Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama Poised For Decision On Increased Federal Firearm Control...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


As President Obama moves to decisive action on increased firearm control he is aware, I'm sure, of certain limitations on his authority. If not things could get very interesting,



>TPM - Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, now a prominent emeritus official at the Heritage Foundation, became the latest conservative to warn that President Obama could risk impeachment if he takes executive action on reducing gun violence in an interview Monday night.

Speaking with Newsmax, Meese said Congress may have to consider impeaching Obama if he were “to try to override the Second Amendment in any way” with an executive order. He did allow that there are some executive actions related to guns that Obama could take wouldn’t be impeachable.

“It would be up to the Congress to take action, such as looking in to it to see if, in fact, he has really tried to override the Constitution itself,” Meese told Newsmax. “In which case, it would be up to them to determine what action they should take — and perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”

He said that there are certain executive actions the White House can take without fear of impeachment.

“An executive order without specific congressional authority can only apply to those portions of the government that are under his control — in their words, the executive branch,” Meese said. “Now there are some things he can probably do in regard to the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or some other governmental agency in its operations.”

“But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization,” he said. {Read More}

As we are a nation governed by the rule of law, rather than by the dictates of a single man or a mob, I'm confident any attempt by this President to act outside the bounds of law, or act unconstitutionally will be met with sound rebuke by both the right and left.

Via: Memeorandum

38 comments:

  1. An executive proclamation (signing statement) is not outside the Constitution. Just ask George Bush, he signed the most. The President has powers and can act without the Congress. Since Congress will do nothing the people are starved for leadership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Executive orders, like executive privilege is not unlimited. This nation is not a dictatorship.

      Ed Meese makes cogent and valid points. Should you disagree very well. But try to stick within the confines of the specific issue and concerns many share.

      I, apparently unlike yourself continue to support the concept and practice of a constitutional republic. Where we are governed by rule of law, the Constitution, and the People are the Masters of their government. Not it's servant.

      I have a question for you, a bit off topic. Do you support a move to remove the 22'nd amendment? If so why, and what benefits do you envision by doing so?

      Delete
    2. Again, you imply because the president will use a legal avenue that most other presidents have used, that he is a dictator. You are silly

      Delete
    3. Really? Or is it merely your desired interpretation?

      I see you did not answer my question(s). Interesting.

      Delete
    4. Anon,

      (Not sure if my first comments went through)

      So since President Obama 'has powers and can act without the Congress' and we are 'starved for leadership', will he own this gun control ruling of his the first time an innocent is killed with a semi-automatic firearm with a large-capacity magazine? Or will he instead blame the impotent GOP or George Bush? Since he will be the one who nails a sign saying, "No shooting each other, by Presidential Decree/Executive Order!", will he take the blame for impotence and arrogance the first time someone violates his royal ruling?

      Delete
    5. I am loath to agree with anon, and I do not defend the President's actions at all, but past presidents, including George the Second, have indeed set the precedent.

      Thanks to the power-hungry, constitution-trampling progressives of all parties, we have an imperial presidency. The next one, repub or dem, will be even worse.

      Delete
    6. Let's hope not SF, and work against it happening.

      Delete
  2. I suspect that most of the rebukes will come from the right (just as most of the rebukes of a Republican President would come from the left) and politics will reign as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will,

      As you are a known moderate/centrist, let me ask you: What is your take on Obama threatening to use Executive Orders to impose his agenda on the Second Amendment? Not a loaded question, Will. I am genuinely interested. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. ConFire 3, I'm not a big Second Amendment guy. I'm an animal-loving vegetarian who doesn't own a gun and who doesn't plan on getting one. But I'm also an individual who is empirically based and I still haven't seen any evidence that instituting gun control legislation reduces the murder rate (economist John Lott from the University of Maryland hasn't found any, either). To me, this stuff (Obama's actions) is all about cosmetics.

      Delete
    3. Will,

      A clear and concise answer. Nicely done, Will. I have heard it said that all this gun control law-making and executive action is merely "window dressing". Your comment that it is cosmetics is too true.

      I am glad to find a person who is neither pro-gun or anti-gun who simply wants to stand on the Constitution. Bravo, sir.

      Delete
    4. I try and follow the evidence, my friend. Like in D.C., when they lifted the gun ban there, the murder rate actually went down. Not that this necessarily underscores causality, mind you, but you know that if the correlation had ended up the opposite, the gun control people would have absolutely noted it.

      Delete
  3. Les,

    A little write-up I did regarding tomorrow's presser from Obama. Where he will have children on stage with him. Of course.

    http://www.perigonmedia.com/obama-set-to-use-children-as-gun-control-justification-but/

    Also, for your perusal, look what might happen in CT regarding gun laws. Scary stuff, indeed.

    http://www.perigonmedia.com/connecticut-group-seeks-toughest-gun-laws-in-nation-even-tougher-than-new-york/

    I'm sure we will have much to discuss after Obama's speech tomorrow. See ya then, sir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Les,

      Sorry, all I have been able to find is that it will be on Wednesday. I have yet to see a time. Maybe someone else has that info...?

      Delete
  4. Les,

    Two things for you. One, transcript of Obama's speech, and two, the list of the 23 Executive Actions he is implementing. In that order. Enjoy. Please use these if you need them!

    http://bostinno.com/2012/12/19/president-obamas-speech-on-gun-control-and-reform-transcript-video/#ss__275884_274062_0__ss

    http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/16/obamas-23-executive-actions-guns

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les,

    Ignore that first link I sent, detailing the speech Obama gave today. It was horribly incorrect! Yikes!
    Here is http://www.perigonmedia.com/transcript-from-obama-gun-control-speech-16-january-2013/

    ReplyDelete
  6. "...will he own this gun control ruling of his the first time an innocent is killed with a semi-automatic firearm with a large-capacity magazine? Or will he instead blame the impotent GOP or George Bush? Since he will be the one who nails a sign saying, "No shooting each other, by Presidential Decree/Executive Order!", will he take the blame for impotence and arrogance the first time someone violates his royal ruling?"

    Of course there'll be more shootings and carnage. We have millions and millions of firearms and millions and millions of bullets in circulation in this country. What the president proposed today should have been done years and years ago, but the venal people who run the NRA used the power of money from their firearms industry overlords and spread it around Congress to make sure nothing was done about the saturation of firearms in this country. What happened in Newtown was inevitable, and massacres like that will continue for a long time to come.

    But to do nothing would be to throw up our hands in the face of evil and say we can't do anything to stop it. That's cowardly. We Americans love to brag about how exceptional we are, but at the same time there are people out there saying we can't stop the 33,000+ deaths every year from firearms?

    That's unacceptable for a country that believes it is exceptional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw said:

      "But to do nothing would be to throw up our hands in the face of evil and say we can't do anything to stop it. That's cowardly. We Americans love to brag about how exceptional we are, but at the same time there are people out there saying we can't stop the 33,000+ deaths every year from firearms?"

      First, I'd like to know where you got the 33,000+ gun-related death statistic. Second, fast food, cars, booze and cigarettes "kill" far more Americans than guns do; in fact I'd venture to say at least 10x as many people.

      Are we then not "exceptional" because we "allow" hundreds of thousands of Americans every single year to be "killed" by fast food, cars, booze and cigs?

      What about free will in a free society, Shaw? Hmm?

      Delete
    2. Shaw... Unfortunately I was unable to see the President on TV today as I am busy furthering my education and preparing for a new career at 60 yrs. of age. Now I know that seems very odd to a liberal that a real true Classical Liberal, or conservative by today's standards would do so. Nonetheless it s true.

      That aside, I will wait to comment until I have read the PDF text of his remarks and had time to review the executive orders. I'm sure it seems odd to liberal's that a Classical Liberal, modern conservative would do such a thing. But oh well, it tis true a bunch of us do.

      I will offer this quick, less than fully up to speed comment... The Presidential orders will impact the law abiding general population that owns firearms as well as future firearms owners. It is highly doubtful that it will do a damn thing to affect the criminal element or the crazies that will continue to inhabit this nation with us.

      More to follow...

      Delete
    3. Shaw,

      The President has said:
      "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction."

      While I admire such a sentiment, he has inadvertently shown the futility in all these laws and regulations in eliminating evil or stopping violence. I'll tell you what stops the bad guys. It's good guys. We may very well be a nation of laws and not of men, but it is men who confront those who break our laws.

      Let me simply say, Shaw, that if we were neighbors, your house would be as safe as mine. I would watch out for your welfare and confront any evil that would seek to harm you or yours. And how is this possible? With a gun. ;)

      Delete
    4. Shaw, it was wrong for the NRA (i.e., those "venal people") to bring Mr. Obama's kids into the debate (via that ad) but it was also pretty creepy to have the President using children as props like HE did. And is it simply too much to ask to have these politicians actually look at the data prior to acting?

      Delete
    5. Will,

      Was it wrong for the NRA to point out the blatant hypocrisy regarding this issue? It had nothing to do with President Obama's children. It had everything to do with him denying normal everyday Americans to have their children, while at school, guarded by armed personnel, while his are. Hypocrisy, nothing more.

      Besides, as has been noted, his children are more important than ours. It's not like if our kid is kidnapped it's a big deal, but if his kids are kidnapped, it somehow is. Yikes.

      On Twitter, statist Matt Yglesias makes his point:

      ---Matt Yglesias
      ---@mattyglesias

      ---Sorry haters, a kidnapping of the First Kids would be a way bigger deal than a kidnapping of your kids.

      Delete
    6. I think that there were probably other ways to point out Mr. Obama's hypocrisy than bringing up his kids. At the very least it was abominable P.R..

      Delete
  7. Tim, time is short for me so I will only comment at this time that with the exception of a drunk driver who kills another in a car accident, the result of their drunkenness, none of your examples carry any malicious or criminal intent. They ae the result of personal life choices and therefore IMNHO are irrelevant to this discussion.

    The laws in most states today view death AS A RESULT OF AN INDIVIDUAL BEING DRUNK as a criminal issue. I believe individuals with repeat records of Driving While Intoxicated lose their right to operate a motor vehicle.

    Let us analyze the Presidents Executive Orders against the issue of Constitutionality and those things that MAY be sensible and reasonable accept and argue against those (if any) that do not.

    Simply put, lets not take the same knee jerk reaction that the liberals often take and almos ALWAYS accuse conservatives of doing.

    Time to take the high ground back based on reason, logic, and common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Will, I gotta agree with you on your Presidential prop comment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RN, Will and Con... I find all of this talk about curtailing the right of people to own guns superfluous. Has President Obama done that? has he proposed one single idea that takes away a single gun from a law abiding mentally healthy individual?

    We should be honest here... the uproar is about the following...

    1. The fear that in the future Obama, Congress, or another president may push for more bullish action

    2. That Congress may follow the NRA suggestions and create a database of crazies and some people with guns already may be on it.

    LaPierre was very cagey in his suggestions, as have been all of the people aiming at the mentally ill, knowing full well, they will then fight against the very type of national databases that would be used to track the crazies...

    RN, I see no reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

    Now for you and the others... why do conservatives oppose a law that requires registration of all guns bought and a cooling off period?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave, perhaps it is superfluous, and I would expect all liberals (progressives) to enunciate precisely that which you have. I will go so far as to even say I understand at some level why you do.

      I am quite pleased to see you agree with me with respect to not repealing or overturning the 2'ns amendment. You are indeed a rational and reasonable liberal.

      As I have clearly stated on several occasions and in several posts... 1) I have no problem with registering firearms, MA has done so for years, 2) A cooling off period is not in and of itself a negative or bad idea. However, the belief it will result in a reduction is criminal activity is, IMNHO naive. It MAY,in some circumstances, have a positive affect on reducing "crimes of passion."

      To reiterate, I also have now issue with restricting semi automatic assault weapons, high cap (extended) magazines, or enhanced background checks.

      Has this ditty provided enough clarity with respect to my position?

      My prediction... 10 years hence we will see further major restrictions occurring all the result of further progressive statist attempts to modify, add further restrictions to, or overturn the 2'nd amendment.



      Delete
    2. Dave (measured, as always), I don't have a problem with background checks and doing away with the gun-show loophole. Those are reasonable restrictions and I would also make a law that whenever a gun is stolen, that person has to report it missing.......On the other side of the coin - right to carry (with proper registration) I am in favor of because that seems to be associated with a reduction in the murder rate.

      Delete
  10. Will said: "On the other side of the coin - right to carry (with proper registration)"

    Yes, with the initial assumption that anyone has this right, unless there is a reason to remove it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Will: I don't think it was wrong at all for the NRA to point on the hypocrisy of the most powerful in the country either having platoons of armed guards around their children and/or sending their kids to private schools that have lots of armed guards.... all while trying to push through very bad efforts to keep the children of non-privileged families away from such protection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They pulled the ad and so there had to be some negative blow-back.

      Delete
  12. RN said "My prediction... 10 years hence we will see further major restrictions occurring all the result of further progressive statist attempts to modify, add further restrictions to, or overturn the 2'nd amendment."

    In some countries, registration has led to the government stealing the guns. All the more good reason to get plenty of guns and ammo now, preferably at guns shows, to make this theft a lot more difficult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is, IMNHO, a knee jerk response rather than a reasoned response for the purpose of encouraging dialogue that could result in reasonable law while preserving the 2'nd.

      Delete
  13. Dmarks... maybe registration has led to confiscation in some countries. Id that a reason to not do so here? What about the other side of the coin... countries where registration has not led to confiscation. Could not use the same logic you are using and claim it will not happen?

    People who are quick to talk about American Exceptionalism [perhaps not you, quien sabe] frequently bring up the sins of people in other countries as reasons why we should not something... it happened over there so why risk it here... yet isn't that just saying that in fact Americans are not exceptional and will act no differently than other peoples?

    Thanks you Will... that measured tone you speak of is seen by some as smugness...

    I am just convinced that most of us agree on more than we know and if we could talk reasonably, we could take care of a lot of issues...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree, Dave, and I just wish that some of that could make its way through Congress. For example, we all know that having Medicare negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies would save the U.S. treasury $25-30 billion a year and, even though it isn't even remotely partisan or controversial, NOTHING!....Same thing here with the background checks (74% of NRA members are in favor of it!). It's maddening.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that have no value but to demean another commenter or spread fallacious statements meant to result in a food fight or crap fest.

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

A note to ALL, the blog Lying Lester, a spoof blog designed and set up by one extremely unscrupulous lying asshat is not the property of this site and there is ABSOLUTELY no connection between the two.

It is disturbed and dishonest individuals like Dervish Sanders of Sleeping with The Devil progressive blog that over time has caused this this unfortunate situation.



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails