December 21, 2012, 01:04 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
|
The UN treaty would do nothing to gun ownership in the US. Unless you are getting your guns from an illegal source in which case you are not following the law anyway. The NRA uses this as a fundraiser but it has no basis in reality. Tin foil hat stuff.
There will be a push for gun control but nothing will pass its political suicide for to many politicians on both sides. All that the anti's have accomplished is to sell a heck of a lot of guns, ammo and magazines making tons of money for the gun companies. |
December 21, 2012, 01:40 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Quote:
20 children are DEAD as much as you and I know the man did this and not the gun . This was a game changer , if it wasn't the shelves would still be full of all kinds of AR stuff . I sure hope I'm wrong but on this one I don't think so .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; December 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM. |
|
December 21, 2012, 08:23 AM | #53 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
In any case, this is a thread about Executive Orders. If we want to discuss potential legislation in the wake of Sandy Hook, there are other threads open for that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 21, 2012, 10:41 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2007
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 547
|
We'll have to wait a few days to see what the Chicago politician can or can't do. But so far the term "legal" really hasn't been an issue of concern for him. Sounds like a bad re-play of Illinois law on steroids. We keep saying they can't take that or do that, but they do anyway.
|
December 21, 2012, 10:49 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,108
|
Quote:
One thing I suggest is joining the NRA and/or any second amendment group, money talks the Hollywood left pours money into DC and very little is done in curbing violent movies/video games so folks in the shooting sport need to open the wallets(money talks) and support our hobby big time. |
|
December 21, 2012, 11:35 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
I've already sent off my letters to my respective reps in congress and such. I plan on trying to join the NRA as soon as possible as well. This is something I'll definitely be fight for.
|
December 21, 2012, 11:55 AM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 21, 2012, 08:16 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,360
|
I'm not as familiar with EO's, but as I understand it after reading Tom's original post, Obama can enact legislation that further makes the current gun laws stricter.
I'm thinking since there's already a high-cap ban in certain states like CA, he will attempt to expand it nationwide. He may also make background checks mandatory for every firearm sale including private sales. This would be tough but if caught, they will institute some sort of punishment/fine/jailtime. Another is by possibly taxing or raising prices on ammo and mags, and limiting ammo purchases i.e. 6boxes of ammo per person at a time. This is all speculation of course. I'm no expert but I had a in-depth discussion with my brother-in-law who just finished law school and he gave me the finer points of an EO. |
December 21, 2012, 08:25 PM | #59 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, I finished law school over 35 years ago and practiced law for more than thirty years, until I retired in 2007.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
December 21, 2012, 10:05 PM | #60 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 28, 2012, 12:04 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
Suppose the "impossible" were to happen and Feinstien get's her abomination passed. Now, an unknown number of semi auto firearms fall under the NFA tax, which appears to be set at $200.00 by : Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53 › Subchapter A › Part II › § 5811 of the US code. Could not an executive order then be used to modify the $200.00 tax and raise it to ~ $3,500.00? carguychris pointed out in the other thread: "FWIW according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $200 in 1934 dollars is equal to $3,436 in 2012 dollars" I can even see where something along that line would make it past a SC challange. FWIW - I don't see this presently having a snowballs chance of happening. I'm just wondering if it's a legal use of an EO and would it fall under the guidelines? |
|
December 28, 2012, 12:41 PM | #62 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 28, 2012, 01:00 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Frank - despite the fact that I believe your one of the rudest people on this forum, I thank you for the answer.
For the life of me, I can't understand exactly what your problem is... Is it possible for you to give a civil answer to a question without being an a-hole about it first? |
December 28, 2012, 01:21 PM | #64 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 28, 2012, 01:43 PM | #65 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
I would not think that the primary threat to the pertinent civil liberty would come in the form of an executive order. The latitude available for abuse by way of new legislation would be much greater.
Quote:
Quote:
As to the matter of executive orders during World War II and the exclusion orders applied against some populations, it is true that the court upheld the government action in Korematsu and that the authority of the executive to issue an executive order was not in itself at issue. It would also be reasonable for a layman to read that decision and be impressed by the extent of the handwringing in which the court engaged on its way to upholding the government.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
December 28, 2012, 02:51 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Dutchess County, NY
Posts: 450
|
FDA review of tobacco products grinds to a halt
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ducts/1767043/
Not really an executive order but I can imagine similar tactics being employed against gun and ammo manufacturers through the offices of OSHA or a similar organization. |
December 28, 2012, 03:19 PM | #67 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 28, 2012, 08:31 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
The POTUS has rather wide latitude in the interpretation, implementation and enforcement of existing law.
Contrary to popular belief and contrary to the rantings of various political entertainers; the POTUS may not make new law by executive order, trickery or hocus pocus. Last edited by thallub; December 28, 2012 at 08:36 PM. |
January 8, 2013, 11:58 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
From my understanding
Obama has no power to levy any kind of ammo tax or limit of ammo purchase and one question Can an executive order restrict importation of firearms and ammunition? |
January 9, 2013, 02:44 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
I thought that's what the Clinton ban also prohibited. Am I wrong?
|
January 9, 2013, 08:43 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
The "Clinton AWB" was passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, IE a law, not an Executive Order.
|
January 9, 2013, 12:28 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 462
|
Quote:
In that case, it was a stricter interpretation of the meaning of "sporting purposes" |
|
January 9, 2013, 12:50 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Not trying to be sensational here, but I see there is again an active discussion in the media of Obama using executive order in addition to laws passed.. I tried to see if this was a new statement or just a rehash of the same old same old... I was not able to find a new statement on it so maybe its just a rehash..
For myself "IF" executive order was used for such a thing I think the courts would strike it fast, we cannot have a dictator style order, which is effectively what such a order would be if it was not a interpretation of law. Much to wait and see about and not too worked up about but writing and calling or reps is certainly a great idea... If nothing else, I think this particular discussion shows clearly the level of fear concerning how our current system is working.... I think its important that we are not blindly fearful... Be active, educate and participate, don't panic over a executive order that's not written and in reality cannot stand on its own merit; if it was written as some new law... We have checks and balances for a reason and no office has unlimited power..
__________________
Molon Labe |
January 9, 2013, 12:53 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
According to news reports, Biden has suggested that the Administration is considering using an Executive order to get additional gun controls. At the same time he's saying Congressional action is needed.
|
January 9, 2013, 01:03 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 26, 2004
Posts: 225
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|