[QUOTE=ATF]
For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Any Other Weapon” means:
Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive;
[/QUOTE]
Could Obama direct the ATF to regard semiautomatic rifles as subject to this clause?
I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn’t think so.
(he can’t under the destructive device clause)
Executive orders “can” have the full force of law IF the office of President is considered (or eventually proven) to have that specific authority.
Way back in 1951, Truman issued an executive order authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the nation’s steel mills to avert/break a steel union strike during the UN’s Korean “conflict”. The SCOTUS agreed to hear the case and found that the President had acted without statutory or Constitutional authority effectively recinding Truman’s EO.
On Dec 17, 2009, Obama issued Executive Order 13524 which amended Executive Order 12425. Obama’s EO excluded INTERPOL from all U.S. search and seizure laws. This Obama EO has never been challenged either by Congress or in the courts. Currently, you have no legal right to request information from INTERPOL about the actions of the foreign police agency, in U.S. courts. No FOIA. Not even the FBI has that presidential protection.
Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, federal government officials and agencies. Obama could order the BATFE to round up all semi-automatic firearms or have them close gun stores that sell handguns??? Obama could direct the IRS to give every firearm manufacturer a full blown, two year, tax audit???
The U.S. House of Representatives could respond by impeaching Obama. Or not? The U.S. Senate could respond by finding Obama guilty. Or not?
Congress could pass legislation that removes funding from any agency that Obama directed to collect firearms. Or increase the agencies budget.
I believe Obama/Biden are threatening to use an EO because they know that they do not have the votes in Congress to pass any anti-2nd, registration/confiscation, legislation into law.
You cannot simultaneously argue that
I mean, I guess you CAN, because people are doing so. But it’s exactly the same as accusing anyone who comes into your gun-confiscation fan fiction with an opposing view of being paranoid for thinking someone is proposing gun confiscation. It’s not honest and it’s not going to win you any points with people outside of your existing club of terrified mommies. It’s certainly not part of the “reasonable discussion” people claim to want to have.
It’s not presidential protection. It’s congressional protection.
You’re surprised that an American law doesn’t apply to a not American police agency?
Probably not, but you can argue that,
In fact if you actually read what powers the CotUS gives the Pres . . .well it’s not worth two buckets of warm anything.
CMC
Just so you know, I agree with you that there are plenty of people arguing for an outright ban of firearms and therefore it’s not paranoid to worry that that is an eventual goal (although it’s hard to see it being tenable).
That said, it’s not what the thread is about. My question is what measures can Obama take unilaterally. If you know of something he could do which would be a de facto proscription of firearms or so-called assault weapons or whatever, I would like to know.
You can sure tell there aren’t a lot of actual gun guys in here. Or, I suppose they don’t want to give Obama any ideas?
Not an actual executive order so much as a change in the interpetation of GCA 68, but Bush the Elder banned import of many semi-automatic military style rifles in 89:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html
Pissed of the gun crowd plenty. Largely thought to be a reaction to the Stockton mass shooting. Because of how it defined imported, it mostly lead to USA made parts being added to the imported guns, slightly increasing the price.
So, I figure that Obama could do some harm to freedom in this area. Not quite ban everything and send in FEMA death squads, but increase the costs and harrassment of gun owners. Doubt it would have any measurable effect on murder rates.
[QUOTE=ThisOneGuy]
You can sure tell there aren’t a lot of actual gun guys in here. Or, I suppose they don’t want to give Obama any ideas?
[/QUOTE]
I’d say they are mostly tired of arguing with the Ban Em All!! crowd at this point. There have been myriad threads on this subject recently, and while things have calmed down a bit there is still a lot of strident posters on both sides, but due to the nature of this board I’d say there are more strident anti-gun folks than pro-gun folks in these parts.
But that’s really the point. It was the point of the older AWB horseshit, and the point of having Biden bird-dog either a revival of that old crap or some new updated version of it. I figure this is a test balloon by the administration to see how the water is and how far they think they can push things. In fact, all of these ridiculous antics have been just a series of test balloons to see what sort of public backing the can generate to do…well, as much as they politically can while the doing is good and emotions are high. If they can keep the heat on and keep folks riled, well…they might just get their cherished AWB (perhaps version II, Electric-booga-loo) back, and maybe make it stick this time. It won’t do shit for crime or for these sorts of rare mass slayings, but it will be a step down the road towards whatever it is they think they can get away with. I doubt even in the wet dreams of the most fervent anti-gun advocates fondest wishes the think they could get an actual ban in, but then that’s not what they are going for here…just chipping away, as they did for decades, doing what they can get away with and making it harder and harder on gun owners, annoying them at every turn, etc etc.
:rolleyes: I own four, but I prefer melee weapons.
CMC
INTERPOL operates with the U.S..
INTERPOL was subject to U.S. search and seizure laws until Obama issued Executive Order 13524.
INTERPOL is no longer subject to U.S. search and seizure laws.
??? Congress didn’t issue the EO. The President issued the EO. The current President or the next President can issue another EO to repeal EO 13524.
Which has exactly what to do with the Freedom of Information Act?
INTERPOL and EO 13524 amending EO 12425
CMC
Right, because “regulating guns” means the same thing as “punished”. :rolleyes:
ace represents a special breed of paranoid gun owners who believe that no matter how small, how sensible, or how desirable a law regarding gun ownership is, it is always done in the context of a slippery slope, a chip in the wall of the 2nd Amendment, designed to get the public used to the idea of a total gun ban. There is no reasoning with people like him and I’d just as soon not try
No, I’m sorry but that is paranoia. Just because there are people who want a gun ban like me, does not mean it is remotely possible. There are people who want to legalize pedophilia and make JEDI a real religion but I do not stay up at night worried about them. Even I know that there is no way we’ll ever get a gun ban in this country, but I do want to work towards something we can have.
It IS paranoia to think that guns will be banned. That paranoia is preventing any sensible creation of gun regulations that would protect the lives of all Americans. People should be ashamed that they are essentially condoning the deaths and those harmed in their mad protection of a right that will never be threatened.
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.
For what it’s worth, I think we should have a national CCW permit that would be required to purchase firearms or ammo. In exchange, I should be allowed to carry anywhere a cop can (I used to have a CHL, but i let it lapse because I couldn’t carry it anywhere and I am not comfortable leaving it in my car.
Amazing.
You understand that people can want things despite there being zero chance they will happen, right? I’d like to be a Supreme Court justice, but I would not suggest that there is a credible threat that same will occur.
The POTUS issued an executive order implementing a congressional enactment. Interpol had no US facilities until 2004, so there was no reason to accord them a privilege against search and seizure. The International Red Cross and the IMF also exempt from such laws.
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.
I’ve been making that suggestion for years. Falls on deaf ears as it actually gives gun owners something in return for increased regulation. That’s not the way they want to play the game.
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.