATF makes certifying handguns for import and sale to the US too expensive and time consuming, many companies will just pull the plug on the US market.

Sure, some companies do have US factories like Glock, Beretta, and Sig Arms. Yet, its not as cut and dry as just "moving" the production from Italy to the US. Most Glocks sold here are made in Austria, with the US built guns going overseas to nations which don't have trade agreements with Glock HQ in Austria. Beretta's Maryland factory reportedly is so busy they're busting at the seams making guns on contract.

Thus, if hypothetically the ATF tells Beretta they can't import pistols anymore, two things happen which are bad for gun owners;one, the number of guns we can buy goes down significantly. Two, the "Made in USA" versions will suffer a price spike. The US factories are currently making guns in conjunction with foreign imports to satisfy our demand-if the overseas supply is cut off and Beretta is forced to make all their US sold pistols stateside, we're now limited to whatever they can produce in Ackokeek MD. Lower supply & higher demand= price increase. You may be able to buy a 92FS Made in USA despite an ATF import restriction, but it'll be a $1000 gun.

That's just the market dynamic. There's also the parts aspects too. An import ban would mean no more off the shelf Springfield 1911s , since the frames are forged in Brazil and shipped to the US for final hand finishing.

Regrettably, there's nothing can do about opposing an Executive Order except bring a suitcase of cash to the blackjack table which is the US Judiciary and hope we don't bust.

BINGO... why write laws against gun owners when you can regulate the manufactures out of business thereby removing "guns" from the term "gun owner".

CessnaDriver
01-10-2013, 9:00 AM
To those of you attempting to minimize our level of concern about how our RIGHTS can be attacked, rights that already have been infringed upon...

Think about that, I cannot "bear arms" because my oppressive Sheriff will not allow it.
Limits on magazine capacity are a blatant infringment on our RIGHTS along with a multitude of others against the common semi-auto rifle in the hands of law abiding citizens.

So take it somewhere else with your accusations of paranoia and sunshine BS that Obama won't infringe upon our rights further.

We're trying to anticipate all forms of attacks. It's called being prepared, not paranoid.

All of us must ask each day...
What have I done to protect our rights today?

Steve1968LS2
01-10-2013, 9:08 AM
Obama is more than happy to do things he know are illegal and won't hold up in court.. why? Because he knows it will take years to get sorted out.. In those years he hopes the gun market collapses and many gun makers/dealers will be forced out of business.

He's already shown a willingness to bypass Congress illegally..

movie zombie
01-10-2013, 9:15 AM
precedent re executive order geared at gun control has already been set:

"The president probably needs new legislation to reinstate a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons, stop the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips, and require background checks on all gun buyers.

But he has wide authority to use gun laws already on the books as the basis for regulations or executive orders strengthening gun enforcement.

There's ample precedent. After a mass school shooting in Stockton, California, in 1989, George H.W. Bush issued an executive order, pursuant to the 1968 Gun Control Act, that banned imports of certain assault weapons unless used for sporting purposes. Years later, Bill Clinton by executive order banned imports of almost five dozen different assault weapons that had been modified to get through that "sporting purposes" exemption. President Obama could go even further.

To take another example, the National Firearms Act of 1934 gives a president broad powers to oversee gun dealers. By executive order, the President could tighten that oversight.

Under his law-enforcement authority the president could also issue executive orders improving information sharing among state and local law enforcement authorities about illegal gun purchases, tracking gun buyers' history of mental illness, and maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods.

The administration has already issued a regulation designed to prevent sales of semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels. It requires stores in states bordering Mexico to notify federal law enforcement officials when someone buys two or more of a particular type of high-caliber, semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. That regulation, too, could be expanded upon." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obama-executive-power-debt-ceiling_b_2447359.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=011013&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


it is not that he can institute new "law" as much as he can enforce the current law in ways that the gun community would find objectinable.

pHredd9mm
01-10-2013, 9:19 AM
I agree with Steve1968LS2. Obama can do anything he wants through an EO. Then it gets fought in the courts. It only takes one conservative SCOTUS judge retiring or dying to change the balance of power to the libs on gun control.

bruss01
01-10-2013, 9:21 AM
Step one - claim that "assault weapons" are used by domestic terrorists
Step two - claim that sellers and manufacturers of such weapons are either intentionally or unintentionally arming terrorists, and thus can be declared "enemy combatants"
Step three - warrantless wiretaps, warrantless searches, asset forfeiture, indefinite detention for those who are aiding and abbetting terrorists (the AW mfr's and sellers)

If you're an "enemy combatant" and indefinitely detained, you do not get charged with any crime and you never have a day in court. You just "disappear". Media can be pressured to keep this out of the papers and off the tube via National Security letters.

Who makes the decision on who is an enemy combatant? If you look into it you will find that sole power lies within the purview of the executive office - in other words, the President.

NOW is all that DHS/NDAA flim-flam jibber-jabber starting to make sense to anyone?

It would take only a handful of such cases to convince other mfr's and sellers to restrict their sales to LEO & military agencies only.

SilverTauron
01-10-2013, 9:27 AM
Step one - claim that "assault weapons" are used by domestic terrorists
Step two - claim that sellers and manufacturers of such weapons are either intentionally or unintentionally arming terrorists, and thus can be declared "enemy combatants"
Step three - warrantless wiretaps, warrantless searches, asset forfeiture, indefinite detention for those who are aiding and abbetting terrorists (the AW mfr's and sellers)

If you're an "enemy combatant" and indefinitely detained, you do not get charged with any crime and you never have a day in court. You just "disappear". Media can be pressured to keep this out of the papers and off the tube via National Security letters.

Who makes the decision on who is an enemy combatant? If you look into it you will find that sole power lies within the purview of the executive office - in other words, the President.

NOW is all that DHS/NDAA flim-flam jibber-jabber starting to make sense to anyone?

It would take only a handful of such cases to convince other mfr's and sellers to restrict their sales to LEO & military agencies only.
This is a little too tinfoil hat, and entirely unnecessary.

There's enough gun laws on the Federal books which can easily be manipulated to destroy gun rights without resorting to anti-terrorism stautes. The 1968 Gun Control Act is all Obama needs to ruin our rights.Why use a howitzer to kill a cricket when the bottom of your shoe will do the job nicely?

HBrebel
01-10-2013, 9:30 AM
Gun owners are apparently very easy to troll. Biden is probably reading and laughing his *** off.

Can that idiot Biden even read or use the inter web? I think he knows how to paste pictures intone collage but beyond that......

Dantedamean
01-10-2013, 9:30 AM
precedent re executive order geared at gun control has already been set:

"The president probably needs new legislation to reinstate a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons, stop the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips, and require background checks on all gun buyers.

But he has wide authority to use gun laws already on the books as the basis for regulations or executive orders strengthening gun enforcement.

There's ample precedent. After a mass school shooting in Stockton, California, in 1989, George H.W. Bush issued an executive order, pursuant to the 1968 Gun Control Act, that banned imports of certain assault weapons unless used for sporting purposes. Years later, Bill Clinton by executive order banned imports of almost five dozen different assault weapons that had been modified to get through that "sporting purposes" exemption. President Obama could go even further.

To take another example, the National Firearms Act of 1934 gives a president broad powers to oversee gun dealers. By executive order, the President could tighten that oversight.

Under his law-enforcement authority the president could also issue executive orders improving information sharing among state and local law enforcement authorities about illegal gun purchases, tracking gun buyers' history of mental illness, and maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods.

The administration has already issued a regulation designed to prevent sales of semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels. It requires stores in states bordering Mexico to notify federal law enforcement officials when someone buys two or more of a particular type of high-caliber, semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. That regulation, too, could be expanded upon." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obama-executive-power-debt-ceiling_b_2447359.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=011013&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


it is not that he can institute new "law" as much as he can enforce the current law in ways that the gun community would find objectinable.

Wow, you can say good bye to saiga and maybe even glocks, possibly more guns added to the NFA... I could see him saying any AR 15 needs to go through the NFA.

Baconator
01-10-2013, 9:45 AM
Why do we have the impression that a tyrant could never be running this country? The EO has as much power as those that are charged with enforcing it.

Mitch
01-10-2013, 9:50 AM
Years later, Bill Clinton by executive order banned imports of almost five dozen different assault weapons that had been modified to get through that "sporting purposes" exemption. President Obama could go even further.

I was looking for that> I can't find it here (www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton-subjects.html).

Jonb.
01-10-2013, 10:01 AM
The time writing in here is better spent organizing and rallying for the NRA and Calguns foundation. I see so many posts that are paranoia driven and all about "getting mine" Or "Obama this and that" let's move those efforts to something useful. And I'm out!

Baconator
01-10-2013, 10:04 AM
I was looking for that> I can't find it here (www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton-subjects.html).

Can't find the EO, but he did order the ban.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/assault.weapons/

Semi-automatic weapons can fire dozens of rounds in seconds from magazines that can hold 100 or more bullets.
lulz
Based on a previous law.

Wrangler John
01-10-2013, 10:09 AM
What has changed is that the Second Amendment has been ruled an individual right and mentioned as a fundamental right, applying to firearms in common use at the time. That status did not exist when all these laws and regulations were established. Indeed, firearms were ruled to be protected for self-defense, immediately available in case of confrontation, and for other legitimate purposes. Self-defense is the primary qualifier for firearms, not sporting use, so that definition is obsolete and ripe for picking. There are far greater legal minds here than me, but it seems that recent court decisions have ruled that shooting ranges are also protected by the Second Amendment, so it would follow that manufacture of firearms are an integral part of the Second Amendment. That would mean that ammunition also falls under that protection, and by extension ammunition components.

I recall that a few years ago OSHA or some agency tried to classify smokeless powder as an explosive with the idea of removing it from retail shop shelves. That regulation was squelched as I recall, but I don't remember if legislation accompanied the decision. So don't go all woozy just yet, the judicial flood is building.

Mitch
01-10-2013, 10:12 AM
Can't find the EO, but he did order the ban.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/assault.weapons/

Well, I am confident it wasn't an executive order, then. Banning the import of "non-sporting" firearms is already well within the remit of the BATFE under the 1968 GCA. All Clinton did was direct the BATFE to crank down on the import of certain models and then he had a press conference.

No executive ordered required, none used.

2Fowl
01-10-2013, 10:53 AM
CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS
Individuals are sovereign not the government
Andrew Napolitano: 2nd Amendment protects our right to shoot tyrants, not deer
Published: 18 hours ago
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/individuals-are-sovereign-not-the-government/#Pr5V8fOQosgBjZWp.99 :D

jdberger
01-10-2013, 7:01 PM
Did anyone do any research in to the author of the article?

Elspeth Reeve?

Believe she has her heart in the right place?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/gif-guide-most-bannable-semi-automatic-weapons/60728/

A GIF Guide to the Most Bannable Semi-Automatic Weapons


http://www.redstate.com/tag/elspeth-reeve/

Elspeth Reeve Manufactures More Moral Outrage

which is in reference to her piece here

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/just-how-racist-obama-phone-video/57353/

Elspeth Reeve Is a Lying Hack

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/23409/elspeth-reeve-is-a-lying-hack/

There are a lot more opinions out there that should give anyone on this side of the issue pause in taking her word as unbiased about anything.


Bingo.

Not our friend.

tlcwrites
01-10-2013, 8:58 PM
What has changed is that the Second Amendment has been ruled an individual right.

And, more important, although there was a 5/4 split on the rest of the Heller decision, all 9 Justices agreed on this point.