HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Biden: W.H. readies 19 ex...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:35 PM

Biden: W.H. readies 19 executive actions on guns

Source: Politico

Biden: W.H. readies 19 executive actions on guns

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips. But Biden, who has been leading Obama’s task force on the response, spent two hours briefing a small group of sympathetic House Democrats on the road ahead in the latest White House outreach to invested groups.

The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html#ixzz2I0IO3NaH

88 replies, 9522 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply Biden: W.H. readies 19 executive actions on guns (Original post)
kpete Jan 2013 OP
tavalon Jan 2013 #1
blueclown Jan 2013 #2
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #4
appacom Jan 2013 #11
plethoro Jan 2013 #7
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #67
plethoro Jan 2013 #72
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #3
onehandle Jan 2013 #5
nick of time Jan 2013 #6
bluevoter4life Jan 2013 #42
nick of time Jan 2013 #43
bluevoter4life Jan 2013 #44
nick of time Jan 2013 #45
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #68
bluevoter4life Jan 2013 #69
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #71
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #50
nick of time Jan 2013 #55
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #59
nick of time Jan 2013 #61
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #62
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #73
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #77
hack89 Jan 2013 #8
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #9
nick of time Jan 2013 #10
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #16
nick of time Jan 2013 #19
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #21
nick of time Jan 2013 #23
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #24
nick of time Jan 2013 #27
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #74
hack89 Jan 2013 #40
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #47
hack89 Jan 2013 #51
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #54
hack89 Jan 2013 #57
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #75
hack89 Jan 2013 #86
ElbarDee Jan 2013 #53
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #56
ElbarDee Jan 2013 #60
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #76
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #12
nick of time Jan 2013 #13
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #17
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #78
hack89 Jan 2013 #14
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #18
hack89 Jan 2013 #39
DeschutesRiver Jan 2013 #81
Kennah Jan 2013 #31
humblebum Jan 2013 #25
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #70
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #15
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #20
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #26
hack89 Jan 2013 #41
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #48
hack89 Jan 2013 #52
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #46
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #49
nick of time Jan 2013 #58
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #64
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #80
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #79
DonCoquixote Jan 2013 #22
Marie Marie Jan 2013 #30
MelungeonWoman Jan 2013 #65
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #28
samsingh Jan 2013 #29
Kennah Jan 2013 #32
nick of time Jan 2013 #33
Kennah Jan 2013 #34
nick of time Jan 2013 #35
Kennah Jan 2013 #36
nick of time Jan 2013 #37
Kennah Jan 2013 #38
Gregorian Jan 2013 #63
triplepoint Jan 2013 #66
happyslug Jan 2013 #82
Nihil Jan 2013 #87
happyslug Jan 2013 #88
wordpix Jan 2013 #83
joelfreak Jan 2013 #84
davidpdx Jan 2013 #85

Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:40 PM

1. Please do

Mr. President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:40 PM

2. Finally.

The proposals should have been announced two weeks ago, and a bill should have been voted on a few days afterwords. What's the hold up? We needed a task force to figure this out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:45 PM

4. A rush would have most likely made for bad legislation (again)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:57 PM

11. Thanks, Professor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:03 PM

7. This legislation will be used to cover the robbery of seniors and

 

the poor, so it couldn't very well be rushed through congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:37 PM

67. are you saying republicans will attach poison pills?

 

but they're executive actions, so pthpthpthp to the heel-draggers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:03 PM

72. No. It will be more subtle than that. The only reason I think that might not happen is that

 

it would be idiotic. If Obama plays his cards right, he may be able to end the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:45 PM

3. Be interesting to see the actual list

Executive orders and new regulations are not unlimited and can be extensively litigated. Hopefully Biden's team has the legal backup for them, else its off to the courts for years of inaction.

Reid and the rest of the legislative branch are really hoping for this approach. It means that legislators will not have to face the voters in two years with a stand on gun control (one way or the other) to be used on them. Even Biden has been lowballing the legislative route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:45 PM

5. Fantastic! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:50 PM

6. I fully support the universal background check for all firearms purchase's,

 

limiting the size of mags., better enforcement of existing laws, stiffer penalties for straw purchase's.
These would be easier to get through the congress than a renewal of the AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:04 PM

42. The question than becomes

What do we do about the high-capacity magazines already in existence? I don't imagine this will be a retroactive ban, and with these things flying off the shelf, how is this issue solved?

I'm all for this ban, and in fact, wish there was a way we could ban virtually all guns (rifles and shotguns are an exception), but there needs to be a way to figure out how to get rid of the magazines already on the street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluevoter4life (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:10 PM

43. I'd support a national buyback at market price.

 

Not everyone will turn them in, but it would take alot of them out of the public.
I certainly don't support making it a crime for owning those already in circulation, our prisons are already filled with people convicted of bullshit drug offenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:42 PM

44. I could definitely support that

I could also support a registration for those that won't be traded in. It would be difficult to enforce, but at the very least those that are truly responsible gun owners would do it as a way to protect themselves against being traced back to a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluevoter4life (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:45 PM

45. I didn't even think about registering those mags.

 

Thats a hell of a good idea and one well worth looking at.
Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluevoter4life (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:41 PM

68. we register software every day

 

and freak out about viruses. why not register bullets? we have isbns for books/cds/etc and mac addresses for computers and mobile devices why not an id rfid chip in every bullet?

we have seatbelts in cars. why not biometric grips on guns? we can design spacecraft to be idiotproof but not guns? the most advanced safety features should by law be engineered into every piece of every commercial firearm including the ammunition. each should be indelibly tamperproof and useless if used by the wrong person or with the wrong (ie homemade or black market) ammunition. that will hamper the small-timers and convenience-killers. windows 8 operating system is basically unusable to pirates so why not apply as much of a 'built-in' technological fix to the gun safety and improper use problem as possible (in addition to other fixes, of course).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:46 PM

69. I can take that further

Print boxes with a number specific to the manufacturer, AND another number specific to the store that sold them. Bring back the law that allows gun manufacturers to be held liable for deaths. You can even extend that to bullet manufacturers. Watch how fast things change when you attach a significant financial penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluevoter4life (Reply #69)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:02 PM

71. even that wrist-slap would staunch the lazy gun retailers.

 

who just cant be bothered to run a background check. but it goes further. what about the newtown killer using his mom's locked-up weapons and ammo? she *was* a responsible gun owner and still this happened. there needs to be a ban and yeah i think maybe it *should* be retroactive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluevoter4life (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:41 PM

50. In Massachusetts I believe the rule is:

Clips purchased before the fed ban are legal, but cannot be sold by the owners. No new high capacity clips are allowed to be made or purchased here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:55 PM

55. That sounds reasonable to me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:06 PM

59. The main problem as I see it, is that the rules are different in each state

I would like to see some uniform regulations and laws countrywide. Get rid of gun show loop holes, make an easy way for private sellers to do back ground checks, get rid of high capacity clips, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:11 PM

61. I'm on board with all that.

 

And I would also add better funding to states to improve reporting to NICS, better funding for mental health care, stiffer penalties for straw purchase's, better enforcement of existing gun laws.
As a nation, we can do so much better to lessen the firearm violence without impeding on the honest gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:31 PM

62. I think the majority of the country would be fine with all of that.

Then we have some on the left who want to get rid of almost all guns and some on the right working very hard at whipping up the "omg they are going to take all our guns" frenzy. I'm sad to say that I even have liberal dem friends falling for that sort of propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #62)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:06 PM

73. those 'on the left who want to get rid of almost all guns' are

 

also serving a purpose of moving the center of the debate to the left where significant executive action is possible without trodding on anybody's snakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #73)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:18 PM

77. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:06 PM

8. These are all good things. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:41 PM

9. The ban is the key

it is the only practical measure that would have potentially stopped the massacre.... So it is an actual positive outcome to the tragedy.... all the other measures should have always been in place I am actually fearful learning that they haven't been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:52 PM

10. The Pres. can't declare a ban on "assault weapons".

 

All he can do is ban the importation of foreign made weapons. The domestic firearms companies would love this, it eases the competition and they would pick up the slack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:42 PM

16. B.S. the President can make it illegal

to own or make high capacity high caliber weapons... the issue is to define the weapons like those used at Sandy Hook as a different level than normal arms therefore he is not infringing on anybodys right to keep and bear arms, people can't own grenade launchers right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:46 PM

19. No he can't.

 

He can only ban the importation of foreign weapons, only the congress can pass a law making domestic weapons illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:49 PM

21. If the President passes an executive order that defines

Automatic weapons as hazardous to the general public and only authorized and controlled by the DOD i.e. Bazooka, i.e., Mortars, i.e., Tanks and makes it unlawful for those arms to be purchased or shown, carried or used in public that is truthfully the only thing that will make the massacre less likely to happen in the future...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:56 PM

23. But we're not talking about automatic weapons here are we?

 

We're talking about semi auto rifles produced domestically, and he doesn't have the authority to shut down or declare them banned by executive order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:58 PM

24. Change the definition of the weapons

and thus change the rules that apply...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:04 PM

27. That's one way

 

but I'll wager that the congress and the scotus would have something to say about it.
I'm all in favor of tighter controls on weapons, but I don't want it done willy nilly, I want it to withstand a court challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:09 PM

74. true the house will have something to say but

 

the dems still control the senate and the courts have favored executive privilege so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:38 AM

40. And weapons are defined via legislation

executive orders cannot replace existing laws - and we have existing laws that define weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:34 PM

47. OK and we control the senate and the Presidency

So the Senate needs to pass the law if the House doesn't approve then the President needs to go out everyday and tell the American people that the Republicans in the House are stopping common sense approach to stopping what happened at Sandy Hook, the right will wither under the public outrage... or Obama could call for a March on D.C. by those that want this done... In any event Obama could lead it, and it would be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:44 PM

51. Harry Reid has publicly come out against an AWB.

so it might not be that simple.

Besides - do you really think all those tea bagger voters that put all those repukes in office are going to punish them for voting against gun control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:53 PM

54. IDK what the baggers will do about the right

but I do know this, I will be a very verbal and active proponant for pushing for the issue of doing everything to end gun violence in America and yes that means removing guns from soiciety if need be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:56 PM

57. Not everyone has a lifetime hobby - good luck. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:13 PM

75. ah theres the rub

 

since some weapons are considered military-grade and not commercially available, and the potus has the power to unilaterally change military criterion, obama can in fact change the status of a weapon without changing existing law such that existing law no longer applies to the weapon in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:24 AM

86. No - you need to read and understand the NFA

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:08 AM - Edit history (1)

there is no "military" or "non-military" designation when it comes to small arms. They are regulated purely by function. Go read the NFA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:46 PM

53. You mean change

the definition of semi automatic to mean full automatic?

There is the problem that in some cases full automatic weapons can be bought and owned by private citizens. You would have to ban the ownership of full auto and semi auto weapons completely.

That would still leave millions of these weapons in the hands of the people. You would have to order (by another executive order) the turn in of these weapons under threat of law. You would still have bitter clingers not do so and then the Police and military would have to go get them.

The right wingers are praying the President does this, then they can revolt and start Civil War 0.2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElbarDee (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:56 PM

56. Civil War? Thats just nonsense...

Let the right wing cry about it who really cares they are being relagated to the dust heap of history with their stupid antics.... and if they tried a revolt or attack it will make them look even more pathetic and marginalized...

Now is the time for action....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:08 PM

60. When the crazy right wing kooks

who are claiming that the President is trying to take their guns and they will only give them up when they (the police) pry them from their cold dead hands (remember Charles Heston?) start shooting police who are enforcing the President's 'change of definition' of the 2nd Amendment you can have your crazy nonsense Civil War.

If you think all those people are just going to hand in their guns when the government says to... that is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElbarDee (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:18 PM

76. is prying *some* types of weapons from

 

*some* nuts 'cold dead hands' going to be necessary?

is that the question on the table?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:10 PM

12. Which ban?

The magazine ban, which might have done something (like in Tucson), or an AWB, which was already in effect in Connecticut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:14 PM

13. And all that was, was a ban on the manufacture of new mags over 10 rounds.

 

Existing mags were still fully legal to buy and sell, albeit at a higher price, but still legal and available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:44 PM

17. Oh geez...

A national ban the assault weapons are illegal for purchase, use or to own in the public square like a grenade launcher or a Bazooka or mortar shells etc...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:23 PM

78. i think push for more

 

assault weapons yeah no duh. what about the proliferation of cheap easily concealed pistols? what about additional safety technology like biometric grips and rfid'd ammo on all commercial firearms?

we should push for the full package and compromise only where we absolutely must.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:16 PM

14. The ban won't happen

Besides John Boehner opposing it in the House, Harry Reid opposes it in the Senate.

Besides, you do understand that the ban is not retroactive? It doesn't take a single gun off the streets - it would simply ban the sale and import of new weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:46 PM

18. No he can make it illegal to own or operate....

Anything less is nothing but lip service, I am tired of this inaction... What possibly can he say to the parents of the next victims? If he does nothing and another massacre happens like Sandy Hook than he should simply resign from office on the day following the tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:44 AM

39. Obama cannot do that via executive order

he is president not king.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:02 PM

81. That would be beyond the scope of an executive order. Presidents don't make law. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:56 PM

31. Reid might come aboard, but Boner won't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:01 PM

25. "only practical measure that would have potentially stopped the massacre"?

 

The only practical measure that would have potentially stopped the massacre would be for authorities to act on the warnings of friend, relatives, and psychiatric personnel who pleaded for actions to be taken to prevent such incidents.

It happens all too often. Such was the case in Connecticut, Colorado, and in the Gabby Giffords shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:49 PM

70. That's what Andy Cuomo did so well this week...

mandatory reporting to police by health care professionals, screenings for outpatient care, mandatory reporting of all sorts of stuff to both a state and federal background check database... all sorts of goodies in New York's new ban. Oh, and if you think a family member is a prohibited person, you have to lock up your stuff. With a mag limit, those actions have just seriously crippled the shooters' chances at Newtown, Aurora, VT and Tucson (at a dead minimum reduced the carnage of each to that of your average drug deal gone bad, at the other end you've stopped it before it happened).

Add to that Mr. Cuomo's push to decriminalize small amounts of weed, you've even started on the inner-city, mostly handgun murders. Remove the incentives for crime from the drug dealers, and you lower the gang violence.

There is such a thing as "common sense" gun control. Too bad the extremes on each side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:28 PM

15. Things like prosecuting the existing laws and import restrictions

are simple, common-sense things that even this shooter can get behind. The latter will help the American market (well, if we're going to own guns, why not American guns?), and the former will maybe actually deter some of the thousands of straw purchasers who are caught every year but never convicted of a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:46 PM

20. and exactly how does any of those things

make Sandy Hook less likely to happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:03 PM

26. Obama said if it saves just one child's life it will be worth it...

 

The Schadenfreude of people that worship guns crying about losing their toys will be sweet as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:40 AM

41. No one is losing anything - none of these laws are retroactive.

They will not take a single gun off the streets.

And that is assuming an AWB will make it through Congress, which is highly unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:37 PM

48. So what is the point?

You are admitting this does nothing... Let me paint a terrible scenario, the President signs some EO's, Congress takes up and passes some minimal form of gun control, and the massacre happens again, what possibly could the President say then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:46 PM

52. I have no clue. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:13 PM

46. What would make Sandy Hook less likely to happen?

 

He shot 26 people in a span of 5-10 minutes with a Rifle that was not an Assault Weapon. CT has an assault weapons ban. The rifle wasn't an assault weapon, period. And shooting 26 targets in just a few minutes could probably be done with a revolver - let alone a semi-auto regardless of mag capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:39 PM

49. That is exactly my point...

The only action that will prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again is to ban guns ... PERIOD... This opportunity should be used to get something that can be built on that will ultimately remove firearms from American society... Anything less destroys the memory of those that were lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:01 PM

58. Ok.

 

But how are you going to ban guns? You would have to repeal the 2A and get 3/4 of the states to ratify it. That means that only 13 states need to refuse to ratify it and it goes down in flames.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:52 PM

64. I agree. We used to have that mexican border violence and drug problem...

 

but our bans cleared those right up. I heard the US has had a recent problem with rape - I think we should ban rape too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:48 PM

80. I didn't say it had to be overnight...

Some of you people on here sound like the useful tools of the rightwingtards ... that is the same backward logic they use...

How about we start an education program that proves to people that less guns in society leads to less murder and less crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:30 PM

79. making gun laws a lot more restrictive would go a longgg way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:51 PM

22. I might be pilloried for this

But if I knew Joe Biden was going to be so strong, and have this much actual impact from the LEFT side of the fence, I might very well have voted for him in 2008. He is the conscience of both Obama and Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:32 PM

30. Said it before and I will say it again: Biden 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marie Marie (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:11 PM

65. Imma say it with you: Biden 2016!

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:05 PM

28. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:31 PM

29. excellent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:00 AM

32. Background checks for all gun sales should get VERY widespread support

There are plenty of RW GOP elected who support that.

Mag bans, real or imagined, are going to be VERY tough.

A push on mental health will also be a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:12 AM

33. I'm all for background check for all firearm transactions,

 

more funding to states for NICS, more funds for mental health care, a ban on new manufacture of mags more than 10 rounds while grandfathering in existing hi cap mags.
The jury is still out for me on national registration, that one makes me a little leery, but I'm open to being convinced if it can be reasonably foolproofed against it becoming a vehicle for confiscation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:17 AM

34. There's over 30 million existing hi cap (over 10 round) magazines in private hands already

Another 1994 mag ban, with a grandfathering clause, doesn't really accomplish much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:22 AM

35. I know.

 

But it's something that has a chance of getting through the congress.
I do not support another AWB, the one in 94 was less than useless as would be another one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:34 AM

36. I'd wager equally against both a mag ban and an AW ban passing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:38 AM

37. After Reid's statement to a LV news station today,

 

I won't take that wager.
Just seems like a bad bet to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:05 AM

38. Oh I think Reid's onboard, it's the Boner that won't stand up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:36 PM

63. Colbert called Biden- Reich Marshall Von Amtrak!

Haha. It's the best phrase I think I've ever heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:22 PM

66. Take a Look at ANY CraigsList....

 

Lots of mags....Lots of ammo....lots of firearms.....I flag them every goddamn day of my life here in the Seattle area. It is my humanitarian duty and makes me feel all warm and fuzzy too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:10 PM

82. What are the possible Executive Actions?

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Restrictions on purchasing, possession or transferring of Weapons and Magazines will NOT be among the actions, for the simple reasons those are covered by Statutes passed by Congress, and an Executive Order can Clarify a statute but can NOT over turn a statute. I suspect the same for large capacity magazines, beyond what the President can do in an Executive Order.

After I wrote the above, I thought of a way around those problems, using the Second Amendment to do so. While an Executive Order can only define what is covered by a Statute or other law, not change the underlying law, that power to define can be powerful. Under Federal Law, every male between the ages of 18 and 45 is a member of the Militia along with any woman in the National Guard. The Militia is divided into two classes, the National Guard and the "Reserve Militia" which is every male NOT in the Army or the National Guard who are between the ages of 18 and 45.

Obama could base an Executive Order on this law, and defined what weapons the Reserve Militia is to have on hand. Under the wording of the Second Amendment the Militia can be "Regulated" and the President can do this by Executive Order for Congress has NOT address how the Reserve Militia is to be armed, in case the Reserve Militia needs to be called up for service in an emergency (Which is the only time it would be called into service).

Any regulations issued by Executive Order has to be on its face "Reasonable" (i.e. going back to the Militia Act of 1795 and to use the weapons defined under that Act namely the a .69 Caliber Musket would NOT be reasonable given modern combat conditions), but the regulation could be that the Militia arms itself with Mauser Bolt actions in 7.62x51 NATO on the grounds that given the limited ability to re-supply Reserve Militia units in time of combat, a Bolt Action Rifle would provide the maximum effective fire power within the limitations of the ability of the Federal Government to supply Militia personnel in the typical situation when the members of the Reserve Militia would be called into service.

Studies have shown when Ammunition is restricted, the slower fire power of bolt actions rifles provide effective fire power for a longer time period then automatic weapons. Today, in combat fire fights the greater fire power of Automatic Weapons over power units armed with bolt action rifles, until the units with Automatic Weapons run out of ammunition. Most armies make sure they have plenty of ammunition for their troops thus they use Automatic Weapons, but Obama can point out the Reserve Militia is to be used in emergency situations, which by definition will be situations with tight ammunition supplies, thus the superior fire power of Automatics is overcome by such weapons greater use of ammunition and such weapons inferior range and power of its ammunition.

Thus Obama can "Flush out" the Reserve Militia clause by Executive Order that includes that members of the Reserve Militia be armed with 7.62 Mauser bolt action rifles AND banning the sale of Semi-Automatic Weapons on the grounds the Militia has to be armed with Mauser Bolt Action rifles and the sale of such Semi-Automatic Weapons interferes with HOW the President wants the Reserve Militia to be armed.

Such a ban could survive constitutional challenge, for the President is the Commander in Chief and in absence of the law to the contrary, can form up the Army (including the Militia) as he sees fit, as long as he leaves the States pick their officers (A Constitutional Requirement). The above would just be the President informing the Reserve Militia what weapons he wants them to have and why. The actual call up of the Reserve Militia and its actual formation can be dismissed in this Executive Order as premature (And cite Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Papers as to how to form up the Militia, Hamilton wanted two types of Militia, basically what we call the National Guard and a Reserve militia which he would only call up once a year to see if they are adequately armed and then sent home till they are needed, Hamilton considered it a waste of resources to arm and train every person in the Militia, but valued the Militia as a pool to be called up when needed and trained at that time. Hamilton's position as to the Reserve Militia could be cited as WHY Obama sees the need to standardize on bolt action rifles but no further action as to the Reserve Militia).

Furthermore, Obama in the Executive Order could BAN any other weapon till the Reserve Militia has fully armed itself to his specification. The ban can be on weapons the President finds interferes with Reserve Militia members from obtaining the Weapon the President wants the Reserve Militia to have. i.e. by setting what the Reserve Militia is to have and making the requirement something most people can comply with (and have military reasons for its adoption), gives the President the Power to ban the sale of anything that interferes with arming the Reserve Militia as he sees fit (and remember, the Executive Order states what a person has to have, which is what Congress did in the Militia Act of 1795, but does NOT provide funds for such weapons, just like what Congress did in the Militia Act of 1795, nor require people to get that weapon if they can NOT afford it). In many ways this is important, for by following what Congress did in the Militia Act of 1795, Obama is showing all he is doing is issuing a regulation, as Congress did in 1795, not a ban.

Now, Congress did NOT ban other weapons in the 1795 Militia Act, but Obama can make that extra step on the grounds to many people are buying less effective Semi-automatic Weapons (Remember we are talking about such weapons being less effective given the situation where the Reserve Militia would be called out). In simple terms, the ban on Semi-Automatics can be cited as needed to make sure the Reserve Militia has the best equipment the Reserve Militia needs for its expected combat role. That weapon being a Bolt Action Rifle. These Semi-Automatics will bring with them to many issues of re-supply of Ammunition, and parts to be tolerated and the mere existence of them in the Market Place causes excessive interference with the plan to better Regulate the Reserve Militia.

Notice, none of the above changes underlying law, it is just the President exercising his authority as Commander In Chief to form up and "regulate" the Reserve Militia and flushing out how the "Reserve Militia" is to be armed. The ban on Semi-automatic weapons is to encourage purchase of Mauser bolt Actions for that is the Weapon the President wants the Reserve Militia to have (and all Obama needs to cite is that the US has to be prepared for a Terrorist Attack anywhere in the US, and attack that would require the Reserve Militia to be called out till other forces can arrive). Defining what weapon the Militia shall have follows what Congress did in 1795 in the Militia Act of 1795 (The Militia Act of 1795 remained on the books till 1903. In 1903 the wording we see today was adopted, women were added in the 1970s as to the National Guard.

Now, I admit the above would be a stretch of the law, but it would permit the President to ban the sale of Semi-automatic Weapons by Executive Order, for the sale of such weapons interferes with people buying Mauser Bolt Actions Rifles so they can meet the legal requirement of Obama as to the Reserve Militia. The President would also have to set up standards for the proposed weapon, but the Mauser Bolt Action is well known and standards could be quickly set up. Remember we are NOT calling for the Executive Order to actually issue or require the Reserve Militia to have such a Mauser Bolt Action Rifle, but if someone says he wants to be armed as part of the US Militia the weapon he is to obtain in a Mauser Bolt Action Rifle.

By standardizing on the Mauser Bolt Action, as the Weapon of the Reserve Militia, the President could then ban the sale of any semi-automatic weapon as a sale that interferes with his plan on how the Reserve Militia is to be armed. In simple terms, the President's REGULATION of the Reserve Militia can NOT be followed if Semi-automatic Weapons are permitted to be sold. Thus the sale of such weapons interferes with the President's regulation of the Reserve Militia, something he is the Commander in Chief of and thus up to his sole discretion absence any Congressional action. If the President would emphasis the need to better regulate the Reserve Militia, and play down the actual ban for any other reason, I can see the Courts upholding such an Executive Order banning Semi-automatic Weapons for such a ban would be within his powers as Commander In Chief of the Arm Forces of the US.

Side note: Before you go on a tear and complain that the Bolt Action Rifle has no place in Modern Warfare, except as a sniper rifle, let me make the following observation. The bolt action rifle (The Mauser is considered the best, through the British SMLE had superior fire power, but at reduce range and power of the Round) is superior to automatic rifles in range and reliability (In fact every country that converted from a Bolt Action to an Automatic Rifle had to reduce reliability and range requirements to make the conversion), and is superior to Machine Guns and Mortars in maneuverability. The Automatic Rifle (and the assault Rifle) did not replace the bolt action rifle, it took the Automatic Rifle, the Squad Automatic Weapon, the General Purpose Machine Gun and the Mortar to replace the bolt action rifle. Together the Automatic Rifle, the Squad Automatic Weapon, the General Purpose Machine Gun and the Mortar provides over all better combat performance then a unit armed with Bolt Action Rifles, but a unit armed with only Bolt Action Rifle is superior to any unit armed with only Automatic Rifles OR armed only with Squad Automatic Weapons, or a unit armed only with General Purpose Machine Guns or a units armed only with Mortars. It took all four, the Automatic Rifle, the Squad Automatic Weapon, the General Purpose Machine Gun and the Mortar to replace the bolt action rifle. Thus Obama can point out in his Executive Order that given the expense of Squad Automatic Weapons, General Purpose Machine Guns and Mortars he can NOT expect the Militia to purchase them and thus must issue a regulations that the Reserve Militia must arm themselves with bolt action rifles as the best weapon for such units.

Side note: National Guard:
The legal foundation of the National Guard prior to 1903 was on weak constitutional grounds, for the National Guard prior to 1903 did not fit the definitions of militia as used in the 1795 Militia Act. The wording of the Militia Act of 1795 is important, for the courts have long given great weight to terms and words used in laws passed by the early Congresses when those same terms and words are used in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Thus the term Militia has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to include every male over the age of 18. On the other hand what is the Militia, as that word is used in the US Constitution, has never been defined by the US Supreme Court, but the Militia Act is one source to such a definition.

The problem for the National Guard prior to 1903 was its formation was more like Regular Troops then the definition of Militia used in the Militia Act of 1795 (The act in force prior to 1903). On the other hand the Courts wanted the National Guard to be "Constitutional" given the use of the National Guard in various civil disturbances of the late 1800s. Thus when the issue of the National Guard Constitutionality came up, the Courts kept ruling it was Militia, even through it did NOT meet the definition of Militia under the only Federal Militia Act in existence, the 1795 Militia Act.

The Militia Act of 1795 order every state to organized its "Free men" (which by the terms of the 13th amendment meant all men) into Militia Units. The men in these units were unpaid, had to bring their own ,69 caliber musket, they own 20 rounds of ammunition, their own tents and sleeping gear, they own clothes, and their own food for 20 days.

Please compare that to Regular Army recruits, who were PAID, were ISSUED their ,69 Caliber Musket, issued whatever Ammunition they had to use, issued their tents and sleeping gear, issued a uniform, and feed by their Units from money from the Federal Government.

Yes, the Regular Army were full timers, while the Militia only had to show up a drill once a month, but the National Guard Units, especially after the Civil War, as to their enlisted ranks, paid them on drill days, issued them a weapon and ammunition, issued tents and sleeping gear, issued uniforms and feed the enlistees for free.

Thus, except for the fact the National Guard was and are "part time", troops in the National Guard meet and meets the same requirements of Regular US Troops. Thus the argument that the National Guard are "State Troops" not "Militia" as those terms are used in the US Constitution.

Now, ignoring the Constitution when the Courts don't like it is not unusual. The Red Scare of the 1940s was noted by the Supreme Court avoiding ruling on any issue related to the Red Scare till it was over. In the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, the Act he was impeached for violating, was ruled to be unconstitutional 20 years later, but during that Constitutional Crisis the Courts avoided the issue. And lets not forget Plessy vs Ferguson and the whole Separate but Equal ruling from 1898 to 1954. Thus the Courts in the late 1800s ignored the law and came up with rationales to show they were following the Constitution, when they were not.

In the period from the US Civil War to 1903, the courts wanted the National Guard to be constitutional so by ruling the National Guard was the Militia, for that is what each state called the National Guard, made the National Guard Militia even through if did NOT meet the requirement of only Federal Law in effective as to the Militia at that time. This included ignoring those parts of the Federal Constitution given exclusive power of the Militia to the Federal Government.

The other problem is what are "State Troops" as that term is used in the US Constitution? The problem with the later definition is such "State Troops" were BANNED by the Federal Constitution UNLESS approved by Congress, and Congress never gave such approval as to the National Guard till the Dick Act of 1903.

Now, since 1903 and Congress adoption of the State's National Guard Units, the National Guard is clearly constitutional today, for if the NAtional Guard is either Militia and as such constitutional, or the National Guard are State Troops, and given that Congress has authorize the existence of the National Guard units in the states, the National Guard is constitutional even if the National Guard are State Troops, as that terms in used in the US Constitution.

The National Guard being unconstitutional only relates to the period of its existence prior to 1903 and subsequent to the US Civil War. The Traditional American Militia went into slow decline after the War of 1812. To this slow decline some people formed Special Military Units as Clubs so they could participate in a more professional military organization then the Militia was becoming after 1820. Some of these clubs pre-date the American Revolution, but most formed after about 1820 as the Militia was deemed no longer a priority given that the British and Native Americans were NO longer active in the Ohio Valley.

One such Club/Unit acted as an Honor Guard for Lafayette when he returned to the US via New York City in the 1830s. That unit, in his honor adopted the name National Guard, the name of Lafayette forces during the French Revolution. Other Clubs soon adopted the same name to differentiate themselves from the rapidly deteriorating Militia. These Clubs were the basis for many of the First Units called into Active Service during the Mexican War, the Civil War and the Spanish American War.

After the Civil War, the States started to take view that these units, which had started as clubs but due to action in the Civil War, saw themselves as a Reserve Army unit, as State Units. The Traditional Militia had all but disappeared by the time of the Civil War, it existed on paper in most states, but that is about all. The States used the National Guard as its units during the Civil War and with the end of the Civil War, many state raised units were retained by the States as National Guard units. The States called them Militia for Congress did NOT agree to their formation till 1903 and in fact retain the Militia Act of 1795 till 1903 (and these units did NOT meet the requirements of that Act) These units retained much of their "Club" organization, including Officers going through Officer's Training at the State Expense, but NOT having a duty to serve once the training was done (again to get around the problems of Congress refusing to do anything as to the National Guard and the States wanting them to handle Civil Disturbances).

Now, the General Strike of 1877 lead to some changes in the National Guard, the States all improved them, including increase money to them to pay enlistees (Some of the earliest cases as to the National Guard being Militia were AFTER the General Strike, which the States had a problem containing even with the use of the State's National Guard).

After the General Strike of 1877, Congress even provided money to some National Guard units, but did NOT change the underlying Militia Law (Money to State National Guard Units to buy weapons had come from Congress as early as the 1830s, but no change to the underlying Federal Militia Act). After the General Strike, the National Guard and the Regular Army fought in the Chambers of Congress on which would be better in handle something like the General Strike, the National Guard, having a lot of members who either were Congressmen, relatives to Congressmen, or important States Officials that Congressmen needed support from to get re-elected, won. This related to increase funding, but no change in the law. Theodore Roosevelt finally had Congress change the Militia Act to Include the National Guard (and to form up the National Guard Units into a Army Reserve Type formation) with the Dick Act of 1903.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:05 AM

87. Fascinating post!

Thanks for that HappySlug - and here's hoping that your interpretation matches the President's!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nihil (Reply #87)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:50 AM

88. I have no FAITH that such an Executive Order would survive a Court challenge

But, it is a good facial argument. It would be a good test to see how much leeway the Courts would give to Executive Order AND the Second Amendment. Obama, in many ways a careful politician, I just do NOT see him even trying to make the above argument for he would be afraid of losing. I be tempted to do it, even as I am 90% sure it would fail a court challenge, just to see how far the Supreme Court would permit such an Executive Order to affect something covered by the Bill of Rights.

Remember Obama can NOT pass anything new by Executive Order nor can an Executive Order undo what the Congress has pass. As President, Obama can order that an unconstitutional law passed by Congress is to be ignored as unconstitutional on its face. President Johnston did that in 1968 in regards to Congress's "Repeal" of the Miranda Ruling, a position adopted by President Nixon when he became President and a position every President adopted till Bush I. Under the elder Bush, an order was issued that the Law passed by Congress in 1968 overturning Miranda was to be enforced. This new order and the Congressional "repeal" of a Constitutional Ruling by the Supreme Court was subsequently ruled to be Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, just as Johnson and Nixon had found such an "repeal" to be when they issued their executive Orders to ignore the "repeal".

Thus, the proposal I propose could be ruled unconstitutional as stretching the right of the President to Regulate the Arm Forces to far. It could be ruled unconstitutional for it interferes with how the otherwise unregulated militia is to be armed for such a regulations had to be passed by CONGRESS not the President. On the other hand, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, including the Militia and preparing the Militia, providing it involved no expenditures of funds (Funding is reserve to Congress), could be within the President's powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:35 PM

83. I say DO IT, Mr. President, all 19! YOU are the commander guy & need to keep the nation SAFE

these NRA teat sucking Congressmen can go cry wahhhhh to their constituents if they don't like your exec. orders. Screw 'em.

And to GWB* I'm taking your "commander guy" phrase 'cause you no longer are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:25 AM

84. Safety?

How about mandatory gun safety classes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:56 AM

85. This is great news

Screw Congress get it done Mr. President!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread