http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/white-house-finalizing-plan-to-take-major-gun-control-action-using-executive-authority-valerie-jarrett-says/
He's just going to bypass Congress apparently.
Anything he does to fabricate "law" and attempt to force on general public will most certainly be challenged immediately (as he's sure to overreach). No doubt he'll fraudulently attempt to claim some "emergency" power.
Nothing mysterious about the "Chicago" way, we've been watching this routine from the beginning with this nightmare. "Never let a crisis (real or fabricated-my .02) go to waste" It's been in the works for a long time, just a matter of perceived opportunity.
Gonna be a long and very dangerous year ahead...
Curious to see what his proposal. I imagine it is something that sounds scary but isn't. Kinda like the "assault weapons" here in the US.
The current law has very specific limits on the government's reach on background checks.
These liberals and socialists live in a fantasy world. This guy needs removed from office.
And SQL: This president has shown repeatedly he doesn't have any regard for existing laws and procedures...........
Pat
He doesn't have any regard for the 10th amendment. But the nice thing about carefully scrutinized laws like the ones passed for background checks is they very carefully spell out the limits on federal power. So either he has found an interesting loophole, or he just is going to rattle the saber as it were.
Eagerly awaiting the proposal/EO. Very curious to see how he frames it.
This could be more pomp and circumstance; meaning he could issue a EO with a lot of words but no teeth just to satisfy the anti-gunners. He's known to be a little wordy. ;D
Quote from: redbaron007 on December 11 2015 08:55:25 AM MST
This could be more pomp and circumstance; meaning he could issue a EO with a lot of words but no teeth just to satisfy the anti-gunners. He's known to be a little wordy. ;D
This is what I expect
^^^^^^
This is my thoughts.
1. I am against Executive Action.
2. It is a political move that will help Hillary.
Crime will plummet as it has in WA state one year after our I-594 (mandatory BGC on almost ALL gun exchanges). Not.
There has been zero enforcement, zero convictions, just a huge hassle and additional expense when you sell a gun to a buddy. It's just another liberal stepping stone, from the REAL anti-freedom party.
Quote from: Pablo on December 12 2015 01:54:03 PM MST
Crime will plummet as it has in WA state one year after our I-594 (mandatory BGC on almost ALL gun exchanges). Not.
There has been zero enforcement, zero convictions, just a huge hassle and additional expense when you sell a gun to a buddy. It's just another liberal stepping stone, from the REAL anti-freedom party.
Criminals predominantly buy guns via straw purchases which are already illegal.
Nut jobs have a clean record until they nut up and therefore would not be prevented from obtaining a gun via legal channels.
Sorry, gun control enthusiasts, but bad people do bad things.
Good news is a gun is one shot one kill, versus bombs or easily created chemical weapons, which so far have not been deployed.
Quote from: Patriot on December 10 2015 07:49:41 PM MST
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/white-house-finalizing-plan-to-take-major-gun-control-action-using-executive-authority-valerie-jarrett-says/
He's just going to bypass Congress apparently.
That's his standard thing to do if he doesn't get what he wants. Screw the people and the constitution. I WANTS IT SO!
He can do it as no one stops him, or helps him. Its gotten to the point where a legislature whether federal, state or local mean nothing.
They mean nothing because people don't understand the process. They perceive the president like a king and congress like his minions.
Quote from: sqlbullet on December 13 2015 07:09:07 PM MST
They mean nothing because people don't understand the process. They perceive the president like a king and congress like his minions.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that is exactly how Obama and the current congress see themselves. One way or another, it is time for them to go.
From around FDR to 1996. The Democrats had a stranglehold on both branches of Congress. But the GOP was able to win Presidentials. So what the GOP did was make the role of President stronger during these years. Now what is happening is that the electoral college is not in the GOPs favor and if they do not win in 2016 I doubt you will see a GOP potus for a long time.
So now the GOP is in a bind. What do they do? This is what they are doing, NOTHING. Hoping they can take the WH in 2016. The GOP runs a autocratic operation when they have a executive in charge whether it be federal, state or local. The GOP legislature never stopped Bush. In NYS the biggest spender in history Pataki was never stopped by his GOP senate.
Republicans only complain when they lose these executive seats.
btw: I am for a strong legislative branch as prescribed.
The GOP won't win for a long time... REALLY????
It really doesn't matter, but I don't think you understand the game either. Its a bunch of lawyers and wealthy folk playing games. Its good cop, bad cop and they take turns painting satan's horns or halos on each other.
Bottom line is it makes little difference up and until the people stand up and decide they want a change.
I still feel we are a long ways away from that, but there certainly seems to be some stress fractures in the insider foundation in the Republican party. Tea Party, Patriot, and others rising from grass roots are creating turmoil and the more the GOP tries to maintain the big government policies that chip away at god given rights, the more problems they create for themselves.
I'd be willing to bet the change will rise from the Republican Party. If not, a third party will rise and over take it. There are simply more and more folks that are discontent with the way its going.
Why not the Democrats? The party has slid so far to the left that Debbie What's her name Schultz couldn't tell us the difference between the Democrats and the Socialists. Its no small wonder. The Democrat platform and the planks of the Communist manifesto are indistinguishable from each other. Add the big money from Soros into Occupy Wallstreet, Black Lives Matter, and the like and the only threat is if their puppet, internally funded victim groups turn on their master and consume it.
Greg
Quote from: Wolfie on December 14 2015 09:33:19 AM MST
From around FDR to 1996. The Democrats had a stranglehold on both branches of Congress. But the GOP was able to win Presidentials. So what the GOP did was make the role of President stronger during these years. Now what is happening is that the electoral college is not in the GOPs favor and if they do not win in 2016 I doubt you will see a GOP potus for a long time.
So now the GOP is in a bind. What do they do? This is what they are doing, NOTHING. Hoping they can take the WH in 2016. The GOP runs a autocratic operation when they have a executive in charge whether it be federal, state or local. The GOP legislature never stopped Bush. In NYS the biggest spender in history Pataki was never stopped by his GOP senate.
Republicans only complain when they lose these executive seats.
btw: I am for a strong legislative branch as prescribed.
Please expand on the Bold above?QuoteThe GOP legislature never stopped Bush.
Were they suppose to? Bush got everything he wanted? Did the Dems attempt to stop him? Not until 2006-07.
Wolfie is a Democrat Underground participant & Occupy Democrat member. What else would one expect to espouse from the lips?
Getting back on track....I still haven't seen any additional info his proposed changes.
What I have seen is the Republican party in my state, Utah, taxes and spends with the best of them.
We also saw that when the republicans controlled congress and the white house. They don't spend on social programs though.
It is why I rarely have anything to say in hardcore political debates where sides are being chosen. both sides are horrible.
--Edit
Lets get back on point here about background checks.
Background checks for national reciprocity.
Whats the NRA waiting for.
I would like to get more.
But I agree that the NRA should have a compromise proposal in play so it can't be a talking point to beat up pro-gun candidates. Make the anti-gun crowd the bad guys for saying no to UBG.
Quote from: Wolfie on December 14 2015 11:45:55 AM MST
Background checks for national reciprocity.
Whats the NRA waiting for.
Unalienable means cannot be sold, bartered, traded. If the right specified in the Bill of Rights are the same as those in the Declaration of Independence, there is no way to complete your trade off.
INFRINGEMENT: A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right.
Sorry, but as I see it, the NRA couldn't even if it wanted to. I wouldn't want them to. If they did, I wouldn't feel obliged to comply on Constitutional grounds.
Greg
Greg, I hear what you are saying.
But the NRA has a long history of compromising. They WROTE the 68 GCA, for example.
The goal here is to compromise in a way that expands our gun rights, not limits them. Today, the various States limit my constitutional rights, and a court case to correct that is both a long way off and likely not terribly winnable.
Congress can act to set a tone for national reciprocity very easily, and it would take effect immediately. Some states (California, New York, New Jersy, Illinois) will likely immediately challenge it on 10th amendment grounds, but will probably lose as this is the regulation of the second amendment.
Better yet, properly structured, the proposal can win us back a bunch of our rights. We can stipulate a records system that is one-way only*.
The goal of the proposal is to define a dialog, and move the ball into their court, effectively shutting them up about universal background checks. They can either then give us back some rights in the short term, or they can stop making it a talking point. Either way, we win.
I guess you can bargain away those rights.
You can shut up the other side... No way. Ball in their court, nope. Its not our side vs theirs. Its them collectively vs our rights.
Knowing the mechanism they use to do things they are forbidden to do is enough to make one ill. Knowing that mechanism is the only way to defend against their perverted game.
Bottom line, bargain away. It is really is of no consequence. Unalienable means that any loss could be found void if and when it becomes a constriction on an individual basis.
Greg
Do convicted felons, those with dishonorable discharges and those with domestic incident reports have unalienable rights?
That group of people had their rights taken away. The Constitution makes no distinction as to who can carry, but society through its legislators have already done that. Its called precedent aka case law.
Time to strengthen our rights now because if Hillary gets in its all over.
Quote from: Wolfie on December 14 2015 01:54:03 PM MST
Do convicted felons, those with dishonorable discharges and those with domestic incident reports have unalienable rights?
That group of people had their rights taken away. The Constitution makes no distinction as to who can carry, but society through its legislators have already done that. Its called precedent aka case law.
Time to strengthen our rights now because if Hillary gets in its all over.
Be very careful what you wish for:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229)
The book raises a concern that everyone can be charged with felonies. There are so many laws that on average, you probably will commit three felonies before you go to bed tonight. Perhaps you should have your rights stripped. You, perhaps, are only one aggressive prosecutor away from exactly that. Of course, the prosecutor is also likely committing felonies along the way.
A run away government is dangerous. Is it possible the use of "felony convictions" could be used to strip you of all "God given" rights, just because they were ordered from higher ups to arrest and prosecute? I have bad news for you. The legal system isn't concerned about "justice" but instead the "appearance of justice". In other words, as long as they put on a good show, they will do what they will do. Show up as a defendant, the odds are greatly against you.
Greg
There you have it, nothing is permanent. And no I do not wish for it. I wish for better rights for gun owners.
Quote from: Patriot on December 10 2015 07:49:41 PM MST
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/white-house-finalizing-plan-to-take-major-gun-control-action-using-executive-authority-valerie-jarrett-says/
He's just going to bypass Congress apparently.
That's exactly what he does every time he can't get his socialist methods passed. Nothing new there.