Somehow this speech and executive order will be contrived to mean that Obama will come round up everyone’s gun.  No.  That isn’t going to happen.  No Obama in combat boots knocking on anyone’s door.

One of the breakdowns I have heard that I think will be fixed is people being allowed to buy Tommy guns and similar type machine guns under the guise of a corporate trust.  Apparently the number of people filing this kind of paper work has increased exponentially.  I am one of those people who just don’t think civilians need this kind of fire power.

My own Congressman has already bellowed and moaned about the President’s actions.  My own Congressman represents me on almost nothing, however.   He plays to the ideologues on nearly every issue.

Then I have to remind myself that I had the only Obama sign in my yard in 2012.  My street is a long one.  It goes from Splashdown to Vint Hill Road.   The sign was my husband’s sign.  He worked the Obama campaign.   That’s a long road for only one little ole sign.

The polls seem to support this latest initiative.  Furthermore, Obama has the lowest number of executive orders of any president since Grover Cleveland.  Go figure.

28 Thoughts to “THE Presidential Executive Order”

  1. Kelly_3406

    Happy New Year. I hope everyone had a great holiday.

    The bottom line is this: The executive branch does not have the constitutional power to unilaterally place restrictions on one of the Bill of Rights. The Courts should slap down this executive order, because it is a treacherous path for our Republic for a president to dictate a restriction on any of our fundamental rights.

    If he is able to get away with this, what is to stop a future president from restricting free speech for some “greater good?” The answer is nothing, because the precedent will have been set by Obama.

    1. Free speech is probably the first to go if we look at the past.

      the first amendment has gone thru all sorts of twisting and tweaking.

  2. Jackson Bills

    I don’t think that it will be contrived to mean that Obama will come round up everyone’s gun. But it does set a questionable precedent as Kelley mentioned (if it stands).

    “Then I have to remind myself that I had the only Obama sign in my yard in 2012. My street is a long one. It goes from Splashdown to Vint Hill Road. The sign was my husband’s sign. He worked the Obama campaign.”

    That is interesting, are you and/or your husband working the Clinton campaign?

    1. I said my husband worked the Obama campaign. I haven’t worked a political campaign since 1992. Why is it interesting?

      I expect he will work the Clinton campaign. I haven’t asked him. Shall I list the various campaigns he has worked for? Shaw/McPike, Sen. Warner, Sen. Kaine, Obama both times, Paul Ebert. He does not sit on committee. He just works the elections. I am glad he does. It gives him focus.

      I do not work campaigns. I hate political campaigns with ever ounce of my being.

  3. BSinVA

    “If he is able to get away with this…” That WOULD mean that the Courts could not/did not “slap down” his executive order. It would then follow that his executive order was proper and legal and did not infringe on one of the Bill of Rights.

    It WOULD NOT mean that some future president could infringe of one of our rights. If that future President issues an executive order and the Courts over rule it… our rights would be preserved.

    1. Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president since Grover Cleveland, but I repeat myself.

  4. Steve Thomas

    Here’s my problem with his “actions”: Most of them simply (when you read them), simply restate existing law. There’s a lot of “encourage X to do Y” statements. Telling the ATF to more closely scrutinize those selling guns, to determine if they are “in the business”, simply means, ATF…do your jobs. What defines a “dealer” is written in to Federal law, and Obama cannot change this with an executive order. Another thing that he can’t do: Appropriate funds, without the approval of the House.

    As far as the NFA trusts Moon mentioned, if you think he’s tightened up the process, think again. The ATF just issued a Memorandum removing the requirement for the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the trust’s location to approve the application. It is now easier for qualified individuals to form NFA trusts. And if you think his other actions on these trusts will prevent crimes, or “make us safer, consider this: There have been exactly TWO cases of weapons belonging to an NFA Trust being used in a homicide in EIGHTY-TWO YEARS! Far from being a “criminal scourge”.

    Here’s one of his actions I actually do support, and hope that Congress appropriates the funds to execute: Hiring more FBI staff to conduct NICS Checks. This will help the lawful citizen in purchasing a firearm, tremendously. Considering 2015 broke all previous records for NICS checks conducted (slightly indicating new firearms purchases), 23.1M NICS checks for the year, it only makes sense to hire more staff. Wouldn’t want there to be any delays in approvals.

    Obama did tell some whoppers in his speech. The best was the oft-repeated lie regarding a criminal being able to go out on the internet, and purchase a firearm…”no questions asked”. This is a lie. A big, fat, honking LIE. A person cannot go to a website, purchase a gun, and have it shipped directly to them, without a background check. If this were to happen, it would violate too many existing firearms laws to count. Individuals not holding a Federal Firearms License (FFL) cannot ship firearms via third-party carrier, such as USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc. Someone who does have an FFL cannot legally ship a firearm to a non-FFL individual, period. Hell, I can’t even ship a firearm that I own back to the original firearm manufacturer for repair, without transferring it first to an FFL.

    All that stuff about Doctors asking patients questions (not mandatory), and directing the Social Security admin to report certain data to NICS…I certainly hope he tries. He will get blocked by the courts so fast it would make Valerie Jarrett’s head spin.

    At the end of the day, Obama’s executive actions on guns, don’t really infringe on the 2nd Amendment, because they really didn’t change existing law, or create any new law, which would both be unconstitutional. The theater was dramatic…big build-up, crocodile tears, outright lies and distortion of facts were a bit of a spectacle, but really, he’s accomplished little, if nothing. If I wanted, I could still engage in a private transfer of a firearm, as long as I don’t knowingly transfer it to a prohibited person.

    I’ll go back to working to block Herring’s push to end reciprocity. This is a far greater restriction on the rights of the law-abiding citizen.

    1. Unsubstantiated that those were crocodile tears. Just thinking about those little kids being shot is enough to make anyone tear up. Then think about being one of those parents.

  5. Steve Thomas

    Moon Wrote: “Furthermore, Obama has the lowest number of executive orders of any president since Grover Cleveland. Go figure.”

    That may be, but he’s had the most executive orders blocked in Federal Court in history as well.

    1. Perhaps because he has had the most enemies, for whatever reason.

  6. Ed Myers

    The executive order will enforce laws that already exists by applying more federal resources.
    If Congress thinks the laws are wrongly interpreted by the executive branch they should either pass new laws that clarify the meaning (and risk a veto and bad press during election season) or sue and hope for judicial activism.

  7. Steve Thomas

    Ed Myers :
    The executive order will enforce laws that already exists by applying more federal resources.
    If Congress thinks the laws are wrongly interpreted by the executive branch they should either pass new laws that clarify the meaning (and risk a veto and bad press during election season) or sue and hope for judicial activism.

    Factually correct, with a slightly different take. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? Congress makes law, President executes, Judicial interprets whether the law is constitutional, or the execution within the bounds of the law.

  8. Starryflights

    The EO simply clarifies existing laws. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. I support the president’s initiative 100 percent .

  9. Cargosquid

    The President presented a false narrative.
    He implied that there are no background checks on internet and gun show sales.
    He lied about it.

    His EO doesn’t even clarify anything. He merely wants the ATF to go after those selling guns privately, by interpreting existing vague law more strictly. So, I guess we’ll see all those “dangerous” private sellers be arrested for not having an FFL.

    Meanwhile, in gun control paradise, hundreds of people are killing each other.

    He didn’t have any tears for them. Or for the agents killed by guns that the ATF smuggled to the cartels. I notice he is still protecting that criminal enterprise.

    NOTHING he proposed with have any effect on crime. Two, in his litany of “gun violence” was actual terrorism.

    The entire speech was nothing more than President Empty Chair voting “present” and using the bully pulpit to read from Bloomberg’s gun control talking points.
    What a shame that they have to lie so much to advance an agenda.

  10. Kelly_3406

    Steve Thomas :
    All that stuff about Doctors asking patients questions (not mandatory), and directing the Social Security admin to report certain data to NICS…I certainly hope he tries. He will get blocked by the courts so fast it would make Valerie Jarrett’s head spin.

    This is the part that seems unconstitutional. It was also reported that the Executive Action made it mandatory for doctors to report mental illness for background checks. If implemented, this would seem to cross the line between executing law and making law, would it not?

  11. Wolve

    Looks to me like this POTUS press conference was mostly for show and possibly just a set up. I think that it might be wise to stay alert for a second, more disturbing shoe to drop in the not too distant future.

  12. Steve Thomas

    @Kelly_3406
    Yes, it would cross the line. However, the law is pretty clear on what constitutes adjudication of mental defect. Obama cannot expand this, nor does the EO establish a reporting requirement. Again, he used a bunch of words that don’t change existing law.

    1. Perhaps he was talking about various laws across all 50 states. We know different states have different gun laws.

      As for the mental illness part….that is a 500 headed snake.

      I saw a comment on Facebook tonight…about someone saying he was trying to vilify mentally ill people. That’s absurd. Then there was the mixing it all up with evil. I think we need to leave evil out of it. Most people who do mass killings are simply nuts on steroids. I think evil kills in a different way.

  13. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    Moon, I have read and reread the letter posted at whitehouse.gov. I’ve read the analysis of true 2nd Amendment scholars, such as Alan Gotlieb of the 2nd Amendment Foundation. Basically, this was a big fluffanutter, advertised as a steak. Sweet and sugary, but lacking any lasting substance. If this were a movie, it would be Ishtar. If a TV special, Geraldo Rivera’s “Secret of Al Capone’s Safe”. Alot of hype, nothing more. Yawn, stretch, and move on.

    BUT…and it’s a Kardashian-sized But(t), The hype has done nothing more than further provoke the 2A crowd
    I predict another record-breaking month for gun sales. Reading the various “gun culture” blogs, Obama has kicked a fire ant mound, and has gained little for the effort. I’d love to get a look at his stock portfolio, to see if there’s any gun manufacturer stock in there. Really. He has single-handedly driven gun sales through the roof. The gun industry should get a nice lucite block, and have it inscribed with “Gun Salesman of the Decade”. Ruger, Colt, Smith & Wesson, et. al. Should get together and send him on a nice vacation, just as they would anu other outstanding salesman. Obama has earned that commission check, and that trip to the “President’s Club Winner’s Circle”. 23.1 Million gums in 2015, and over 100 million since he took office, a 33% increase in private ownership, since taking office. In November 2015 alone, the number of guns sold would equip a Marine division. I will give credit where it is due: the Obama economic recovery is a success, of we look only at the gun industry. As a sales – professional, I am in awe.

    1. Then again, you have to ask yourself what fools go out and buy a bunch of guns over THAT executive order. That’s sort of paranoid if you ask me. The stock market is supposed to crater tomorrow. I have been eyeing some SWHC for several weeks now. That’s sort of chasing the news though. Regardless, its reasonably priced. After all the kerfuffle is over, it will fall again.

      I guess you have to ask who is jerking whose chain. I hope all the purchasers are buying trigger locks if they have children.

  14. Steve Thomas

    A shoind now Obama has managed to get himself sued over the Keystone XL pipeline. Question: how feckless do you need to be, to get sued by Canada? Answer: Obama is Brazil vs. Canada as Germany, in the world cup of international economic treaties l. Really, January 2016 cannot get here fast enough. Really. Even if we elect a democrat. This guy is a lost cause. Anyone (Starry) still backing this guy should be embarrassed, unless you are invested heavily in gun-manufacturer stocks. If this is the case, feel free to continue rockin’ those hope & change tee-shirts

  15. Cargosquid

    By the way….. Obama advocated illegal activities.

    One CANNOT get a federal firearms license to do business only at gun shows.

    And if the policy for the ATF is new…they cannot do it without going through mandatory review steps.

    Its almost, as if…..no one that wrote the speech actually reviewed existing law and merely wanted an emotional appeal devoid of facts.

  16. Starryflights

    The Feds are going to start buying smart gun technology. That’s great news. Wonder why gun huggers oppose that

  17. Steve Thomas

    @Starryflights
    Starry, if the feds want to purchase flawed technology, that’s on them. I oppose any mandates for the public because 1) it is very unreliable, and 2) it is cost-prohibitive. $3K+ for a handgun that will likely fail when needed, is foolish.

  18. Pat.Herve

    at what age should someone be able to buy an AR-15? 10, 15, 16, 18, 21?

  19. Steve Thomas

    Pat.Herve :
    at what age should someone be able to buy an AR-15? 10, 15, 16, 18, 21?

    That should be left to the individual States to decide…and it shouldn’t be model-dependent. In Virginia, the minimum age to purchase a “Long Gun” (Rifle or Shot-gun) is 18. Minimum age for a handgun is 21. Minimum age for obtaining a concealed carry permit is 21. An AR-15 is just a semi-auto 5.556/.223 rifle. That it is all “black and scary, with all that metal and plastic, doesn’t make it a “weapon designed for the battle-field”, and is no different in function or potential lethality than a non-AR platform center-fire semi-auto rifle in the same caliber.

  20. Cargosquid

    @Pat.Herve
    Interesting question.
    Let’s take a look at current laws.

    Virginia requires that you be 18 years old to buy ANY long gun.

    http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.7/

    It shall be unlawful for any person under 18 years of age to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport a handgun or assault firearm anywhere in the Commonwealth. For the purposes of this section, “handgun” means any pistol or revolver or other firearm originally designed, made and intended to fire single or multiple projectiles by means of an explosion of a combustible material from one or more barrels when held in one hand and “assault firearm” means any (i) semi-automatic centerfire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (ii) shotgun with a magazine which will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered. A violation of this section shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor.

    This section shall not apply to:

    1. Any person (i) while in his home or on his property; (ii) while in the home or on the property of his parent, grandparent, or legal guardian; or (iii) while on the property of another who has provided prior permission, and with the prior permission of his parent or legal guardian if the person has the landowner’s written permission on his person while on such property;

    2. Any person who, while accompanied by an adult, is at, or going to and from, a lawful shooting range or firearms educational class, provided that the weapons are unloaded while being transported;

    3. Any person actually engaged in lawful hunting or going to and from a hunting area or preserve, provided that the weapons are unloaded while being transported; and

    4. Any person while carrying out his duties in the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard of this Commonwealth or any other state.

    An AR-15 is not, necessarily, an “assault firearm.”

    Furthermore, any magazine fed semi-auto is identical in function to an AR style weapon.

    I have no problem with only adults being able to buy firearms. Some things are best left to adults.

    However, children are able to safely handle firearms with proper instruction. I’ve seen it quite frequently.
    Many teens hunt alone. At least they did when I was growing up.

    Here’s a good example of competence in the young: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo

Comments are closed.