I was thinking he had a picture of Janet Reno above his bed. lol (just kidding Don)
Political Ramblings
- Thread starter DennisK
- Start date
- Status
Entirely possible.
- May 17, 2007
- 3,216
- 170
- 254
As I watched that television performance, I thought of all the people that died because these dolts allowed tons of cheap Chinese weapons to be passed into Mexico. Have they no shame? I want to know who in the administration got the bribes from the cartels.
I had to laugh because he complained about the NRA mentioning his kids in an ad and 2 hours later he brings out 4 kids on stage with him.
He thinks guns in schools make his kids safer but wont make your kids safer.
Apparently, his "subject's" children are not as important.
So, If Congress doesn't pass his law, he will sign an executive order and pass it anyway? Is this correct? Isn't there something wrong with that?
Last edited:
Very...
I thought so!
President Obama has, by executive order, circumvented national immigration law by ordering a halt to deportations of certain unlawful aliens, without getting the law changed. In July of 2012, President Obama changed long standing welfare policy to allow states to change mandated work requirements. Earlier he ordered the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. None of these orders were submitted to Congress for review, which the Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done in part. I have co-sponsored bills to reverse these unconstitutional power grabs and will continue to fight them.
The President, touted by some as knowledgeable about our Constitution, acts as if he never heard of it sometimes. Now, the President and Vice-President are talking about enacting gun bans by executive order.
“The president is going go act,” Biden is quoted as saying. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”
For the moment put aside the fact that the Second Amendment protects the right of each person to own and posses firearms and the ammunition that goes with it. Our Supreme Court resolved that issue in Heller. Obviously neither the President nor Congress can enact laws that violate the Second Amendment, anymore than they can enact laws that violate the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment.
Let's focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are consistent with our Constitution.
The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can't do it unilaterally.
In order for the President to enact a gun ban by executive order, he would have to have such power given to him by Congress (we already established that the Constitution does not give him that power). Any unilateral action by the President must rely on either a constitutional authority or a statutory power from Congress. What laws exist for the President to enact gun bans by executive order? The Attorney General is authorized under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to regulate the import of firearms if it is “generally suitable" for or readily adaptable to sporting purpose. Thus, the Attorney General could use a “sporting purposes test” by which he can determine the types of firearms that can be imported into the United States. But this law does not authorize a gun ban or affect domestic manufacture and sales. So it provides no Congressional basis for Mr. Biden or the President to create a gun ban.
President Obama may point out that President Clinton issued an executive order (No. 12938) in 1994 where some Chinese firearms and ammunition were restricted from import. If that occurred, it would have been a serious overreach of the application of the authority set forth in that Executive Order, which President Clinton said at the time was being implemented under the International Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Arms Export Control Act. As stated in the Order itself, "the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (‘‘weapons of mass destruction’’) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat." President Clinton Executive Order 12938 (1994). How that justification, based on large scale weapons of mass destruction, could be interpreted to include Chinese hand guns is unclear and problematic. Indeed, any fair reading of those laws would conclude they could not support a domestic gun ban.
The bottom line is that there is no Congressional authority enacted that would allow the President to take unilateral action to make it unlawful for individuals to transfer or possess a rifle, handgun or other gun or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Nor is there any Constitutional power under Article II (the power of being the “Commander in Chief”) that allows this. If the President wants a gun ban or ammunition ban he has to first revise the Second Amendment, which is not easy, but possible. I would, of course, oppose that, as would most Americans. But that is at least a lawful and Constitutional means to achieve this.
Nor can the President do something Congress has prohibited. Thus, the President cannot reallocate ATF money and direct it to make a centralized database of federal firearms purchases because we prohibited that. Last year the House passed a continuing funding resolution (I would rather vote on budgets but the Senate refuses to pass a budget resolution and has not done so since April 2009), that became Public Law 112–55 (Nov. 18, 2011), that expressly prohibits the President from using any money "to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees" except for criminal investigations. In other words, the President is expressly prohibited from making a list of gun owners for purposes of then rounding up guns. This resolution contains other restrictions as well limiting the President's budget control over firearms policy.
Another law, the 2007 National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) Improvement Amendment Act, requires each federal agency to transfer records to the Attorney General if a record shows that someone is a prohibited firearm possessor under federal law. It is within the President's power to make sure his agencies are complying with that law and submitting records to the AG. But that is it. No more was authorized by Congress.
I, and many Americans, remain troubled by what we see are unconstitutional power grabs by the President. We have a Constitution and it requires that we follow it. Indeed, every public officer swears to do so. The Constitution sets our policy for the long term, and emotions of the day have to be subsumed to those principles. All of us share the grief of the criminal use of guns. We need to focus on the mentally ill who commit these crimes. We should not abandon our cultural and legal values, in place for over 200 years and created for good reason, because of a few mentally ill people. We need to remain vigilant and not let the President create bogus executive orders that have no Constitutional authority and no statutory authority.
{C}
Comments
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Facebook
Twitter
Login
Add New Comment
Sort by popular nowSort by best ratingSort by newest firstSort by oldest first
Showing 80 of 873 comments
Reactions
Trackback URL
advertisement
Send A Tip
Executive orders...
The President, touted by some as knowledgeable about our Constitution, acts as if he never heard of it sometimes. Now, the President and Vice-President are talking about enacting gun bans by executive order.
“The president is going go act,” Biden is quoted as saying. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”
For the moment put aside the fact that the Second Amendment protects the right of each person to own and posses firearms and the ammunition that goes with it. Our Supreme Court resolved that issue in Heller. Obviously neither the President nor Congress can enact laws that violate the Second Amendment, anymore than they can enact laws that violate the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment.
Let's focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are consistent with our Constitution.
The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can't do it unilaterally.
In order for the President to enact a gun ban by executive order, he would have to have such power given to him by Congress (we already established that the Constitution does not give him that power). Any unilateral action by the President must rely on either a constitutional authority or a statutory power from Congress. What laws exist for the President to enact gun bans by executive order? The Attorney General is authorized under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to regulate the import of firearms if it is “generally suitable" for or readily adaptable to sporting purpose. Thus, the Attorney General could use a “sporting purposes test” by which he can determine the types of firearms that can be imported into the United States. But this law does not authorize a gun ban or affect domestic manufacture and sales. So it provides no Congressional basis for Mr. Biden or the President to create a gun ban.
President Obama may point out that President Clinton issued an executive order (No. 12938) in 1994 where some Chinese firearms and ammunition were restricted from import. If that occurred, it would have been a serious overreach of the application of the authority set forth in that Executive Order, which President Clinton said at the time was being implemented under the International Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Arms Export Control Act. As stated in the Order itself, "the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (‘‘weapons of mass destruction’’) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat." President Clinton Executive Order 12938 (1994). How that justification, based on large scale weapons of mass destruction, could be interpreted to include Chinese hand guns is unclear and problematic. Indeed, any fair reading of those laws would conclude they could not support a domestic gun ban.
The bottom line is that there is no Congressional authority enacted that would allow the President to take unilateral action to make it unlawful for individuals to transfer or possess a rifle, handgun or other gun or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Nor is there any Constitutional power under Article II (the power of being the “Commander in Chief”) that allows this. If the President wants a gun ban or ammunition ban he has to first revise the Second Amendment, which is not easy, but possible. I would, of course, oppose that, as would most Americans. But that is at least a lawful and Constitutional means to achieve this.
Nor can the President do something Congress has prohibited. Thus, the President cannot reallocate ATF money and direct it to make a centralized database of federal firearms purchases because we prohibited that. Last year the House passed a continuing funding resolution (I would rather vote on budgets but the Senate refuses to pass a budget resolution and has not done so since April 2009), that became Public Law 112–55 (Nov. 18, 2011), that expressly prohibits the President from using any money "to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees" except for criminal investigations. In other words, the President is expressly prohibited from making a list of gun owners for purposes of then rounding up guns. This resolution contains other restrictions as well limiting the President's budget control over firearms policy.
Another law, the 2007 National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) Improvement Amendment Act, requires each federal agency to transfer records to the Attorney General if a record shows that someone is a prohibited firearm possessor under federal law. It is within the President's power to make sure his agencies are complying with that law and submitting records to the AG. But that is it. No more was authorized by Congress.
I, and many Americans, remain troubled by what we see are unconstitutional power grabs by the President. We have a Constitution and it requires that we follow it. Indeed, every public officer swears to do so. The Constitution sets our policy for the long term, and emotions of the day have to be subsumed to those principles. All of us share the grief of the criminal use of guns. We need to focus on the mentally ill who commit these crimes. We should not abandon our cultural and legal values, in place for over 200 years and created for good reason, because of a few mentally ill people. We need to remain vigilant and not let the President create bogus executive orders that have no Constitutional authority and no statutory authority.
{C}
Comments
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Login
Add New Comment
- Post as …
- Image
Sort by popular nowSort by best ratingSort by newest firstSort by oldest first
Showing 80 of 873 comments
ILOT 114 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
A few observations regarding the following list of serial killers in the US.
1. With the exception of “Son of Sam”, few involved a gun.
2. 90% committed their crimes within the last 40 years
3. Of the 93 on the list, 55 had an “unknown” or un-confimed # of victims
4. 87 on the list committed their crimes during or after the 1960’s to current
-----Perpetrator-------# victims
Gary Ridgway 71 up to 90+
Ted Bundy 35 up to 36+
John Wayne Gacy 33 up to 34+
Dean Croll 27 up to 28+
Juan Corona 25 up to 25+
Ronald Dominique 23 up to 23+
Earle Nelson 25 up to 25
William Bonin 21 up to 36+
Patrick Kearny 21 up to 28
Paul John Knowles 18 up to 35
Joel Rifkin 17 up to 17
Jeffrey Dahmer 17 up to 17
Randy Kraft 16 up to 100
Robert Yates 16 up to 16
Charles Hatcher 16 up to 16
Robert Hansen 15 up to 21
Angel Resendiz 15 up to 18
Donald Harvey 37 up to 87
Charles Cullen 29 up to 40+
Orville Majors 6 up to 130
Amy Gilligan 5 up to 48+
Kristen Gilbert 5 up to 70+
Gwen Graham 5 up to 5
Michael Swango 4 up to 60
Dean Cordl + others 28 up to 42+
Leonard Lake + 11 up to 25
Arthur Shawcross 14 up to 14
Cleveland Torso 13 up to 40+
Richard Ramirez 13 up to 20
Boston Strangler 13
William Suff 12 up to 22
Maury Travis 12 up to 17
Kenneth Bianchi 12 up to 15
Herb Baumeister 11 up to 25+
Jack Unterweger 11 up to 15
Benjamin Atkins 11
Nannie Doss 11
Anthony Sowell 11 up to unkown
Edmund Kemper 10
Dennis Rader 10
Lonnie Franklin , Jr 10
Henry Wallace 10
Angelo Buono 10
Charlene Gallego 10
Timothy Krajcir 9
Keith Jesperson 8 up to 160
Rodney Alcala 8 up to 100+
Joseph Franklin 15 up to 20
Christopher Wilder 8 up to 13+
Kendall Francois 8 up to 9
Gary Evans 8
Michael Ross 8
Marybeth Tining 8
Sean Gillis 8
Derrick Lee 7 up to 10
Doug Clark 7 up to 8+
Paul Reis 7
Richard Chase 6
David Berkowitz 6
Dayton Rogers 6
Carl Panzram 5 up to 22
Thomas Dillon 5
Richard Cottingham 5 up to 100
Joe Ball 5 up to 20
David Maust 5 up to 9
Danny Rolling 5 up to 8
Joseph Duncan III 5 up to 7
Vincent Johnson 5 up to 7
Andrew Cunanan 5
Harry Powers 5
Marc Sappington 4
Jerry Brudos 4
Miguel Rivera 4
Gordon Northcott 3 up to 17
Dorothea Puente 3 up to 25
Ted Kaczynski 3 up to 8
Michael Gargiulo 3 up to 6
Westley Allan Dodd 3 up to 3+
Charles Albright 3
William Hierens 3
John Joubert 3
Altemio Sanchez 3
Karl Warner 3
Ed Gein 2 up to 8
Gary Heidink 2
Shirley Winters 2 up to 7
Billy Gohl 2 up to 140
Glen Rogers 2 up to 5
John Collins 1 up to 6
David Ray 12 up to 60
Henry Lee Lucas 11 up to 213
Donald Gaskins 9 up to 80+
Tommy Lynn Sells 6 up to 70
Albert Fish 6 up to 100
Zodiac Killer 5 up to 37
Ottis Toole 4 up to 125
In light of this list I ask, no demand that 2 Executive Orders be issued. They may sound absurd, and are intended to be.
1. Identify and catch all perpetrators PRIOR to their first victim being claimed
2. If EO #1 fails, all known associates, LEO’s, and family members of the perps be publicly identified and vilified for failure to execute EO #1.
3. Assemble a commission and figure out what went wrong in the 60's!!!
(Edited by author 1 week ago)
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Paul Carlisle 67 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
There is a difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer. Without statistics at hand, I would bet that, barring extraordinary events like 911 and the Oklahoma City bombing, over 90% of mass murders are committed with a gun.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Snake_In_A_Woodpile 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
A little high on your percentages,.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
bigmaq1980 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Folks, this only makes owning a type of gun/ammunition "illegal" (depending on what is in the law change).
Guns and ammo will be available. Just like drugs (and the current criminal gun owners who we want to protect against), this doesn't make it disappear.
It just forces everyone (otherwise law abiding citizen) who wants and acquires one to become a de facto criminal.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
ILOT 9 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
I could give you those numbers, but a progressive would say that only murder en masse is worthy of attention. Do progressives not care about the victims of serial killers? When I looked a this list, I was amazed how few have ever been covered in the "news".
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Snake_In_A_Woodpile 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Lefties don't really care about murder victims period, either mass murder, serial killings or any type of murder. This has already been established through common sense.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Nechedjabo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Forget about guns, Obama is murdering the Constitution, one
Amendment at a time
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Perry Obsternoffan 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
They don't much care about r a p e, or any other violent crime either, unless it's racially charged or leads to more and better control of the citizenry
They wan't to make us as docile and as helpless as they can, that's part and parcel of needing them to protect us etc.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
J. Wade Harrell 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
The liberals only care about what shocks us. One death at a time, no matter how many thousands occur, are not so bad. One event where a dozen or two are slain seem to deserve our attention much more. The worst school massacre in U.S. history was done without the use of a firearm. This is not about crime or safety reduction, this is all about disarming us and making us like most of the rest of the world.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
aliswell 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
@Nechedjabo
You mean one power grab at a time.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
ProgTrog 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
A salient point.
"We have a Constitution and it requires that we follow it. Indeed, every public officer swears to do so."
Mr. Gosar, wouldn't Mr. Obama's signature on such an executive order, blatantly undermining the second amendment,constitute hard evidence of a failure to uphold his oath of office and provide the mechanism whereby he could be impeached for the same?
Are there any plans by conservative representatives to draw up articles of impeachment should Obama act by executive order to circumvent the constitution, as VP Biden has claimed Mr. Obama will?
If not, I believe it would be throwing away perhaps the best chance we have of putting a stop to this man's unconstitutional reign.
- ALike
jea2comments 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
The CRIMINALS are in the White House. It's time to OUST them! and by-the-way how is the Usurper going to be "legally inaugurated" when he is going to LIE on on his oath to upholding and defend the CONSTITUTION? I think they call that TREASON! it's way past time that rat-******* be IMPEACHED!!!
- ALike
disqus_qBMXc13yLL 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
As well as how few of them used guns. Jeffrey Dahmer used a knife and fork. Many were stabbed, poisoned, bludgeoned, blown up. I don't see any legislation to address that. Except in Britain now where they want to ban long kitchen knives as that is the new murder weapon of choice.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
usedtobejosephofsteelbutgotban 6 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
What's the definition of a 'mass murder"?
Snake_In_A_Woodpile 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
I would classify abortionists as mass murderers and I doubt they use guns.
- ALike
ILOT 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Typically the murder of at least 3 victims in one instance....that's what I understand from my research.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
rm56 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
A million unborn babies a year.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Perry Obsternoffan 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Depends on who you ask
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
Ask a leftist and they would define it as anyone or any event that helps them promote their agenda of dependency and control.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
clockwindingdown 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Guns don't kill people leftist ideology does!
How many millions did they killed just last century? How many have they killed this century? How many do they label as dissidents, imprison, torture, maim, work to death, and execute?
Leftist regimes are mass murders...
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
ILOT 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Do some research...you'll be amazed how often "fire" is the weapon of choice. If you let me do your voting for you, I'll do all your thinking for you.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
tmanosaurus, a guy, glad i got here and nowhere else 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
interesting info and quote... yours?
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
ILOT 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
TMAN:
Thank you. Yes, that is an original. Sounds like a deal a lazy progressive would take me up on eh?
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
gotham1883 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Check out what happened in Waco in 1993. Fire was the governments choice for mass murder.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
kerndaddy 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
actually, by far the most mass murders are performed in abortion mills, brought to us by the same hypocrite leftist politicians who pretend to be concerned about guns harming the children.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
rm56 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Just imagine all those unborn children the left has saved from the horror of a violent death by gun? Don't they "feel" all warm and fuzzy?<sarc></sarc>
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
1389AD, Conservative counterjihad blogger 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
GMTA, Kerndaddy.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Robert Michael 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Too subjective-I prefer facts we can all agree on...
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
jerryg1018 5 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Hitler gassed millions, Stalin froze millions in the Siberian gulags. They didn't need guns, they disarmed the people first.
rm56 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Liberals ARE the very type of people they proclaim to be opposed to.
They say they are tolerant, but they are the least tolerant people on Earth. Living a life of hypocricy and lunacy.
- ALike
Toscar 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
***
YES...you are so right......how easily so many overlook that fact.
Read a history book!
***
- ALike
1389AD, Conservative counterjihad blogger 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Here is how to make sure this does NOT happen to us!
- ALike
Robert Michael 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
The key is the disarmament. I wish I had that list of all countries, throughout history who were disarmed-then killed-total genocide. Only Russia and China's vetoes at the UN kept us from being disarmed-put forth THREE Times by Hillary. Still up for a vote soon-March? I believe...
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
rm56 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
And you would be wrong on that bet pal. Take away guns and all you do is make everyone an easier prey to killers. If you don't like guns then you have a choice not to own one. Savy?
{C}
{C}
- {C}
TheSunDidIt 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
No, if you're going for world-wide statistics, Africa has more committed with machetes because they don't have the guns. And, MOST mass murders have not been committed by individuals but, BY THE STATES AGAINST UNARMED POPULATIONS. Try a look at history.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Perry Obsternoffan 8 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
How is Cherry picking data (removing 9/11) or filtering the term mass murderer productive? Unless you have an agenda.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
I guess it depends on who you ask, or as previously stated what their agenda is.
It's a moot point anyway.
Removing every gun in the country would simply change the tools the mass murder, the criminal, and every other miscreant uses, it would not change the mental state of that brings about mass murder or the other violent crimes.
I could kill just as many people, and in a more horrendous way with five gallon can of gas and a road flare, I can think of 20 other ways I could commit mass murder too. I of course don't want to and think anyone that would is a lunatic and there in is the only difference that counts.
This whole argument about which weapon is used to commit these kind of things is completely without merit.
The one thing that all of these have had in common is a that a lot of people knew they were ticking time bombs and nothing was done, and in some case nothing could be done about it because of restrictive laws passed by leftist in the first place.
Punishing law abiding citizens and usurping their rights because it might make a few crazy people feel uncomfortable is truly insane.
It's strange how the left is willing to try and destroy 300+ million peoples right to keep and bear arms (directly or indirectly) in order to protect a few thousand peoples rights to be crazy.
Apparently I missed the right to be a lunatic in the constitution, but somehow that right trumps all the others.
(Edited by author 6 days ago)
{C}
{C}
- {C}
OldNYFirefighter 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Obama's new Obama Care has in effect prevents a Dr. from telling Police or the ATF or FBI a person is a danger to other people. If Dr.'s notified the Local Police & they in turn notified the ATF, that person would not pass the NICS background check & could not buy an weapon. Nope, Obama squashed that with the health care bill.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Paul Carlisle 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
This argument sounds an awful lot like the typical liberal argument that the criminal act is largely due to circumstance and that criminals are in fact victims of a corrupted society. If you are indeed correct that a violent culture is largely responsible for this spate of mass shootings, then how do you prevent such acts while the culture is being fixed?
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
ProgTrog 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Paul Carlisle
You heard what you wanted to hear there. He didn't say that at all.
Unless I miss my guess, he was specifically referring to the fact that the liberal ACLU has made it impossible to commit crazy people against their will,thereby endangering the rest of us.
Social engineering is a leftist belief. Nobody with any credibility leans entirely to the "nurture" side of the argument, especially since it has been proven false repeatedly because leftists continually try to raise their boys to act like girls and vice versa and constantly complain that they need to isolate the children better or get to them younger because nature repeatedly asserts itself in spite of their best attempts to nurture the nature out of people.
Culture of violence my foot, it's nutty brainwashing like this, that leftists are performing on our children en masse, that creates all these psychos that go on to shoot up the schools and malls and movie theaters.
How common was this kind of thing before the successful leftist crusade to annihilate the nuclear family? Sure, it happened. But not every other week,did it?
You are emotionally and psychologically torturing kids until they snap,then blaming the instruments they use to exact their vengeance on you for the violence that you are responsible for by trying to brainwash children with your repressive and moronic belief sytem.
The reason is not guns, it's not a culture of violence, it IS that you leftists are psychopaths who abuse children with impunity.
- ALike
gotham1883 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
To Paul Carly, the people doing the killings now have one thing in common, they are anarchists. The same type of people who championed OWS and who the Great One held to all of us as examples to follow. The Great One is well aware of the anarchists in history and uses them to his benefit. His call to OWS was a call to all anarchists to start trouble.
- ALike
skyhawk 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Any attempt to violate the Constitution by a Usurper, who is not legally the President, does not call for impeachment. It calls for trial and execution.
- ALike
Robert Michael 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Not ALL were mental...MK Ultra is responsible for most/all in the past year-take that bet! CIA is biggest mass murdering cabal in this country-and many others... WWIII, by E.O.? Why does Congress do nothing? I say we string up most of his 535 enablers-after speedy trials, of course. All should be hanged for treason, imo-that way, we give no unearned credibility to Barry Soetoro's illegally squatting in the WH...
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Perry Obsternoffan 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
In response to all, no I am not saying they are all mental, I am not saying they need to be coddled and I am elementally opposed to confiscation or restriction of weapons for any sane and law abiding citizen.
What I am saying is that when you promote gangster culture, occupy, etc. and put it up on a platform don't be surprised when the followers act out their roles or when the crazies go off and do the same.
The truly mental need to be confined and treated, not coddled or allowed to roam the streets looking for their next victims, which the leftist seem to think is just fine since they set them loose and now continue to insist they remain free until they actually do kill someone.
The criminals need to be stopped, by whatever means unnecessary, period.
The bottom line answer is you can't stop it, but you can contain it and prepare to deal with it, none of the so called "Gun Violence Laws" have anything to do with that.
Guns in the hands of citizens that want to take responsibility for their own lives against criminals, insane whack jobs, and anyone else that wants to steal life, liberty, or property is the only effective answer even if the other issues were addressed.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
LOVETEA 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Ted Bundy never used a gun.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
johndoenj 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Nor did Gacy.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
johndoenj 5 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Why do you people always feel compelled to fall back on the social deviants to bolster your opinion, instead of the social norm?
Law-abiding gun owners do not commit murder (or mass murder), by the very definition. Law-abiding gun owners outnumber mass-murdering social deviants by tens of millions of people.
This is a blatant attempt at a power grab, plain pure and simple.
Look at Roe v Wade. The history books and most people will claim this decision was about legalizing abortion and a woman's right to choose. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It was a blatant Constitutional power grab, a clear cut violation of the 10th Amendment, the Federal Government usurping non-enumerated powers from the States and Citizens of States.
This current media and radical left fervor over gun-grabbing by executive order is no different. It has nothing to do with guns or gun control. It has everything to do with a Constitutional power grab, Federal Government usurping non-enumerated powers from individual Citizens.
The Great One, Mark Levin, has made some great points this week on his radio show. I would encourage everyone to download and listen to the free podcasts. He has said something that will stick with me forever. The first 10 amendments to the Consitution are the "Bill of RIGHTS" not the "Bill of NEEDS." The Federal Government has absolutely zero enumerated power to tell us what we need, or what our rights are, in the context of the Bill of RIghts.
aliswell 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Amen! THAT is where this conversation should be. The Constitution does not grant us our rights, it ACKNOWLEDGES our God-given rights while PROHIBITING the government's infringement of them.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Regina Weiner 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
You are quite correct. The Second Amendment is in place to make those in possession of political power think many times before unleashing force upon the populace in order to consolidate and abuse power. People of James Madison's time understood perfectly how the military used pillage, rape, torture, billeting and other abuses of power on the citizenry. People in other countries today still understand it. President Obama understands it as well, as do people who make specious nit-picking, trolls onto conservative websites to muddy clear thought. This is gun-grabbing and intimidation of persons whose only use for guns is the protection of themselves and their families. Argue if you want to; it is useless because the arguments themselves are weapons.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
pe_in_ala 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Eloquently stated.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Robert Michael 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
...And for Population control (Roe v. Wade).
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
WillVMI68 5 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Paul, your exceptions demonstrate you know that "most" mass murders (the greatest number of people killed in a single "event") were and continue to be committed not with guns, but
1) By Government Action
2) After that Government has disarmed the public
That would be Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, African dictators, Muslim Dictators, etc. etc. (Nations without a 2nd Amendment).
Yes, we want to eliminate events like Newtown and Aurora, but you know that will never happen. You know we will never eliminate all the "bad" people and that "bad" people will search for a way to kill.
THEREFORE the solution(s) we must be searching for should
A) Minimize the number of people killed once a "bad" person begins an event,
B) Reduce the vulnerability of susceptible "Targets" for such mass killers
C) Make sure our "solutions" don't make things worse.
Certainly a Gun Ban against law abiding US Citizens can ONLY make things worse (see Chicago, DC, Los Angles etc.).
Paul Carlisle 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
The problem with stating that government efforts should be limited to enforcing existing gun laws and keeping "assault" weapons out of the hands of criminals is that neither Adam Lanza or James Holmes had a criminal record.
- ALike
WillVMI68 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
That is the whole point. Paul, you seem seriously interested in a solution. And you know that we can never protect the innocent by trying to eliminate THINGS (huge numbers of children die by drowning in 5 gal. buckets), because it's BAD PEOPLE that find a way to kill on purpose.
The ONLY solutions that have ANY chance of protecting the living is EMPOWERING the living to protect themselves and those around them!
Adam Lanza was a BAD person and he was on the streets because he had a Constitutional right to be there. He abused that right. SHALL WE THEREFORE IGNORE EVERYONE ELSE'S 5TH Amendment right to LIBERTY?
That is exactly what so many foolishly naive people are suggesting with the 2nd Amendment.
Empowering good people is the answer, not debilitating those same good people.
- ALike
Perry Wall 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
with 3000000o guns in the USA ,if they are so bad why are they still over 30000000 people
- ALike
Robert Michael 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Solutions should be to repeal EVERY E.O. and Unconstitutional "Ego-Justice" law passed since 1913-or similar time period. We'd have sound money, armed passengers on Airplanes ('though 9-11 was false flag US/Israel job) and teachers-Sane Citizens Armed to Teeth (SCAT!) will end the 6,000 man reign over the 6 billion! And Paul-neither got their weapons through legal channels-darn facts, just keep blowing your idiotic arguments to hell, eh? Try Reality!!!
- ALike
jimjr11 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Paul, how much are you willing to bet, I'm ready! Even the largest school killing in US history didn't involve a gun!
(Edited by author 6 days ago)
OldNYFirefighter 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
The largest School mass killing was in 1927 in Bath, Michigan.
33 children & 8 adults killed & 58 badly injured by a man who lost a School Board Election. He killed his wife & dynamited the school. He didn't even own a gun!
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Perry Wall 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
in the 50s a guy in michagan killed 50 some kids by using a homemade bomb.at the turn of the last century in one of the western states the national guard order by the govenor killed a bunch of miners on strike living in a tent city.the miners though they were ther to help them,but the govenor was buddies with the owner of the mine .
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
tmanosaurus, a guy, glad i got here and nowhere else 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
initials PC
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Artie 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
The 911 hijackers used box cutters didn't they?
{C}
{C}
- {C}
thepolitinator 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
http://gunfacts.info/
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Lonewolf6 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Yea. Particularly the Federal government. In 1992 they murdered 92 defensless women and children in Waco, Texas.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Patito33 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
it does not matter we have the right to bear arms!!!
you and ilot can put forth all you wonderful statistics and have a grat discussion it is all BS. You havin this discussions proves your are both idiots!
{C}
{C}
- {C}
ILOT 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
If you're a conservative, that would be the first time I've been called an idiot by a conservative. I'm very well aware of the 2nd Amendment and am a supporter. You would do well to arm yourself with information as you shoot your mouth off; but then maybe you're just a moron with a gun.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
rocquedog 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Putito (doesn't that mean "little gay whore" in Spanish?) is a classic example of the Kool aid drinking left. He can't argue the facts, so he calls people names. Soon, his "daddy" Obuma the great Imposter will be declaring martial law, probably when he enacts some illegal law against the 2nd amend. Patriots will need to be ready. Civil war will result and many of these left wing nuts like "Putito" will be as the Loyalists were in the first Rev. War. And we all know how the patriots dealt with them!
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Bill Sellers 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
wrong
{C}
{C}
- {C}
darthmullet1 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Why do so many choose to use language that suggests murder is less atrocious if it is not "mass". I'd think if you mass all people murdered in one year from around the world into one room and could ask them about the degree of badness, they would all say the same thing.
skyhawk 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
So what's your point? I believe in Germany it was gas chambers. Is that what you prefer?
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Robert Michael 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
YOU ARE INSANE!!! "Barring Reality..."-what an idiot...too stupid to reply to-but it's closer to 0% than 90%-Barring nothing-it is what it is...
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Magdalena 8 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
I perceive that you went through a lot of trouble to post your stats. Nevertheless we don't have the capabilities of the Sci-Fi "Minority Report."
I believe the gun ban is an executive "power" thing with O, that he has taken advantage of the circumstances in CT.
usedtobejosephofsteelbutgotban 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Agreed.
It's a way to move the line of executive power further in the direction that he wants.
And another way to attempt to squash opposition.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
ILOT 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
No real effort. My post was entirely rhetorical with the assumption we can no more identify a serial killer than we can someone bent on mass murder. I had hoped I wouldn't have to explain that. I understand the politics, obviously.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
dapicayune 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
How many on your list were under the influence of psych care and/or psychotropic drugs? Start there to identify potential sicko Rambos.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
Phillep Harding 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
dapicayune
"How many on your list were under the influence of psych care and/or psychotropic drugs?"
Worth looking into, but I doubt very many as such drugs are very recent and that list goes back a ways. We do not need an increase.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
gotham1883 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
If you listen to the radical leftists, they are bent on mass murder. The Great One is their leader.
{C}
- ALike
- {C}
karmafordems 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
O's Executive "or*asm
{C}
{C}
- {C}
skyhawk 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
It is only an attempt to 1llegally overrule the Constitution. Anything along that line by Soetoro is illegal and a hanging offense.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
TheSunDidIt 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Used to be your own parents would turn you in if you were a criminal that was hurting folks. Fact is though, the Bible says that in the last days parents will turn on their children and children on their parents so, I think we're headed there (your EO2).
{C}
{C}
- {C}
skyhawk 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
When I was a Base Provost Sergeant I had a man bring in his AWOL son and turn him over to me.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
rm56 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
Unconstitutional Power Grab, that is all Obama and the left seeks. To reduce our freedoms and keep power through fear and intimidation. There is a lot of people in this country who think that our second amendment was penned by the founders to allow us to go deer hunting. No! The second amendment has nothing to do with ones right to hunt. It was written with one purpose in mind. To prevent a tyrant from taking over our nation and enslaving us, that is what it is about. And to that end, yes I have a right to own the most lethal weapon I can buy. I don't own an AR or "Assault Weapon" which is a stupid pc term created by idiots on the left who know nothing about firearms. I can turn a common pencil into an assault weapon. The fact that a rifle is black or semi automatic is irrelevant. What is relevant is that socialists are being typically dishonest in their scrill cries to do away with our rights to protect ourselves. They keep beating the drum and saying stupid things like why do you need a 30 round magazine to go hunting? The answer is I don't, but I do need that to protect myself and my family from a dictator and his allies. So go on and try to take away guns liberals, you'll never be safe, the cops can't save you. And in the end someone will use a blade to hack you to bits in front of your family. Barack Obama is a discrace and should be removed from the office. He is the enemy within.
{C}
{C}
- {C}
alkabar 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
"The traitor is the plague." Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 BC – 43 BC
{C}
{C}
- {C}
Reactions
Trackback URL
advertisement
Send A Tip
Executive orders...
Last edited:
Over the last few years there has been a growing concern about the President's questionable expansion of executive powers. As a nation of laws, public officials are sworn to uphold the law . . . even laws you may not like. The way to deal with laws you do not like is to get Congress or whatever body passed it to change it. Real simple.
President Obama has, by executive order, circumvented national immigration law by ordering a halt to deportations of certain unlawful aliens, without getting the law changed. In July of 2012, President Obama changed long standing welfare policy to allow states to change mandated work requirements. Earlier he ordered the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. None of these orders were submitted to Congress for review, which the Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done in part. I have co-sponsored bills to reverse these unconstitutional power grabs and will continue to fight them.
The President, touted by some as knowledgeable about our Constitution, acts as if he never heard of it sometimes. Now, the President and Vice-President are talking about enacting gun bans by executive order.
“The president is going go act,” Biden is quoted as saying. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”
For the moment put aside the fact that the Second Amendment protects the right of each person to own and posses firearms and the ammunition that goes with it. Our Supreme Court resolved that issue in Heller. Obviously neither the President nor Congress can enact laws that violate the Second Amendment, anymore than they can enact laws that violate the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment.
Let's focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are consistent with our Constitution.
The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can't do it unilaterally.
In order for the President to enact a gun ban by executive order, he would have to have such power given to him by Congress (we already established that the Constitution does not give him that power). Any unilateral action by the President must rely on either a constitutional authority or a statutory power from Congress. What laws exist for the President to enact gun bans by executive order? The Attorney General is authorized under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to regulate the import of firearms if it is “generally suitable" for or readily adaptable to sporting purpose. Thus, the Attorney General could use a “sporting purposes test” by which he can determine the types of firearms that can be imported into the United States. But this law does not authorize a gun ban or affect domestic manufacture and sales. So it provides no Congressional basis for Mr. Biden or the President to create a gun ban.
President Obama may point out that President Clinton issued an executive order (No. 12938) in 1994 where some Chinese firearms and ammunition were restricted from import. If that occurred, it would have been a serious overreach of the application of the authority set forth in that Executive Order, which President Clinton said at the time was being implemented under the International Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Arms Export Control Act. As stated in the Order itself, "the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (‘‘weapons of mass destruction’’) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat." President Clinton Executive Order 12938 (1994). How that justification, based on large scale weapons of mass destruction, could be interpreted to include Chinese hand guns is unclear and problematic. Indeed, any fair reading of those laws would conclude they could not support a domestic gun ban.
The bottom line is that there is no Congressional authority enacted that would allow the President to take unilateral action to make it unlawful for individuals to transfer or possess a rifle, handgun or other gun or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Nor is there any Constitutional power under Article II (the power of being the “Commander in Chief”) that allows this. If the President wants a gun ban or ammunition ban he has to first revise the Second Amendment, which is not easy, but possible. I would, of course, oppose that, as would most Americans. But that is at least a lawful and Constitutional means to achieve this.
Nor can the President do something Congress has prohibited. Thus, the President cannot reallocate ATF money and direct it to make a centralized database of federal firearms purchases because we prohibited that. Last year the House passed a continuing funding resolution (I would rather vote on budgets but the Senate refuses to pass a budget resolution and has not done so since April 2009), that became Public Law 112–55 (Nov. 18, 2011), that expressly prohibits the President from using any money "to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees" except for criminal investigations. In other words, the President is expressly prohibited from making a list of gun owners for purposes of then rounding up guns. This resolution contains other restrictions as well limiting the President's budget control over firearms policy.
Another law, the 2007 National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) Improvement Amendment Act, requires each federal agency to transfer records to the Attorney General if a record shows that someone is a prohibited firearm possessor under federal law. It is within the President's power to make sure his agencies are complying with that law and submitting records to the AG. But that is it. No more was authorized by Congress.
I, and many Americans, remain troubled by what we see are unconstitutional power grabs by the President. We have a Constitution and it requires that we follow it. Indeed, every public officer swears to do so. The Constitution sets our policy for the long term, and emotions of the day have to be subsumed to those principles. All of us share the grief of the criminal use of guns. We need to focus on the mentally ill who commit these crimes. We should not abandon our cultural and legal values, in place for over 200 years and created for good reason, because of a few mentally ill people. We need to remain vigilant and not let the President create bogus executive orders that have no Constitutional authority and no statutory authority.
President Obama has, by executive order, circumvented national immigration law by ordering a halt to deportations of certain unlawful aliens, without getting the law changed. In July of 2012, President Obama changed long standing welfare policy to allow states to change mandated work requirements. Earlier he ordered the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. None of these orders were submitted to Congress for review, which the Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done in part. I have co-sponsored bills to reverse these unconstitutional power grabs and will continue to fight them.
The President, touted by some as knowledgeable about our Constitution, acts as if he never heard of it sometimes. Now, the President and Vice-President are talking about enacting gun bans by executive order.
“The president is going go act,” Biden is quoted as saying. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”
For the moment put aside the fact that the Second Amendment protects the right of each person to own and posses firearms and the ammunition that goes with it. Our Supreme Court resolved that issue in Heller. Obviously neither the President nor Congress can enact laws that violate the Second Amendment, anymore than they can enact laws that violate the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment.
Let's focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are consistent with our Constitution.
The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can't do it unilaterally.
In order for the President to enact a gun ban by executive order, he would have to have such power given to him by Congress (we already established that the Constitution does not give him that power). Any unilateral action by the President must rely on either a constitutional authority or a statutory power from Congress. What laws exist for the President to enact gun bans by executive order? The Attorney General is authorized under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to regulate the import of firearms if it is “generally suitable" for or readily adaptable to sporting purpose. Thus, the Attorney General could use a “sporting purposes test” by which he can determine the types of firearms that can be imported into the United States. But this law does not authorize a gun ban or affect domestic manufacture and sales. So it provides no Congressional basis for Mr. Biden or the President to create a gun ban.
President Obama may point out that President Clinton issued an executive order (No. 12938) in 1994 where some Chinese firearms and ammunition were restricted from import. If that occurred, it would have been a serious overreach of the application of the authority set forth in that Executive Order, which President Clinton said at the time was being implemented under the International Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Arms Export Control Act. As stated in the Order itself, "the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (‘‘weapons of mass destruction’’) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat." President Clinton Executive Order 12938 (1994). How that justification, based on large scale weapons of mass destruction, could be interpreted to include Chinese hand guns is unclear and problematic. Indeed, any fair reading of those laws would conclude they could not support a domestic gun ban.
The bottom line is that there is no Congressional authority enacted that would allow the President to take unilateral action to make it unlawful for individuals to transfer or possess a rifle, handgun or other gun or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Nor is there any Constitutional power under Article II (the power of being the “Commander in Chief”) that allows this. If the President wants a gun ban or ammunition ban he has to first revise the Second Amendment, which is not easy, but possible. I would, of course, oppose that, as would most Americans. But that is at least a lawful and Constitutional means to achieve this.
Nor can the President do something Congress has prohibited. Thus, the President cannot reallocate ATF money and direct it to make a centralized database of federal firearms purchases because we prohibited that. Last year the House passed a continuing funding resolution (I would rather vote on budgets but the Senate refuses to pass a budget resolution and has not done so since April 2009), that became Public Law 112–55 (Nov. 18, 2011), that expressly prohibits the President from using any money "to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees" except for criminal investigations. In other words, the President is expressly prohibited from making a list of gun owners for purposes of then rounding up guns. This resolution contains other restrictions as well limiting the President's budget control over firearms policy.
Another law, the 2007 National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) Improvement Amendment Act, requires each federal agency to transfer records to the Attorney General if a record shows that someone is a prohibited firearm possessor under federal law. It is within the President's power to make sure his agencies are complying with that law and submitting records to the AG. But that is it. No more was authorized by Congress.
I, and many Americans, remain troubled by what we see are unconstitutional power grabs by the President. We have a Constitution and it requires that we follow it. Indeed, every public officer swears to do so. The Constitution sets our policy for the long term, and emotions of the day have to be subsumed to those principles. All of us share the grief of the criminal use of guns. We need to focus on the mentally ill who commit these crimes. We should not abandon our cultural and legal values, in place for over 200 years and created for good reason, because of a few mentally ill people. We need to remain vigilant and not let the President create bogus executive orders that have no Constitutional authority and no statutory authority.
Ed... you are certainly getting in the habit of posting these long and drawn out articles to make a point. This must be a type of virus that you caught from Rebel. Take a few shots of Irish whiskey as it is known to be the best cure all. And by the way I am sending you out an autographed pic of me and Janet Reno at the Courthouse in Dade County, Florida.
- Status
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
Hen has not regrown feathers after a molt last summer
- Started by Saffygrrrl
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Viral video features my 11-month old Buff Orpington, Candy- Started by BuffNumber14
- Replies: 1
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
-
-
Prettiest chicken breeds and plumage color- Started by Beau plus penny
- Replies: 46
-
