Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on January 08, 2013, 04:16:48 PM
-
I'm seeing in the news that Biden will meet with "The Gun Lobby" on Thursday. The only name I saw mentioned was the NRA. Does anyone know if any other entities (SAF, etc.) will be involved? It's sounding like not. On the other hand it appears from news stories that Biden will be meeting Wednesday with "gun safety organizations" (plural) and "gun violence victims groups" (plural).
Kinda sounding like a stacked deck. Not that it wasn't expected, but I would hope the groups on our side would set aside any differences and come together considering the stakes. If Biden only invited the NRA, then it seems to me a stink should be made of that.
-
With the fact that the budget and stuff is taking front and center several experts are saying it would be three months at the earliest before any gun legislation would be brought to any floor.
What is scary is Executive Orders being put in place.
-
Most likely Joe won't shut up and it won't matter who is invited. It's all for show, not about real discussion.
-
Most likely Joe won't shut up and it won't matter who is invited. It's all for show, not about real discussion.
Yep, the bills are already in motion. Biden is the useful distraction.
-
It's just going to be Biden lecturing the NRA about how wrong they are.
-
It'll be the typical democrat version of a "compromise" bill.
In which we are lectured about how stupid and evil we are, they demand we surrender a bunch of rights, we call them crazy, they give in on a few things they didn't care about anyway and only demanded as bargaining chips, and call it a compromise.
-
What is scary is Executive Orders being put in place.
This is my fear. The Republicans putting off any introduced firearms control bills, whether to sincerely combat them, or just because they want to concentrate on fiscal stuff, is a perfect opportunity for Obama to sign EOs, because he has the excuse that nothing is happening in Congress. I'm not sure the Republicans are helping us at all by putting things off. The antis aren't calming down and I really don't believe this will be a repeat of their agenda slowly moving to the backburner as it did after Aurora. Not unless there's a very major scandal or something that envelops the news media.
-
With the fact that the budget and stuff is taking front and center several experts are saying it would be three months at the earliest before any gun legislation would be brought to any floor.
What is scary is Executive Orders being put in place.
Who are these "experts"?
-
What is scary is Executive Orders being put in place.
Eh. Yes and no. EO technically can't create "new" law. Rather, it can only operate in the envelope created by Congress and defined by the Courts. That said, there IS a lot of wiggle room. Especially with imports/exports. Hence why Bush Sr administration could unilaterally ban imports of "assault rifles". Because the Constitution gives virtually unlimited power to the US government at the borders.
Contrary to the opinions of Bush Jr and Obama administrations, EOs are not laws. They are directives within existing law. There is plenty of wiggle room to cause problems. But it can be overruled by Congress or the Courts.
-
Can EOs be undone by other presidents? Can Obama's eventual replace erase all of Obama's EOs?
-
Contrary to the opinions of Bush Jr and Obama administrations, EOs are not laws. They are directives within existing law. There is plenty of wiggle room to cause problems. But it can be overruled by Congress or the Courts.
I just did some googling and it looks like several Bush and Reagan era EOs have been rescinded by the current (or last) congress. The article linked below also alludes to Obama rescinding a Bush EO. I'm not sure how accurate the description is if only Congress can do it.
The problem of course will be if a future Congress has the will to rescind any Obama EOs involving gun control.
http://www.examiner.com/article/bush-secrecy-executive-order-rescinded-by-congress
-
Other than import/export issues, EOs have little direct impact on John Q. Public . . . unless there is already enabling legislation in place. For example, FDR banned private ownership of gold by EO, but he couldn't issue an enforceable EO entirely on his own; he had to go at it by citing a wartime statute.
Which is not to say that they may warp and twist something entirely out of recognition the way courts have been doing with the Commerce Clause since Wickard v. Filburn.
-
The EO is the short term issue to be concerned about. Other than imports, I don't know what additional authority the President has. Yes, the President could cut off all imports of firearms and ammunition. He could not dictate that some kind of record keeping be put in place for ammunition sales. Without Congress, I don't think he can place a "sin tax" on firearms and ammunition either.
I don't think Joe Biden cares what the gun lobby has to say at this point. He has the press on his side and that is a major element of trying to ram though some legislation. They will work to divide the gun community and keep hammering away at "reasonable".
The whole point of these "discussions" is supposed to be to develop something that works. If it only works on honest people, then that is simply another infringement on the 2A. But it would take a long time for court stuff to make it's way to the Supreme Court and the damage could be done. Add in the potential of another judge or two being placed on the Supreme Court and you have a potential problem in terms of "infringement".
-
Can EOs be undone by other presidents? Can Obama's eventual replace erase all of Obama's EOs?
Yes. All he need to is issue another EO to tell govt. how HE wants it done.
-
Can EOs be undone by other presidents? Can Obama's eventual replace erase all of Obama's EOs?
Yep. Hank and Slingshot are correct. Imports are the only place an EO could do "real" damage. Exports are more of an industry thing, and aren't that much of a deal for the consumer firearms market. Good luck banning Boeing, Sikorsky or LockMart from exporting. Barrett, Remington, etc are mostly selling either fairly neutered weapons or to foreign police/military. They can't tax exports. Ban, yes. Tax, no.
Future presidents can unilaterally undo EOs. Congress can by normal legislation process. Courts can strike it down "unilaterally", and hold a royal rumble all the way to the SCOTUS. Because it's not law. It's interpretation and marching orders, implementing existing law.
Suppose Congress makes a law saying "Each State shall be given between two and ten turnips per year by the Department of Education." The POTUS can write an EO giving 10 turnips to North Dakota, 9 to Florida, and two to everyone else. The next POTUS can give 10 turnips to every state in the union, or two to every state in the union. The law sets the limits, and EOs (most are fairly mundane) implement it and must play within those limits.
President doesn't have the right to change taxes, that's Congress. No new or changed excise taxes. Maybe fees, if they're not set by law. But if they're high enough, it can be taken as legally akin to a poll tax. That is, a tax on a Constitutional right. That's not kosher either.
So, unilaterally, he can have the lawyers find the fullest extent of the law and apply it. Like daily FFL audits. Or ban any import of firearms, ammo or accessories. But that's about it. So, "annoying", but not "express or indirect banning domestically" stuff.
-
The only thing that matters is the resistance. Our job is to say the loudest NO possible.
-
I suspect there is a vulnerable point in the supply chain from raw materials to manufacturing to retail. It is amazing how IRS tax audits happen to one's enemies, very strict OSHA inspections, and strict US and State EPA enforcement. Guns aren't real great if you have no ammunition. Ammunition is vulnerable.
-
It looks like Biden has finished meeting with the antis today, and the big soundbite is EO. It will be (morbidly) interesting to see what they might end up being.
Slingshot brings up a scary thought regarding ammo and the EPA, and even transportation. I don't think it would be too difficult for them to classify it as a hazardous product that through any number of regulatory requirements, could price it through the roof. Anyone who buys black powder knows what I'm talking about.
-
The video , i think we may be screwed..... :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVNO9ofOP5Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVNO9ofOP5Q)
-
The video , i think we may be screwed..... :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVNO9ofOP5Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVNO9ofOP5Q)
Actually after hearing that, I'm not so sure we are. He acted as if he had no clue what the hell he was talking about. Can't wait to hear what is said after tomorrow.
-
He acted as if he had no clue what the hell he was talking about.
We already knew that...
-
I suspect there is a vulnerable point in the supply chain from raw materials to manufacturing to retail. It is amazing how IRS tax audits happen to one's enemies, very strict OSHA inspections, and strict US and State EPA enforcement. Guns aren't real great if you have no ammunition. Ammunition is vulnerable.
Sure. But... It is not about what they can do, it is about what we let them do.
-
With the fact that the budget and stuff is taking front and center several experts are saying it would be three months at the earliest before any gun legislation would be brought to any floor.
What is scary is Executive Orders being put in place.
Look at the EO that was put in place in 2011 that put all the additional reporting requirements on gun sales in border states. It is not constitutional, but congress has shown no interest in opposing it and it is moving very slowly through the courts.
-
Walmart is on the list for tomorrow
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-walmart-meet-biden-guns-20130109,0,1946627.story
-
Don't expect the big corporations to stand up for liberty. That is not and never was their priority. Americans too often confuse economics--or, rather, consumerism--with civil liberties.
-
Don't expect the big corporations to stand up for liberty. That is not and never was their priority. Americans too often confuse economics--or, rather, consumerism--with civil liberties.
I don't expect ANY large human institution to stand up for liberty.
-
True enough.
-
The Second Amendment is not about duck-hunting. It's not about Wal-mart (or Wang-mart) either.