# What executive orders could Obama give vis-a-vis gun control? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665 "2013-01-09T20:07:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/41 "2013-01-10T16:06:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think even the most vocal gun owner might look at you funny if you told him he had no right to exclude armed people from his home or business. I have no problem with folks refusing service to whomever they choose. I think even the most vocal gun owner would agree and choose to shop or conduct business elsewhere. I know I do. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/42 "2013-01-10T16:08:18Z")
Well, that kind of rules of the “right to carry anywhere a cop can” possibility. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/43 "2013-01-10T16:22:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, that kind of rules of the “right to carry anywhere a cop can” possibility. I guess it does. Down in flames it goes. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/44 "2013-01-10T16:52:55Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Which has exactly what to do with the Freedom of Information Act? > > CMC Just to clarify a few points, my intention was to provided **sweeteviljesus** with a few examples of previous Executive Orders to possibly aid in answering the OP. One EO was rejected by the SCOTUS and the other hasn’t been challenged by Congress or the court. I’m not questioning the authority of EO’s or the authority of the International Organizations Immunities Act, either. And I may as well apologize to **sweeteviljesus** for leading his thread in a direction he may not have wanted it to go (but that’s what happens on internet forums). So the remaining question would be - Is INTERPOL currently subject to FOIA requests or to U.S. court orders for information? The IOIA grants to designated organizations a list of “immunities” including Section 2(c) which states: “Section 2(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, **shall be immune from search** , unless such immunity be expressly waived, **and from confiscation**. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.” EO 12424 granted INTERPOL “international organization” status but “excluded” the “shall be immune from seach” and the “and from confiscation” (search and seizure) immunities. INTERPOL archives were not considered inviolable. EO 12971 amended EO 12424 relating to some tax issues. EO 12971 also amended EO 12424. _By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, **is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words ‘‘except those provided by Section 2(c)**, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act’’ and the semicolon that immediately precedes them._ > **[E9-30413.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2009-12-21/pdf/E9-30413.pdf)** > > 125.77 KB By deleting the words “except those provided by Section2(c)” implys that INTERPOL’s property and assets were now **immune** from search unless INTERPOL agreed to the search, and from confiscation. The archives of INTERPOL were now inviolable. Currently, FOIA requests have no more legal bearing on INTERPOL than they do on the German Embassy. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/45 "2013-01-10T17:11:05Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I have no problem with folks refusing service to whomever they choose. I think even the most vocal gun owner would agree and choose to shop or conduct business elsewhere. I know I do. There are lots of gun owners who are confused about who rights protect you from (the government, not private actors). E.g.: [Boycott List | Utah Guns Forum](http://utahconcealedcarry.com/viewforum.php?f=12) . I don’t think there should be Platinum Plus Citizens. If a cop or Dianne Feinstein can carry their gun somewhere, why can’t a regular person, especially if we’re talking about some proposed regime where it’s even harder to get a concealed-carry permit? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/46 "2013-01-10T17:50:51Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Currently, FOIA requests have no more legal bearing on INTERPOL than they do on the German Embassy. They never did (other than a short window between 2004 and 2010). See post 37. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/47 "2013-01-10T18:13:57Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > There are lots of gun owners who are confused about who rights protect you from (the government, not private actors). E.g.: [Boycott List | Utah Guns Forum](http://utahconcealedcarry.com/viewforum.php?f=12) . > > I don’t think there should be Platinum Plus Citizens. If a cop or Dianne Feinstein can carry their gun somewhere, why can’t a regular person, especially if we’re talking about some proposed regime where it’s even harder to get a concealed-carry permit? I’m spoiled I guess, there are very few places that I cannot carry. Schools, Federal Buildings, and court houses for the most part. Certain businesses took it upon themselves to put a little sign up stating no guns allowed. There is no law behind said sign in my state, but they can always kick you out if they see that you are concealing or for any other reason for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/48 "2013-01-10T18:16:55Z")
Well yes, it’s their property, they can decide who comes on or set conditions for it such as no guns. But why should a cop be allowed to trespass? If he has no warrant or other reason to be on the property in his official capacity, letting him ignore the owner’s property rights by carrying a gun there is just creating a supra-citizen class with special rights. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/49 "2013-01-10T18:21:36Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Not really an “executive order” per se, but the administration could persuade the BATF to classify all semi-autos as “Any Other Weapon”. AOW’s require a tax stamp. While the stamp is currently only $5 that could be raised making it difficult for law abiding citizens to afford to buy (or keep) semi-autos. It also is a quasi form of registration… Wouldn’t that proposal also turn all semi-autos into Title III weapons? IOW treating them as if they were full-auto machine guns or short barreled shotguns? I.e., in addition to the tax stamp, you need to get permission from the chief LEO in your area to possess them and the permit is “may-issue” not “shall-issue”? Wouldn’t it also make it so that all semi-auto transfers must go through an FFL? That would be a giant change in the current state of affairs. I can’t see gun owners getting behind that proposal, not that their wishes will be taken into account until November 2014. Other things that could happen would be a change from the current instant NICS check to a lengthier one. Also, isn’t there a current legislative ban on importation on the books, that’s currently held in abeyance by an EO? Or am I misunderstanding things? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/50 "2013-01-10T18:26:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > There is a logical flaw in your thinking there. > > If it’s harder to get semi-auto guns, then fewer people will have them. > > If fewer people have them, fewer burglars will take them. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have their guns stolen from them by other outlaws. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/51 "2013-01-10T18:29:28Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Well, right now confiscation would be impossible. If the powers that be knew who had them, the problem becomes much easier. Also, your claim of, “don’t mind me, I am just a lone voice pleading for sanity that no one listens to” doesn’t really warm my heart. You are only willing to compromise because you don’t have the numbers yet. In what world is the mere knowledge that someone has something equate to widespread confiscation? Let me tell you what the government knows about you: it knows your medical records, it knows you have a car, it knows about your houses and land, any property you may have. Through taxes, it knows your employment, it knows exactly how much you get paid, it knows your investments, your deductions, yours exemptions. It knows how many people you have in your family, how old they are, where and when everyone was born, and most likely what race. If you travel, it knows where you’ve been, where you’re going, and when you came back. All this it knows about you, plus more. And yet all of that you don’t gnash your teeth over, but merely the mention that it wants to know your guns, you get upset. If were the government and I wanted to ruin you, there are plenty of easier ways I can do so without violently confronting you with police And yes, _I_ personally would love a gun ban, but no matter how much you are afraid of that, I will never get that chance. Over 200 years of history and shared culture makes sure that doesn’t happen. What I find interesting is that you take that one fear and exaggerate it into paranoid proportions. It is the mark of a disturbed mind that thinks that only by the blood of children in schools are our freedoms maintained, and wish nothing to disturb that Here’s something that is fact: I won’t have those numbers you fear, likely ever. But even if I did, we wouldn’t need to slowly chip away at gun rights. Meanwhile, what do you plan on doing with dead children being shot everyday? > [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Amazing. Nothing amazing about it. I won’t ever get to do that. I also wish to be installed Emperor of the world, make Starcraft the official sport of mankind, and carve my likeness with a giant laser into the surface of the moon I await your outrage at those goals ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/52 "2013-01-10T18:30:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > There is a logical flaw in your thinking there. > > If it’s harder to get semi-auto guns, then fewer people will have them. > > If fewer people have them, fewer burglars will take them. Yes because no self respecting burglar would ever steal a revolver or pump shotgun. Doesn’t matter anyway because evil semi-autos are the only type of weapons one can commit crimes with anyway, right? > [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Wouldn’t that proposal also turn all semi-autos into Title III weapons? No. Class 3 (not title 3) and AOW are two different things. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/53 "2013-01-10T18:31:49Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > There are lots of gun owners who are confused about who rights protect you from (the government, not private actors). E.g.: [Boycott List | Utah Guns Forum](http://utahconcealedcarry.com/viewforum.php?f=12) . > > I don’t think there should be Platinum Plus Citizens. If a cop or Dianne Feinstein can carry their gun somewhere, why can’t a regular person, especially if we’re talking about some proposed regime where it’s even harder to get a concealed-carry permit? Even _harder_? Sweet baby jesus, it isn’t as if its hard to get one here in FL. Do the paperwork, get your background check and take the test. _Open book._ You can do it over the weekend at any gun show here. Nothing difficult about it. You just have to have a little bit of money, be able to read, and not be a criminal. Now speaking as ex-military, and a firearm owner, I can honestly say that I don’t feel that is _remotely_ difficult enough. People in possession of a CCP should be citizens who have demonstrated significant knowledge, marksmanship, and should have to retest every year (at no expense) to maintain their permit. Tests should be closed book, and marksmanship practicals should be set to active duty (not basic) military standards. They should be considered persons of public trust, as we are according them extra privileges as opposed to the general public. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/54 "2013-01-10T18:47:35Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > \In what world is the mere knowledge that someone has something equate to widespread confiscation? Let me tell you what the government knows about you: it knows your medical records, it knows you have a car\ I don’t mind that my car is registered. That’s because there isn’t a large and vocal group that want to ban private ownership of cars. It also makes sense for taxation for my use of public roads. I also don’t see that registration of firearms will reduce crime much if at all. So it’s pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/55 "2013-01-10T18:50:11Z")
Better dump NASA then. Apparently things are pointless if **enipla** doesn’t understand them. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/56 "2013-01-10T18:53:11Z")
So I guess the executive orders thing is really just more of the same fear mongering, slippery sloping, and vague appeals to the threat of recent Jon Stewartism, “Imaginary Hitler”, that we’re all used to? And for the record: I’m not part of the “ban all guns”, crowd. I own guns, feel that no reasonable person assumes the oncoming death of the Second Amendment, am pretty darn sure that present tragedy warrants more concern than hypothetical (and unlikely) future loss of liberty, and favor stricter gun controls. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/57 "2013-01-10T18:56:25Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > I also don’t see that registration of firearms will reduce crime much if at all. So it’s pointless. Registration is favored for several reasons; all linked to reducing the number of firearms in criminal hands. If we register all firearms and prosecute all licensees who allow their weaponry to be stolen or sold _ **without report** _ then we will reduce the number of lackadaisical owners who fail to secure their firearms. Thus, in time we reduce the availability of unregistered materials for criminals to utilize. While it is true that any determined adult can defeat most safety systems; most criminals are not determined safe-crackers or defeaters of triggerlocks etc. They grab an unsecured weapon _because it is there;_ it is a theft of opportunity. Those weapons are often later used im other, unrelated crimes, sold, or traded on the market. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/58 "2013-01-10T18:56:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Better dump NASA then. Apparently things are pointless if **enipla** doesn’t understand them. How do you think that registration will reduce gun crime. Do you feel that criminals will willingly register firearms? Will it reduce crimes of passion? ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/59 "2013-01-10T18:58:27Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Registration is favored for several reasons; all linked to reducing the number of firearms in criminal hands. If we register all firearms and prosecute all licensees who allow their weaponry to be stolen or sold _ **without report** _ then we will reduce the number of lackadaisical owners who fail to secure their firearms. Thus, in time we reduce the availability of unregistered materials for criminals to utilize. While it is true that any determined adult can defeat most safety systems; most criminals are not determined safe-crackers or defeaters of triggerlocks etc. They grab an unsecured weapon _because it is there;_ it is a theft of opportunity. Those weapons are often later used im other, unrelated crimes, sold, or traded on the market. That’s not registration. That’s storage requirements. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/60 "2013-01-10T19:03:20Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > …No. Class 3 (not title 3) and AOW are two different things. I am still confused, and I am wondering if this is a distinction without a difference. From the [BATFE’s own website FAQs](http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html) concerning a particular AOW, they state that you have to fill out a [Form 1](http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf). This form requires a $200 payment and, at page 2 of the pdf, the Law Enforcement Certification I referenced above. That’s to create the AOW. If we’re just talking about transferring the AOW, which is what I think you’re talking about with the $5 fee, then you file a [Form 4](http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf), _which still needs the LEO sign off._ And s/he doesn’t have to sign it, if the complaints I hear from people trying to buy, e.g., suppressors in places like NY, are valid. How is this substantively different than colloquially referring to this proposed idea as treating semi-autos as if they were machine guns? (Other than they wouldn’t be subject to the 1986 registry regulations). FWIW, the [BATFE’s own materials](http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-2.pdf) (at Section 2.5, page 17 of the pdf.) state that a semi-auto rifle wouldn’t be subject to the NFA. > [@](#): > > Firearms, except machineguns and silencers, that are subject to the NFA fall within the various definitions due to specific features. If the particular feature that causes a firearm to be regulated by the NFA is eliminated or modified, the resulting weapon is no longer an NFA weapon. I don’t know whether that interpretation is in the statute, or is merely an executive interpretation that could easily be undone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665.md?page=4)