PDA

View Full Version : Now that we have a new president ...


jimpeel
November 5, 2008, 12:56 AM
and a veto proof congress to back him; what new firearms regulations do you envision coming out of this Triad?

The new president has a record of supporting firearms regulations, stated that the DC law was constitutional, and supports the banning of handguns -- likely an impossibility under the tenets of Heller unless the court is loaded with anti-firearms jurists and the law revisited.

Your thoughts on proposals and what they would mean to the American sport shooting and hunting enthusiast.

Your thoughts on the constitutionality and enforcement of such laws.

My personal belief is they will start where they always start, "assault weapons" and work their way down from there. The same ol' same ol' wording, and the same ol' same ol' fearmongering, about how flash hiders, grenade launchers, and bayonets are somehow important features which need to be banned.

The handgun legislation will likely, once again, limit magazine size and may try to outlaw everything but wheelguns; but that lies in the future. Nibble, nibble.

National reciprocity is now dead. Period.

I'll leave ammunition regulations to the rest of you.

Al Norris
November 5, 2008, 02:00 AM
Jim, if after Jan. 21, Obama and the Congress even try to do something with guns, amidst all the other things going on.... Well, just how loud do you think the American Public will scream?

It would be political suicide, at this juncture.

As much as the MSM supported Obama's run for the White House, they also love a good bloodbath. They would be all over this in a New York Minute.

44 AMP
November 5, 2008, 02:25 AM
And while the projections are probably accurate enough, exactly what the makeup of Congress will be is not quite yet fixed.

Our new President (and remember he dosen't take office until Jan.) has a track record of being far from a friend to the average bitter citizen clinging to their guns and religion, BUT it may just be that he will have bigger things to occupy his administration for a while.

The trick will be to keep too much from getting passed during his "honeymoon" period, and of course, just how long that will last. Because of history has shown us anything, it has shown us that once things reach a certain point, the hugs and kisses stop, and shortly after, the gloves come off. Bush could do no wrong late in 2001, but could do no right a few years later. No matter what Obama does, eventually he will disappoint some and upset others. All Presidents do, it comes with the job. What will matter is the scale of the disaffection, and how it will reflect on his party's ability to enact their agendas.

Expect the usual suspects to push their favored bans and restrictions. Expect even more than the usual amount of propaganda and outright lies from the "mainstream" media. Expect a new dimension in our political arena, or at least new faces on old ones. Only time will tell just how things will work out, but one thing is certain. If you believe in the honesty and accuracy of our electoral system, the people have decided.

I wonder what the people will decide next?

publius42
November 5, 2008, 07:27 AM
Though hostile toward private ownership of guns when the subject comes before him, Obama hasn't done anything to show me he is strongly motivated on this issue. I kind of hope he is stupid enough to allow those in Congress who ARE strongly motivated to grab guns to go for their fondest wishes, because I think it would backfire and then he would throw them under the bus.

My reasons to be of good cheer today:

In 8 years of Bill Clinton, government spending expanded by about $400 billion, from $1.4 trillion per year to $1.8. Fedgov spending FELL as a percentage of GDP from 22% to 18%.

In 8 years of George Bush, government spending expanded by over a trillion dollars, from the $1.8 trillion level to a projected $3 trillion next year. As a percentage of GDP, fedgov spending grew from 18% to 20%.

I'm looking forward to once again having a party of smaller government in Washington, and I expect Republicans may rediscover the virtues of smaller government now that they are in the minority in Congress and have lost the White House. I expect we'll soon hear the word "gridlock" again in mainstream media, and that's music to my ears.

I also expect to once again see Republicans suspicious of executive power in areas like roving wiretaps, locking people up without a trial, and foreign nation building.

roy reali
November 5, 2008, 09:08 AM
I think our firearms might be safe in the first term of this new administration. If he gets a second chance in four years, then I would have more concerns. The way the GOP ran this campaign, we are lucky there are term limits for the President.

Webleymkv
November 5, 2008, 10:02 AM
I wouldn't get too worried about it yet. I'm not entirely sure that all the Democrats in congress are particularly wild about more gun control legislation. The Dem lost congress due in part to the '94 AWB and I don't think that many of the so-called "blue dog" democrats from traditionally red or purple states are eager to try it again. Consider this, Bush said that he would have renewed the AWB if it got to his desk (the Republican Majority in '04 just made sure that it didn't). So theoretically, if the Democrats could've gotten a bill to his desk within the last two years he'd have signed it. No AWB that's been proposed in the last two years however has made it out of committee or subcommittee. Honestly, this is just one example of the many things I don't think the Democratic congress will go along with despite Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I think political self-preservation will usually trump party loyalty.

Musketeer
November 5, 2008, 10:07 AM
I believe we need to be wary of any attempts to use "evnironmental regulations" through the likes of the EPA and others to enact back door bans on ammunition.

For an example look at this lunacy which just was halted:
http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2008/04/01/news/latest/doc47f270fdbcfac535527712.txt

The ban on "lead contaminated venison" was overturned but the simple suggestion of it almost resulted in meat being tossed from food pantries. How many of you hunters out there who have taken a deer a year for possibly decades are dying of lead poisoning?

The military has had to develop "green bullets" to address lead contamination issues at a significant cost.

The bottom line is I think you are going to see enormous taxes put on ammunition and components as a "sin tax" similar to that on alcohol and tobacco products. The sin this time though will be sins against the church of "Environmentalism." Mind you, our new POTUS had recordings played on Monday of him claiming he couldn't stop companies from opening coal fired power plants but he would see to it they went bankrupt for doing so. That's scary and the same tactic can be used against anything that is deemed "Not Green."

I have fears about Green Hysteria being used to justify a host of things under the new leadership but I see a specific threat to ammunition.

jimpeel
November 5, 2008, 10:32 AM
And while the projections are probably accurate enough, exactly what the makeup of Congress will be is not quite yet fixed.


At this time ...

Senate (51 needed for majority):

Democrats 54
Republicans 41

Houes (218 needed for majority):

Democrats 248
Republicans 187

Our new President (and remember he dosen't take office until Jan.) has a track record of being far from a friend to the average bitter citizen clinging to their guns and religion, BUT it may just be that he will have bigger things to occupy his administration for a while.

He needs to do nothing. It is the Schumers and Fienstiens who will be doing the legwork. All the president has to do is attend a Rose Garden ceremony to sign whatever they put before him.

Glenn E. Meyer
November 5, 2008, 12:07 PM
Lots of political analyses mention that the Democrats did learn from 1994 and 2000 to stay away from radical gun proposals.

Of course, some in their party will put forward a radical plan - as the Republican right put forward some crackpot ideas - but not much came of it.

If Obama is intelligent (which I think), gun issues will be on a back burner. Of course, to the gun world it is the only issue which stands out but stand back, take a depth breathe and don't panic.

Vanya
November 5, 2008, 03:28 PM
Glenn E. Meyer wrote:
Lots of political analyses mention that the Democrats did learn from 1994 and 2000 to stay away from radical gun proposals.

Of course, some in their party will put forward a radical plan - as the Republican right put forward some crackpot ideas - but not much came of it.

If Obama is intelligent (which I think), gun issues will be on a back burner. Of course, to the gun world it is the only issue which stands out but stand back, take a depth breathe and don't panic.

Glenn has it right again, I think.

With two misbegotten wars and a tanking economy on their plates, the new administration and Congress are going to have more pressing things to worry about. And, especially given that there isn't, apparently, going to be a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, they are not going to risk alienating Republicans, some of whose support they will need to deal with other issues, by trying to push through anti-gun legislation.

In fact, I think one could make a case that, given those more pressing issues, and the President-elect's stated wish (sincere I think) to unite people rather than divide them, our gun rights may be safer, for the foreseeable future, than they were in the hands of an administration which has seemed bent on destroying so many of our other constitutional rights: habeas corpus, the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure (the FISA act), etc. -- and to be generally hostile to the rule of law. (All those signing statements by Mr. Bush, which essentially said "You can pass laws but I don't have to obey them." :mad:)

My perception has been that it was just a matter of time until, in the name of the "war on terror," the current administration or its Republican successor started to promulgate restrictions on who could own guns, starting with members of "groups supporting terrorism," then moving to left-wing dissident groups, etc. I think few people on the right would have opposed such restrictions, and once the thin end of THAT wedge was in place, who knows?

So, yes, take a deep breath and don't panic.

buzz_knox
November 5, 2008, 04:20 PM
Lots of political analyses mention that the Democrats did learn from 1994 and 2000 to stay away from radical gun proposals.


That's exactly why they stayed away from the AWB renewal in 2004 during an election year.

Whoops. I forgot, they pushed for the renewal that year.

The Dems didn't "learn" anything but just adapted their tactics. They ran "blue dogs" who will fill seats but have no power or influence over policy(especially when they neuter themselves as effectively as Jim Webb did).

With two misbegotten wars and a tanking economy on their plates, the new administration and Congress are going to have more pressing things to worry about.

With all that going on, Obama will not be able to push his social agenda all that much. So, he'll need something to throw to his left-wing constituency. Gun control is an effective bone as it is almost as sacred to them as socializing the economy.

That doesn't mean that gun control is guaranteed but it's a major stretch to think the RKBA will be anywhere close to being as safe in 2009 as it is today.

Glenn E. Meyer
November 5, 2008, 05:02 PM
That's exactly why they stayed away from the AWB renewal in 2004 during an election year.

Whoops. I forgot, they pushed for the renewal that year.

You mean the one that George promised to sign if it got to his desk and Alberto, the AG supported. Or Mitt said he supported during his candidacy as GWB said he would sign it. Or the one that Bob Dole blocked Newt from trying to repeal during Clinton's time.

I thought everyone liked the AWB.

Tennessee Gentleman
November 5, 2008, 09:29 PM
At most this term I see AWB and magazine restrictions. Maybe the "Gun Show Loophole" but that is all. To do more like try and ban CCW would cause the Dems to over play their hand and a repeat of 1994. I think that is all they will do. If you believe the polls then a lot of Americans have bought into the idea that no law abiding citizen "needs" an AR-15.

Al Norris
November 5, 2008, 09:44 PM
For what it's worth, here's a little insider info:

The far left are [redacted]-off that Obama is not racing for a huge Gun control package. He has refused to place it on his opening agenda at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. They are trying to figure out how to prevent illegal sales on city streets... Or more like they are trying to figure out a new law that would fight that type of sale.

Obama does not want to [redacted]-off middle America. He has noticed the rise in gun sales and believes the Heller decision will stop or delay any anti-gun bill like the AWB. He even mentioned that they did not want to cause more review from SCOTUS which might further define regulation in a manner they do not want.
----------

There you have it. More or less directly from the horses mouth (yes, I have friends in strange places). The above simply confirms what I had pretty much figured out already. Believe it or not.

Doesn't mean we won't keep our guard up. Just means that for the immediate future, we won't have gun-control flung at us.

buzz_knox
November 5, 2008, 10:12 PM
You mean the one that George promised to sign if it got to his desk and Alberto, the AG supported. Or Mitt said he supported during his candidacy as GWB said he would sign it. Or the one that Bob Dole blocked Newt from trying to repeal during Clinton's time.

No, I'm talking about the one that the White House publicly stated should be stripped from the frivilous lawsuit bill the Dems attached it to.

People always seem to forget that Bush had a chance to sign an AWB in 2004, and flat out refused.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 6, 2008, 07:03 AM
Al's post seconds what I have been thinking as well. Obama is smart enough and has sufficient legal training to realize that immediately challenging the bounds of Heller with the existing slate of Justices is going to be a further loser for the anti-Second Amendment crowd and it will hurt him politically as well.

I suspect they will follow a two-part strategy.

1) Nominate judges who will undermine Heller in the lower courts and block the better formed cases from reaching the Supreme Court

2) Replace that 5th pro-Heller Justice on the Supreme Court

Both of those strategies can be done without angering gun owners or costing him and his party politically. When he has sufficient ground there, all he needs to do is wait for the inevitable shooting that catches some media buzz and use it as a platform for more gun control.

However, I generally agree with buzz_knox that the Democrats supposed move away from gun control has nothing to do with a change in intentions; but is more about them realizing the wisdom in cloaking their intentions. Remember that this strategy was masterminded by Chuck Schumer in 2006 and Chucky is not now, nor has he ever been, a friend of gun owners.

publius42
November 6, 2008, 08:00 AM
Praying for the health and long life of Justice Kennedy.

Musketeer
November 6, 2008, 09:34 AM
The 2A is not in Obama's sights right now, but if it walks in front of them I expect him to pull the trigger.

I also do not thing the far left learned a thing from the AWB. I live in NY and you would not believe the legislation put forward annually by our leftist State Assembly. Only the Senate holds it back because our Governor will sign anything on the issue put in front of him.

I see no reason for the fanatics nationally to be any less driven than those in our Assembly. Schumer and others like him would have no problem attaching attacks on the 2A to legislation on the way to Obama for signing and the presence of such items will not stop Obama for one second.

I still see an attack using environmental hysteria as the most likely as it is how Obama intends to attack industry already. Sin taxes on ammunition to offset the "decades of environmental destruction caused by lead ammunition" will be coming. I would be money on it.

Tennessee Gentleman
November 6, 2008, 10:08 AM
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the most likely Supreme Court Justices to retire already liberal? I see Stevens is 88 and Ginsburg has health problems. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are there for a while. Isn't it a wash short term?

buzz_knox
November 6, 2008, 10:12 AM
Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are there for a while. Isn't it a wash short term?

Assuming that these gentlemen live long, happy uneventful lives not marred by car wrecks, heart attacks (which the libs have wished on Thomas) etc, absolutely.

Al Norris
November 6, 2008, 10:21 AM
I'm more worried about the District and Circuit judges that Obama will pick than any Supreme Court appointments.

As Bartholomew points out, there can be a lot of damage there, long before it ever gets to SCOTUS.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 6, 2008, 12:20 PM
Saw on my desktop news that Obama would appoint Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff (Emmanuel co-chaired the 2006 strategy with Schumer). Like Schumer, Emmanuel has a long history of antipathy towards gun owners.

Could mean a lot things but I take it as a sign that there won't be any overt attacks on the Second unless something just falls into their laps publicity wise. I still expect the major war to be fought on judicial nominations.

Vanya
November 6, 2008, 01:35 PM
buzz_knox wrote:
With all that going on, Obama will not be able to push his social agenda all that much. So, he'll need something to throw to his left-wing constituency. Gun control is an effective bone as it is almost as sacred to them as socializing the economy.

I'm not so sure about this. While I don't have the secret pals in high places that Antipitas does, I do read the left-wing press (not the MSM, which isn't nearly as far to the left as the folks on Fox News would have us think, but actual progressive media like The Nation -- :eek:) fairly closely, and from what I've seen, gun bans, increased regulation of guns, just aren't on the list right now. One example: The Rachel Maddow Show has an online poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27562795) going on issues her viewers want the new administration to address -- not only is gun control not one of the 13 choices (14, if you include "other"), but after going through several pages of comments from viewers and searching for the word "gun," I got one hit, in a short post from someone who seemed to be pro-gun, not anti. That was it. (I also searched a bit on "handgun" and "assault weapon" and got no hits at all.)

I think it's easy to assume, when one believes that one issue is of overriding importance, that the opposition is equally passionate. 'Tain't necessarily so... Not that there aren't passionate anti's -- of course there are -- but I suspect that many if not most of them fall into the Sarah Brady group: people who've experienced gun violence first-hand, for whom fighting for gun control is a way to regain some sense of control over their own lives. I disagree with them, but I understand the emotional impulse.

The point I want to make here is just that Mr. Obama's "left-wing constituency" is going to be all over him about the economy, the war in Iraq, health care reform, etc., etc.: gun control just isn't a bone they much want to chew, compared to a lot of other issues. And given that it's not, it would be political madness for his administration to make it an issue, since they will need the support of centrist and right-of-center members of Congress in order to make progress with issues that matter a lot more to Mr Obama, his supporters, and possibly to the country as a whole... :)

publius42
November 8, 2008, 10:45 PM
Vanya, you mean we're just not worth paying any attention to at all? That's great news. I guess. ;)

Socrates
November 8, 2008, 11:54 PM
Least anyone missed it, Obama is the first 50% African American president in the history of the US. He is taking office at a time, much like JFK did, when people think he is the Mesiah. The problem is he may remember JFK's demise, and, that may motivate him. However, he maybe wise enough to realize that nothing he can pass in the way of gun control will affect millions of guns already legally owned. In fact, he may well be smart enough to realize that that is a dog he would be better off NOT kicking, and just letting it sleep...

That said, the democratic like increase in Federal spending, and government is a worry, created by Bush, and our existing congress. It would be odd if the Democrats do what the Republicans should have, and, if the democrats finally get a clue, and start realizing to retain power, they must build the middle class again.

What elected Obama was his potential to change the status quo. With a 9% approval rating for congress, I can't think of any clearer message then this president that the country will not accept more billions in profitering in oil, and more government corruption, or more wars for no particular reason.

Obama represents hope in that he is a brilliant politician, willing to say, and do, anything to gain power, which he now has. He may well be willing to go against party lines as well, now that he has the oval office.
I don't see Obama as having any long term tie to the democratic party, and, as a semi-african american, I don't see any major bonding going on with that party. Remember, he was only in the REAL congress about 150 days, and, his actions could well be totally wild card, and, his own counsel, now that he is in office.

At his young age, he could well see himself as trying to cement himself in history as a great president, not democrat or republican, and doing everything he can to that end.

While many, more well to do folks may worry about Obama and taxes, being a current, lowly school teacher, it would be really nice to have a president more intrested in attacking this country, it's ignorance, and poverty, rather then giving 50 billion dollars to Africa to fight a disease that will not be cured by money.

Finally it's already nice to have a black role model that doesn't wear gold teeth, baggy pants, and pimp around.
I have great hope that the next 8 years will lead to change in the black culture, giving hope to young black men they have never had before, and, a role model for action and behavior that better represents our nation.

I'm approaching this administration with more hope then I had since Bush was elected, and, we were betrayed. Bush's expansion of the Federal Government, and, the poor management of the war, read do we really think we are going to bring peace to a region that's been at war for nearly 5000 years?,Enron, and many other issues left me with a really hopeless feeling, since the alternative is even worse, though not much, the Pelosi's, Boxers, and Fienstiens that are excreted from our wonderful state...

Less I forget:

I'm finding a real change in 'facist-liberals' in my area, back to being more like 'liberals'. The dogmatism and ruthless slaughter of any idea not their own is changing. Even in the trenches with school teachers in Kali, things are changing. A recognition of the failure of both the 'facist-liberal'
and republican approaches is finally happening. Teachers are faced that we don't have enough money, and, our kids don't either. Poverty=stupidity, maybe not all the time, but, it certainly helps. The fact that a democratic congress passed NCLB is hitting home everyday, without funding it, and, it's real clear that without an elevated standard of living, our next generation is in deep trouble. The combination of extreme work hours, low wages, high rents, etc. are reducing family ties, increasing divorce, and reducing parent child contact. The incredible burden 48% immigrant Mexican children are placing on this states education system are very near breaking it, at least in public schools, and, the quality of a public education is becoming far to determined by income, something that most of these aging hippies fought for, equal opportunity for all.

If Obama wants the real battle, it's for our next generation, not Iraq's, or Irans...

Fremmer
November 9, 2008, 05:55 PM
The 2A is not in Obama's sights right now

Sure it is. Obama wants a new "assault weapons" ban. He's already said so. New legislation has been drafted by Democrats in congress, and it is ready for passage. And ready for Obama's signature. None of you seriously doubt that Obama will veto that legislation, do you? :rolleyes: And that'll be just the beginning: wait for new restrictions on ammunition ('armor piercing'), taxes (noting like raising taxes on guns and ammunition), and 'sniper guns', which will probably be included in the assault weapons ban. After all, you really don't need powerful ammunition, powerful scopes, muzzle breaks, and more than a two shot capacity to hunt, you know.....

Webleymkv
November 9, 2008, 07:13 PM
Quote:
The 2A is not in Obama's sights right now

Sure it is. Obama wants a new "assault weapons" ban. He's already said so. New legislation has been drafted by Democrats in congress, and it is ready for passage. And ready for Obama's signature. None of you seriously doubt that Obama will veto that legislation, do you? And that'll be just the beginning: wait for new restrictions on ammunition ('armor piercing'), taxes (noting like raising taxes on guns and ammunition), and 'sniper guns', which will probably be included in the assault weapons ban. After all, you really don't need powerful ammunition, powerful scopes, muzzle breaks, and more than a two shot capacity to hunt, you know.....

Bush also said that he'd renew the AWB but it never happened. Frankly, I think that Obama and the Democrats have got a lot bigger fish to fry than gun control right now. Remember, Obama changes what he says about gun control (and several other issues) depending on what crowd he's talking to. While that means he may not be a friend of gunowners, it also mean that he may not be the enemy that we think he is either. I've got a feeling that Obama is the type to do and say what will get him elected more than what he thinks is right. The man isn't stupid and has probably seen that gun control has been a losing issue for his party for quite some time now. While I do think that it's certainly something that we need to keep an eye on, I also think that there are too many moderate and conservative Democrats in congress to go into full-on panic mode just yet. Also remember, the Democrats don't have their fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. When it boils right down to it, I doubt we'll see any overt attacks on 2A during Obama's first term without some catastrophe to motivate it (i.e. school shooting, assasaination of a prominent figure, etc.)

divemedic
November 9, 2008, 09:02 PM
This President, like any other, has a fixed amount of political capital to spend. There are many issues out there that will require expending that capital, among them:

raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour over two years
universal healthcare
ending the war in Iraq
ending Afghanistan
Stopping Iran from developing nukes, and failing that, stopping the war in the middle east that will follow- especially since the US will have a smaller presence there (that war will almost be guaranteed to go nuclear when Iran and Israel get into it)
Russia's new military build up, and nuclear missile deployment into Europe (a move which violates current treaties)
China's new military buildup
India's military buildup
Venezuela's military buildup (along with the fact that Russia is basing nuclear bombers there)
Cuba's military buildup, and the imminent death of Cuba's and N Korea's leaders, and the turmoil that will cause, and last but certainly not least, the failing economy.

That doesn't even take into account the miscellaneous unforeseen things that will crop up, nor does it address the $11 trillion US debt, the looming inflation crisis, or the other items on his agenda.

All of this will require a lot of effort, and will leave little time and effort to fight the battle over a bunch of gun control laws, and the markers that will be given out to placate the RINOs needed to break the fillibuster. With all that said, I have been hedging my bets for over a year by buying guns, magazines, ammo, and spare parts.

Socrates
November 9, 2008, 09:39 PM
Might be wise to keep a functioning industry in place.
Another issue he has to face is the massive moving of production facilities to third world countries, screwing up our economy.

jimpeel
November 9, 2008, 10:40 PM
The fly in the ointment is this: The Edward Kennedy Memorial <insert bill name> Act.

Does anyone here think that there would be any opposition to anything with that name on it after he croaks?

Remember the things he tried to attach to the lawful commerce in firearms act? We discussed it at length in L&P and those discussions are still out there for research for those willing to do so.

They will hoist anti-firearms legislation before he assumes room temperature and everyone will jump on it and give it the sympathy vote. Ted would've wanted it that way, ya know.

Ricky B
November 9, 2008, 11:36 PM
As DiveMedic said, plus:

Raising income taxes so he can hand out "refunds" to those who haven't paid income taxes (about one-third of Americans who would receive the promised middle-class tax cut will receive their "tax cut" in the form of a refundable tax credit even though they have no income tax liability).

Global warming

Solving the Israeli-Paestinian conflict

Repealing or re-negotiating NAFTA

Immigration reform

Giving employees "free choice" in deciding whether to have a union pursuant to the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act that he sponsored as a Senator (which actually deprives workers of the right to vote for or against a union in a government-supervised election with secret balloting).

Dealing with home foreclosures and this thing called the economy

And so on.

No, the President-elect has a full plate, and I say that gun control is not on the menu for this term.

In a recent interview, Rahm Emmanuel, a former Clinton White House aide and now the Chief-of-Staff-designate, said that the Clinton administration got into trouble with gays in the military and other things that they didn't get elected to do. He made it clear that Mr. Obama's job is to get the things done that he was elected to get done.

Mr. Obama did not run on a take-their-guns-away platform. Regardless of what his actual views are, he doesn't need this headache. In his second term, maybe.

Mr. Emmanuel is focused and disciplined, with very sharp elbows, and he will crack the whip on the Dems in congress to keep them in line. My guess (and hope) is that he will see that "cracking down on guns" won't add to his president's re-election prospects and will only galvanize the opposition. I have great confidence that Mr. Emmanuel will browbeat, intimidate, and neuter anyone who interferes with Mr. Obama's re-election.

jimpeel
November 10, 2008, 01:12 AM
By the way, there's always this. Obama may not want to wait for the Congress to act.

The PEO was supposed to be used for Executive Branch issues only but we have seen the PEO used for much more in recent years. As Paul Begala once stated "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/obamas-transition-chief-bushs-executive-orders-review/

As one person in the article states: "Executive orders have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview."

Obama's Transition Chief: Bush's Executive Orders Under Review

The incoming administration is currently reviewing President Bush's executive orders on a host of issues, Barack Obama's transition chief John Podesta said on Sunday.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet. That includes reaching out to Republicans and independents -- part of the broad coalition that supported Obama during the race against Republican John McCain. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been mentioned as a possible holdover.

"He's not even a Republican," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Why wouldn't we want to keep him? He's never been a registered Republican."

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end -- an effort Obama supports, But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.

Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.

"Obama's advantage of course is he'll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn't move that quickly."

Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.

Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.

Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done. But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.

"It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people."

Pence, of Indiana, is expected to take over the No. 3 leadership post among House Republicans.

In other transition matters, Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, would not say whether Obama would return to the Senate for votes during the postelection session this month. Obama's presence would be extraordinary, given his position as president-elect, especially if Congress takes up a much-anticipated economic stimulus plan.

"I think that the basic approach has been he's going to be here in Chicago, setting up his economic, not only his economic team, but the policies he wants to outline for the country as soon as he gets sworn in, so we hit the ground running," Emanuel said.

Also, Emanuel would not commit to a Democratic proposal to help the auto industry with some of the $700 billion approved by Congress to for the financial bailout.

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the bailout to include car companies.

Podesta appeared on "Fox News Sunday," as did Pence, and CNN's "Late Edition," where Reid also was interviewed. Emanuel spoke on ABC's "This Week" and CBS' "Face the Nation."

Musketeer
November 10, 2008, 10:25 AM
Obama will not be behind a direct 2A attack, at least not in this term. He might sign on to one but he is not going to waste his limited capital on pushing for it when his list of "Societal Change" issues will most likely consume it all.

As I said, look out for regulation through Environmental issues (lead ammo taxes/bans) which if you oppose it's because you "hate the Earth" and especially be wary of who he sends to the UN the next time they come around looking to ban private arms...

Te Anau
November 10, 2008, 03:41 PM
I just hope that gun control is extremely low on the lefts agenda at this time in American history.If it isn't, I fear for the future of the nation.

Glenn E. Meyer
November 10, 2008, 05:10 PM
Why - the existential future of the USA? If Obama tried to pass very strict controls, he would probably lose the majorities in the House and Senate in 2010.

Then the laws would be undone - happened before.

If you want to pose an existential crisis, you need to lay it out. If you think that gun laws will lead to some revolution in this time of economic crisis - to be blunt you are flat out mistaken despite internet rhetoric. With the economy in the toilet, there will be NO support for further disrupting our future over, for example, a new AWB renewal.

I'm a little frustrated by the constant TEOTWAWKI predictions. The USA didn't end with the Brady Bill, etc. We soldiered on.

Here's what I said before:

1. The loss of McCain is based on Bush's incompetency and the economy tanking.

2. The majority that voted for Obama just didn't care about guns given #1.

3. Basing support for the RKBA on a crappy president as the only issue, first freedom - obviously is a failed strategy - only good for internet venting.

4. Realize this and adopt strategies to convince antigun folks like Obama that it is their interest to leave the issue alone or even to appreciate the RKBA.

5. If you don't want to expand support of the RKBA out of the social conservatives for some tribal identity hang-up, again you adopt a failed strategy.

So the world and the USA is not ending.

PS - it is ending. I just read that Starbucks profits dropped 97%. If Starbucks fails, who is going to care that EBRs are too expensive.

Te Anau
November 11, 2008, 02:58 PM
So the world and the USA is not ending.
It's not ending imminently,but this nation is divided and I feel like it's the 1840's and 1850's all over again but with different splintering issues.What solutions will come out of this mess is anybody's guess.

divemedic
November 11, 2008, 03:45 PM
This article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ap_poll_obama) shows that gun control is not even in the top agendas of most of the voters. Here are selected sentences from the article:

Only about one in three, or 36 percent, said they wanted Obama to make income-tax cuts a top priority when he takes office, and even fewer wanted higher taxes on the rich to be a primary goal.

Instead, 84 percent said strengthening the economy should be a top-tier priority. Eighty percent also named creating jobs as a No. 1 order of business.

Highlighting anew how the Iraq war has faded as a paramount public concern, only half of people said they wanted Obama to make a U.S. troop withdrawal a top focus upon taking office.

Half also said they wanted universal health care coverage to be a No. 1 priority, again with far more Democrats than Republicans citing it as a top goal.

With that said, I don't know how 184% of people can demand a No 1 priority, but I am not so good at "media math," but the Dems appear to be concentrating on getting free stuff from the public coffers over trying to outlaw guns, but I am sure they won't mind if gun laws do come along for the ride.

JWT
November 11, 2008, 04:49 PM
Obama is perhaps smart enough not to want to get into a 'knock 'em down drag 'em out' over an issue as devisive as gun control to start off his administration but he appears to be surrounding himself with old time liberal Democrats who may be more inclined to have him push the issue.

The 'Chicago crowd' - from whence he came -certainly is on record as being very anti gun and he 'owes them big time'; in addition the old time liberal Democrats like Kennedy, Shumer, et. al would gladly join them in pushing an anti gun agenda.

I certainly respect the opinion of those who have posted their opinions that gun control is going to be far down the list of issues to be worked on by our new president. Even more, I hope they're 100% correct.

tyme
November 11, 2008, 11:14 PM
[Obama's groupies] are trying to figure out how to prevent illegal sales on city streets...
Simple... get rid of all the federal gun regs and make those sales legal... federally at least. No more illegal sales. What do I win?

44 AMP
November 12, 2008, 09:20 PM
I do wonder how many of the illegal street dealers do get prosecuted on Federal charges (engaging in the business without a license)? I think they ususally only face state charges (often felon in posession?) most of the time.

Or, more likely, if they do wind up facing Fed charges, some kind of plea bargin is made.

I am publically apologizing for statements I made in this post, which I have removed. A vigilant member was kind enough to inform me that they could be considered as skirting the line with regards to our L&CR rules and mission statement, something I had not even realized. My thanks for that, and my apologies to all for my failure to recognize in my own post the sort of things I am supposed to be looking for in others.

raimius
November 13, 2008, 12:17 AM
I can hardly remember any prosecutions of illegal "street dealers." Sad really. The antis who profess to be against violence make laws mainly against peaceful, legal buyers and don't go after the criminals and their violent friends...:confused:

jimpeel
November 13, 2008, 12:55 AM
The whole thing with "illegal street dealers selling guns out of the trunk of their car" was a put up sham. It was an oft repeated lament of the anti-firearms agendists to garner support from those too stupid, or too lazy, to do any research on the subject beyond the nightly news.