Executive Order on Gun Control

[Sean Renaud]

Which ultimately is where we must end. We will never do anything and need to stop bitching.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Which ultimately is where we must end. We will never do anything and need to stop bitching.

*wave*

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes I see you Je'taime.

 

[phrodeau]

Eric Holder certainly figured out a way.

Nah, he just copied Mukasey and Gonzales.

 

[Que]

The point of all of this is de facto universal gun registration. Which of course is forbidden but they do it anyway.

Background checks never were about preventing people that shouldn't have guns from getting guns. The point of it always was to get a list of those law abiding citizens that have guns.

If it was about preventing those that want to get guns that are forbidden from getting them then you would see actual prosecutions when people fail background checks. But of course that occurs between rarely and never.

This latest grab is nothing more than a further intrusion on privacy. Two people that know each other selling guns to each other are at zero risk of allowing guns to fall into the quote unquote wrong hands. Since they know each other they already have some idea as the other person's mental stability they also know something about the other persons eligibility to have a gun. They don't need to do a background check on their next door neighbor in a small town where they have known them since childhood.

As far as someone knowingly giving or selling a gun to someone that should not have one based on what the law says who can and cannot have one is already breaking the law and they don't care whether they're required to have an FFL before they break the law.

Anyone that claims this executive order somehow keeps guns out of the wrong hands is either being disingenuous or is incomprehensibly stupid.

 

[about_average]

Over 1500 arrests for failing a background check in just 4 states alone in 2010 constitutes "between rarely and never"?

I can advertise a gun on armslist.com, another person in Georgia can pay me via paypal and meet me and take possession of the gun without either of us having any first hand knowledge of the other prior to meeting.

 

[Que]

In a country with 360,000,000 to 500,000,000 guns, yes 1500 is between rare and never. How about pulling up the stats on prosecution and conviction?

Yes, you can. And you would be a fool to do it if that gun has ever been registered in your name.

 

[sr71plt]

Background checks never were about preventing people that shouldn't have guns from getting guns. The point of it always was to get a list of those law abiding citizens that have guns.

Oh, get a grip. It's about trying to stop idiots from mowing down our children. You're disgusting.

 

[Que]

Oh, get a grip. It's about trying to stop idiots from mowing down our children. You're disgusting.

Oh well then. If it's "about the children" that is totally different. Actual facts do not matter and I must concede.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/23/despite-rhetoric-gun-prosecutions-plummet-under-ob/?page=all

Maybe if the Obama administration actually focused on criminals whose primary crime is a gun violation, rather than spending their resources looking for administrative and record keeping violations that would help protect the children too. Probably an oversight that I am sure the best and brightest minds in his administration are currently working to rectify.

 

[knottygirl]

Since always. Executive Orders are functionally no different than laws with the exception of the fact that the President can rescind them at will but otherwise they may as well be laws.

Executive orders are presidential directives issued to agents of the executive branch. They carry the force of law, but have a much more limited scope than legislation. Granted, this scope has broadened as more and more regulatory agencies have been created which fall under the purview of the executive branch. But there are limits. For example, the president can increase the wages of many federal employees by executive order, but he couldn't raise the minimum wage for the private sector. Legitimate executive orders are just the president exercising authority which has already been granted to him by Congress. The range of this authority is open to interpretation which is why Obama is consulting with the Attorney General.

The one he's talking about is one that I'm shocked Conservatives are upset about. . .unless they've been lying. He's thinking of closing some loophole that lets people purchase firearms without a background check. But since no such thing exists he's effectively outlawing riding my purple unicorn to work. Why not just point and laugh at the dummy? Unless the truth is there is a loophole.

Yes, there are loopholes. Perhaps Obama could close these loopholes through executive orders to the ATF... not sure.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh, get a grip. It's about trying to stop idiots from mowing down our children.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!LMFAO!

 

[about_average]

In a country with 360,000,000 to 500,000,000 guns, yes 1500 is between rare and never.

LMAO
Nice, talk about background checks and when challenged switch to the total number of guns and compare it to arrests in only 8% of states.

 

[dan_c00000]

LMAO
Nice, talk about background checks and when challenged switch to the total number of guns and compare it to arrests in only 8% of states.

That's what gun nuts do. They point to shit like "well cars!" or "terrorism!" and it's all very pathetic.

The reason is simple: gun people (or ammosexuals as Bill Maher calls them) have fetishized guns. They don't see it as a tool to commit violence. They see it as something they'd love to put their dick in. And we all know that right wingers say you can't regulate stuff you put your dick in, well, unless it's a woman than it's fine.

 

[Que]

LMAO
Nice, talk about background checks and when challenged switch to the total number of guns and compare it to arrests in only 8% of states.

Didn't read the Washing Times article, did you?

Speaking of cherry picking statistics, (for which you provided no Citation by the way) the only way that your 1500 arrest is even remotely true is if you include all charges that involve the gun charge in the commission of some other crime.

There have not been 1500 prosecution's in four states for failing a background check.

Eric Holder has stated publicly that he considers such offenses a local problem and of course the locals do not have any access to the records in order to determine if such charges need to be brought. Unless and until they are caught committing some other crime with a gun they shouldn't have had.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Just a bit of clarity in the madness. Failing a background check is not a criminal offense. The actual offense is attempting to purchase the gun when a person is in a restricted status such as parole or probation - and it's not a new charge levied against them, but rather a parole/probation violation or a violation of a court order (as in domestic violence or mental illness under judicial control). People are arrested as a result of the background check - not because they failed it. The background check process flags local or federal law enforcement of their activity.

 

[about_average]

...(for which you provided no Citation by the way)....

Pot, meet kettle.
How did I know you were going to go there?

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...eople-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

Some more time now, so:
We have 1500 arrests in 4 states. Even if no other states have as high a rate, lets say 30% lower, that still translates to 13,000 arrests nationwide as a result of failed background checks, a rate of 16%. "Rarely to never" is BS.

As for prosecutions vs arrest, there are a lot of reasons not to prosecute someone who has failed a background check.
You can fail one without having committed a crime. Then there's the fact that law enforcement personnel often make deals with criminals and also can't always locate individuals. Just to name a few.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Then you mean why have a Congress. Again a POTUS doing everything he wanted would still constitute a government.

Yes, he can EO basically whatever the fuck he wants. Tis within his range of powers. The Congress can bitch about it later, even overule it or impeach him if they like but untill and unless they are willing to take it there he can essentially do as he pleases.

You don't think that Japanese Internment Camps were real or do you not think that taking peoples property without due cause is Constitutional? Because that was an executive order. And whatever we feel about it today apologies and reparations aside they did stand.

Or a SCOTUS......all just dog and pony show while POTUS is god mode at the WH.



But he can't do HC reform with out turning the price gouging corruption up to 11....what a great guy



It only stood because it had the rest of the government supporting it.

One of the grossest legal fictions which people harbor in this country is that laws unenforced or unexecuted constitute NO LAW at all or that illegal acts are thus MADE legal through lack of enforcement. As a practical matter, that may be true, but as a legal principle it is undeniably false. Existing law always exists waiting to be enforced. The ability of a President to abuse his Executive authority through the EO process is not one iota different from the ability of Congress to pass legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. Ability should never be misinterpreted or misapplied as authority.

The President's Constitutionally proscribed oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" clearly restricts him to enforcing laws enacted by Congress and NOT decreeing by executive order wholly new laws UNLESS he does so by establishing administrative regulations, appointments or policy directives UNDER SPECIFIC AUTHORITY GRANTED HIM BY CONGRESS or SPECIFICALLY BY THE CONSTITUTION. Those are the only two sources by which the President derives legal authority. Anything else is illegal abuse of office and openly invites an appropriate legal challenge.

In the case of the current background check EO, it appears to me based mainly on what I have read in the media that the President has tiptoed very carefully within existing law on background checks. About the ONLY thing he did was streamline the reporting of mental health information to and within the background investigation process in light of current HIPAA privacy regulations. If there is any abuse of authority within the current EO, it would probably be with respect to whatever degree Obama thwarted Congressional will and intent with regard to patient privacy under HIPAA legislation, not gun control. The so-called "extension" of licensing requirements to a broader range of private sellers is so vaguely worded in the EO that no one yet knows to whom it actually applies.

But I think he was careful to act legally. Which is why the whole EO was basically feckless and the tear-jerking press conference was a shameless grandstand.

But the idea that the President or any other person within any other branch of government is acting "legally" just because he or she "gets away with it" is total bullshit -- no matter how long they get away with it.

 

[Ninwalker]

California has had universal background checks, bans on assault weapons for a very long time. That didn't do shiut to stop the guy do shot up the nursing school in SF a few years ago or the Santa Barbara shooting. Those people are clearly in need of mental health intervention and the fact that hiipa laws prevent mental health from being part of the background check or even a police investigation is a huge part of the problem.

Sweden and Norway have far more restrictive laws but yet have shootings weekly, sometimes massacres like the breivik shooting in Oslo or the guys who shot up a bunch of kids at a night club in Stockholm many years ago. And those countries are 2% of the population of the US.

I'm not even going to bring up the many shootings happening in France on a monthly basis.

I couldn't disagree more with the idea that the problem with gun violence originates with the average gun owning American. That is such a false argument that politicians make in my opinion because they are elitists that rarely enters the real world where everyday Americans live and work.

 

[BotanyBoy]

One of the grossest legal fictions which people harbor in this country is that laws unenforced or unexecuted constitute NO LAW at all or that illegal acts are thus MADE legal through lack of enforcement. As a practical matter, that may be true, but as a legal principle it is undeniably false.

Eh...legal principles only matter in class and court, everywhere else practicality pretty much rules the day.

I couldn't disagree more with the idea that the problem with gun violence originates with the average gun owning American.

Then ISIS is shooting our schools up?