# 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:** 5
**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 11, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/81 "2013-01-11T14:35:04Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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? Don’t be absurd. All firearms are simple tools with one purpose: to kill things. While we occasionally re-purpose certain arms into non-hunting sporting uses, that is hardly their original purpose; no different then if I invented a game that involved throwing claw hammers around. Hammers don’t suddenly stop being a tool to hammer things with. People use guns to kill other people, and they are using the weapon for its intended use when they do so; to kill things. Understanding that, then it is logical to examine why certain types of firearm are reasonable for the average, untrained citizen to own _without restriction_. We already do this with other military weaponry, explosives, and equipment; the rationale being that it is simply too dangerous to the public to allow anyone to own. Semi-automatic functionality and high capacity magazines offer no _meaningful_ advantages to hunting or sporting pursuits. They are designs brought in from military equipment designed to maximize the efficiency of soldiers in the field. They are designs with the _sole purpose_ of killing other humans most efficiently. I don’t see any particular reason that we as a society should allow just any yahoo to own the most efficient killing equipment available. General restriction, licensing, testing, and permitting is a sensible compromise. ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/82 "2013-01-11T14:49:55Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Jurisdiction is the official authority to make legal decisions and judgments. > Let me cover the same ground again. In 1983 Reagan issued an EO that allowed INTERPOL to operate within the U.S. and specifically denied to INTERPOL any immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws. > > You point out that in 2004, Interpol created a UN liason office at the UN HQ in New York. > > For 26 years, INTERPOL did not have immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws. > > In 2009, Obama issued an EO that granted INTERPOL immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws. > > For the 3 years since Obama’s INTERPOL EO, INTERPOL has been immune from U.S. search and seizure laws. It’s up to INTERPOL to decide if they want to share any of their information/data with anyone who asks, including U.S. courts. For 26 years, it was immaterial if Interpol had immunity from US search and seizure laws because they had no assets or facilities subject to seizure or search by US law enforcement personnel. Exactly which part of this do you think is evidence of some grand presidential conspiracy? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/83 "2013-01-11T15:24:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > For 26 years, it was immaterial if Interpol had immunity from US search and seizure laws because they had no assets or facilities subject to seizure or search by US law enforcement personnel. Exactly which part of this do you think is evidence of some grand presidential conspiracy? ??? “Records” and “files” and “memos” and “phone records” can also be searched and they can be seized. No “building” is required before that can take place. An INTERPOL employee could have been operating out of a van down by the river and a U.S. court “COULD HAVE”, prior to EO 13524, demanded that they turn over specific INTERPOL records to the court. I didn’t say there was a “grand presidential conspiracy”. 😕 I mentioned a successful EO and an unsuccessful EO to demonstrate what Presidents had done in the past. Presidents have the option of issuing EO’s as they see fit. After 3 years, Obama’s INTERPOL EO has not been challenged by Congress or in the courtroom. That’s a pretty good indication that Obama’s INTERPOL EO is considered legal, lawful, legitimate, sanctioned, statutory, etc. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/84 "2013-01-11T15:49:30Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Understanding that, then it is logical to examine why certain types of firearm are reasonable for the average, untrained citizen to own _without restriction_. We already do this with other military weaponry, explosives, and equipment; the rationale being that it is simply too dangerous to the public to allow anyone to own. Semi-automatic functionality and high capacity magazines offer no _meaningful_ advantages to hunting or sporting pursuits. They are designs brought in from military equipment designed to maximize the efficiency of soldiers in the field. They are designs with the _sole purpose_ of killing other humans most efficiently. I don’t see any particular reason that we as a society should allow just any yahoo to own the most efficient killing equipment available. General restriction, licensing, testing, and permitting is a sensible compromise. Well, like I said, I don’t favor such things without restriction. I think if you have the carry license that I mentioned, I think you should be able to buy what you want (although I think you can make a good case for keeping the restrictions on NFA destructive devices the way they are). Rob ---
**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 11, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/85 "2013-01-11T15:55:52Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > ??? “Records” and “files” and “memos” and “phone records” can also be searched and they can be seized. No “building” is required before that can take place. An INTERPOL employee could have been operating out of a van down by the river and a U.S. court “COULD HAVE”, prior to EO 13524, demanded that they turn over specific INTERPOL records to the court. Oh, for fuck’s sake. Interpol didn’t operate in the US. They had no records in the US. No files. No memos. No phone records. It only has 600-something employees; all they do is coordinate law enforcement agencies in different countries. They don’t do their own investigations or anything. However, I obviously misunderstood the point you were making and I’ll let this go. ---
**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 11, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/86 "2013-01-11T17:05:26Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Understanding that, then it is logical to examine why certain types of firearm are reasonable for the average, untrained citizen to own _without restriction_. We already do this with other military weaponry, explosives, and equipment; the rationale being that it is simply too dangerous to the public to allow anyone to own. Semi-automatic functionality and high capacity magazines offer no _meaningful_ advantages to hunting or sporting pursuits. They are designs brought in from military equipment designed to maximize the efficiency of soldiers in the field. They are designs with the _sole purpose_ of killing other humans most efficiently. I don’t see any particular reason that we as a society should allow just any yahoo to own the most efficient killing equipment available. General restriction, licensing, testing, and permitting is a sensible compromise. Do you have any idea why the distinction was made between semi and full auto guns in the original 1934 GCA that placed significant restrictions upon full auto and select fire guns, but left semi auto alone? I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/87 "2013-01-11T17:20:14Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > 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. You don’t, but apparently most people do and want to have background checks and registration. I’m sure you’ll be in line supporting them if and when the laws change. And gun banning is impossible, so you’re basically holding up any meaningful legislation on guns over a fear of the impossible. Also, why aren’t you angry about my giant moon laser face? ---
**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 11, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/88 "2013-01-11T17:44:21Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Do you have any idea why the distinction was made between semi and full auto guns in the original 1934 GCA that placed significant restrictions upon full auto and select fire guns, but left semi auto alone? I don’t. I can’t figure that out either. My WAG is that perhaps they were having trouble defining certain systems as one thing or the other and thus placed them into AOW, as opposed to one of the defined categories. It really wasn’t a good law, for that reason alone; just like the AWB was a badly worded law as well. Good legislation on technology issues should set forth simple guidelines most likely based on end result functionality, address current models specifically (variants fall under the parent classification unless they have been altered in functionality), and provide for timely review and classification of new models and systems. To my mind, a four tier system of access would be ideal. Requirements for various levels is something that would need to be ironed out thoroughly, so remember I’m speaking generally here. 1. (any) revolvers, bolt and lever action rifles, shotguns 2. _Federally_ recognized CC (administered and recorded locally of course): Provides for CC privileges in all public areas/states 3. Restricted: ( requires level 2 permitting for 3 years without incident) Semi-automatic, HCM, select fire weapons 4. Dealer/collector (requires 2,3) Automatic, militaria, etc. ---
**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 11, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/89 "2013-01-11T17:56:56Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > _Federally_ recognized CC (administered and recorded locally of course) I suspect this would not survive constitutional scrutiny, though it’s a very good idea. ---
**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 11, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/90 "2013-01-11T17:59:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I suspect this would not survive constitutional scrutiny, though it’s a very good idea. State’s rights issue? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/91 "2013-01-11T20:38:00Z")
> [@AlohaBear32](#): > > …You know, this is getting ridiclous…The Dixie Chick say ONE comment that could be interpreted as anti Bush and they get Tarred and Feathered and have whole CD’S dedicated to hating them… > > …This coming from a soon to be **registered** firearm owner… The Ditzy Chicks made a lot more than ONE comment. The singer didn’t seem to be able to keep her mouth shut. They had obviously forgotten who was really paying their salary (ie. buying their music and attending their concerts). Once they had alienated their fan base, their million dollar paydays were gone. The DC had every right to say whatever they wanted to say. And The DC fans had every right NOT to spend their money buying DC merchandise. FYI - Firearm registration historically leads to confiscation. Media outlets have been known to publish lists of registered firearm owners in States where laws do not prevent them from doing so. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/92 "2013-01-11T22:06:37Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > I can’t figure that out either. My WAG is that perhaps they were having trouble defining certain systems as one thing or the other and thus placed them into AOW, as opposed to one of the defined categories. It really wasn’t a good law, for that reason alone; just like the AWB was a badly worded law as well. Good legislation on technology issues should set forth simple guidelines most likely based on end result functionality, address current models specifically (variants fall under the parent classification unless they have been altered in functionality), and provide for timely review and classification of new models and systems. > > To my mind, a four tier system of access would be ideal. Requirements for various levels is something that would need to be ironed out thoroughly, so remember I’m speaking generally here. > > 1. (any) revolvers, bolt and lever action rifles, shotguns > 2. _Federally_ recognized CC (administered and recorded locally of course): Provides for CC privileges in all public areas/states > 3. Restricted: ( requires level 2 permitting for 3 years without incident) Semi-automatic, HCM, select fire weapons > 4. Dealer/collector (requires 2,3) Automatic, militaria, etc. Where does my 10/22 fall into that? ---
**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 11, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/93 "2013-01-11T23:00:30Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Where does my 10/22 fall into that? > [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > …Semi-automatic functionality and high capacity magazines offer no meaningful advantages to hunting or sporting pursuits. There you go. Careful you don’t massacre a forest full of squirrels with that thing. ---
**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 12, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/94 "2013-01-12T06:21:18Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > There you go. Careful you don’t massacre a forest full of squirrels with that thing. > [@](#): > > Because a .22 LR bullet is less powerful than larger cartridges, its danger to humans is often underestimated. In fact, a .22 LR bullet is capable of inflicting very serious injuries (e.g. the four people wounded during the Reagan assassination attempt) or death e.g. the Kauhajoki school shooting (11 killed and 1 wounded), the Jokela school shooting (9 killed and 12 wounded), or victims of Brenda Ann Spencer (2 killed and 9 wounded) as well as the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Numerous other shooting incidents have demonstrated that .22 LR bullets can easily kill or seriously injure humans.[7][8][9] Even after flying 400 yards (370 m), a .22 bullet is still traveling at approximately 500 ft/s (150 m/s). A standard rimfire cartridge can have a ballistic range of up to 1.5 miles (2,400 m).[citation needed] Ricochets are more common in .22 LR projectiles than for more powerful cartridges as the combination of unjacketed lead and moderate velocities allows the projectile to deflect – not penetrate or disintegrate – when hitting hard objects at a glancing angle. A .22LR can ricochet off the surface of water at a low angle of aim. Severe injury may result to a person or object in the line of fire on the opposite shore, several hundred yards away.[10] Actually it’s questions like yours that made me mention that existing formats and models need to be evaluated individually. . ---
**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 12, 2013, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/95 "2013-01-12T06:36:58Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Actually it’s questions like yours that made me mention that existing formats and models need to be evaluated individually. . I know how dangerous ANY bullet, including the .22 can be. I would guess that more people are killed by a .22 every year than “assault weapons”. A Ruger 10/22 is the quintessential semi auto hunting rifle. It’s the rifle that millions of people used to learn how to shoot. It’s the one that even those looking to ban all the mean looking ones leave alone. It’s suggestions like yours, to categorize it as something it is not, never has been, and never will be that kills your whole idea. You were the one who stated “Semi-automatic functionality and high capacity magazines offer no meaningful advantages to hunting or sporting pursuits.” You are wrong, and not just on this firearm. Blanket statements like that only cause the knee jerks out there to say nope, not gonna happen. ---
**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 12, 2013, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/96 "2013-01-12T06:58:04Z")
Adding to that point, looking at your 4 categories of licensing I would suggest that any .22 regardless of action be at level one. The .22, in rifle or pistol is the foundation that good gun safety is built upon and needless restrictions only keep that basic safety away from people. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/97 "2013-01-12T13:00:13Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > Well now, [here’s a “reasonable” reaction](http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-sta) to potential executive orders from the CEO of a weapons and tactical training company in Tennessee: Guys like this frighten me. If I got to decide unilaterally who could and couldn’t have guns, he’d be one of the first ones on the “no” list. For what it’s worth, [Tennessee has revoked his carry license in response to the video](http://www.kpho.com/story/20559778/tn-firearms-instructor-gains-attention-from-youtube-rant). ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/98 "2013-01-12T16:41:57Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > Guys like this frighten me. On that we can agree. ---
**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 12, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/99 "2013-01-12T19:36:24Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I know how dangerous ANY bullet, including the .22 can be. I would guess that more people are killed by a .22 every year than “assault weapons”. A Ruger 10/22 is the quintessential semi auto hunting rifle. It’s the rifle that millions of people used to learn how to shoot. It’s the one that even those looking to ban all the mean looking ones leave alone. It’s suggestions like yours, to categorize it as something it is not, never has been, and never will be that kills your whole idea. > > You were the one who stated “Semi-automatic functionality and high capacity magazines offer no meaningful advantages to hunting or sporting pursuits.” You are wrong, and not just on this firearm. Blanket statements like that only cause the knee jerks out there to say nope, not gonna happen. No I stand by that statement. There is no demonstrable advantage to the Semi auto function in terms of hunting or sporting. ---
**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 12, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665/100 "2013-01-12T22:08:19Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > No I stand by that statement. There is no demonstrable advantage to the Semi auto function in terms of hunting or sporting. Well, if you say so, I don’t know how I could argue with that… How about a cite? Here are three reasons: Quicker follow up shot Reduced recoil Better ergonomics There is a reason that we pay $1500 for a Benelli semi auto shotgun as compared to the $500 Benelli pump. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-executive-orders-could-obama-give-vis-a-vis-gun-control/646665.md?page=6)