Biden: There are 19 separate gun-control actions Obama could take by executive order

posted at 9:31 am on January 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

It’s mostly marginal stuff dealing with mental-health reporting requirements by federal agencies, broader sharing of databases among law enforcement, more prosecutions for crimes under existing laws, etc. The one measure that might significantly limit access to some guns has to do with blocking the importation of certain ones made overseas, but there’s bipartisan presidential precedent for that. Bush 41 issued an order in 1989 barring some foreign-made assault weapons and then Clinton expanded on it in 1998 after gun manufacturers snared by Bush’s order modified their weapons to evade it. Somewhere in Europe right now, a gun maker is sitting around waiting for O’s order so that he can get to work tweaking his design to evade that order too.

I wonder if he’ll take all 19 actions, to show the left that he’s literally doing everything he can, or if he’ll decline to take a few just to prove to gun-rights activists how “reasonable” he’s being.

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House officials and Democratic lawmakers said that there are clear limits to what the president can and cannot do, and that Mr. Obama has no plans to push beyond what he would need Congressional authority to accomplish

Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff, joined the debate on Monday and said that the president should “clear the table” by doing whatever he can administratively so small issues do not get in the way of the bigger legislative fights over access to guns.

Rarely will see you a White House that went to war in Libya without congressional authorization concede that there are clear limits to The One’s executive prerogatives, but they know how dodgy the politics of gun control are. He’s not going to do something bold and unilateral and risk a public backlash when he’s got the debt ceiling, immigration, and lord knows what else in the pipe this year. Better to bow to congressional authority, let Congress pass some small, watered-down bill dealing with background checks or whatever, and then grumble that the Republicans have once again thwarted Progress. The only way the final two years of his presidency will have meaning is if Democrats take back the House in 2014. Why do something stupid now that jeopardizes their chances?

Here’s Rand Paul on executive orders. Exit question: Are we sure new gun laws are as much of a national priority as the White House claims? Compare the numbers below for gun control versus, oh, say, reducing federal spending. Something to bear in mind as debt-ceiling armageddon approaches.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I wonder if he’ll take all 19 actions, to show the left that he’s literally doing everything he can, or if he’ll decline to take a few just to prove to gun-rights activists how “reasonable” he’s being.

He’ll take all 19, then order the EPA to lower the lead ammo and smokeless gunpowder booms.

Steve Eggleston on January 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Exit question: Are we sure new gun laws are as much of a national priority as the White House claims? Compare the numbers below for gun control versus, oh, say, reducing federal spending. Something to bear in mind as debt-ceiling armageddon approaches.

I will note that for the Rats, seizing the guns is almost as important as Communizing the economy, and more important than everything else.

Steve Eggleston on January 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Retina scans. yeah let scan the retinas of all the gun owners. Oh and lets measure blood oxygen. Whats next? Penis length? Well…lets just hope the electorates dont get issue to him.

johnnyU on January 15, 2013 at 9:36 AM

An EO to directly and blatantly circumvent the Constitution.

Of course, it’s not like anyone who can affect change on this subject will actually do anything.

This was a nation built by common men (not nobles) doing extraordinary things. Perhaps it will be saved by the commoners again.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I don’t understand why someone would even need 19 executive orders, therefor, I think high volume executive orders should be banned.

Flange on January 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

the only good thing about gun control is that it’ll force us to brush up on our ninja skills…..

ok, sarc…./

ted c on January 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Exit question: Are we sure new gun laws are as much of a national priority as the White House claims? Compare the numbers below for gun control versus, oh, say, reducing federal spending. Something to bear in mind as debt-ceiling armageddon approaches.

Like that poll even means anything? People always say they want less government and reduced spending, but when push comes to shove they don’t want any entitlements cut. And to add insult to injury, 51% of the electorate signed up for 4 more years of the guy who just racked up $6 trillion in new debt in a single term.

Doughboy on January 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

How about a budget? Every public announcement by a Republican should carry that theme. At least one sentence, beat the public to death.

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM

19 ways to Impeachment!

pilamaye on January 15, 2013 at 9:42 AM

this’ll force me to build my prototype plasma gun….

ted c on January 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM

White House officials and Democratic lawmakers said that there are clear limits to what the president can and cannot do, and that Mr. Obama has no plans to push beyond what he would need Congressional authority to accomplish…

Obama admitting he has limits?!?!?

Talk about burying the lede!!

Bitter Clinger on January 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM

people will care about this until wednsday night’s American Idol premire with NICKI MINAJ AND MARIAH CARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GhoulAid on January 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM

a gun maker is sitting around waiting for O’s order so that he can get to work tweaking his design to evade that order too.

Necessity is truly the Mother of invention.

Bmore on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Somewhere in Europe right now, a gun maker is sitting around waiting for O’s order so that he can get to work tweaking his design to evade that order too.

And God bless him for doing it! I am glad I already got my Obama-designated “assault rifle,” and several 30 round magazines. Now I just need to work on my ammo supply.

King George Obama is really testing the waters, isn’t he ……

RandallinHerndon on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

IMPEACH!!!!

….the right of the people, to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Shall not be infringed!

Shall not be infringed!!

Shall not be infringed!!!

Remove him from office.

PappyD61 on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I don’t understand why someone would even need 19 executive orders, therefor, I think high volume executive orders should be banned.

Flange on January 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Quantity over quality.

An admission that he can’t touch the 2nd.

But it will play well in the press.

Jabberwock on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Executive orders should be limited to 7. Per term.

hillsoftx on January 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Reminder: Karate was invented by Japanese peasants who were not allowed to own tor carry weapons…

Archivarix on January 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Why doesn’t Oligula issue a useful, true anti-crime EO that sends Federal agents into high-crime areas of Washington first to get the already-illegal guns? And maybe have Holder look into the DC district attorney’s office for possible corruption for David Gregory getting a pass that the DA already said was an overt crime?

Liam on January 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM

But it will play well in the press.

Jabberwock on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Why does the press hate EOs when an (R) does it, but loves them when a (D) does it?

I know, I know…

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Why this limited? Because he knows his compatriots in NY, CT, Ill, RI, MD, and other state houses are going to cram down what he really wants.

We’re missing the true battleground, guys. Just like we did in the 2012 election.

FiveG on January 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM

yep. No folder should be allowed to carry more than 7 Executive ORders at a time.

johnnyU on January 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Reminder: Karate was invented by Japanese peasants who were not allowed to own tor carry weapons…

Archivarix on January 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM

And capoeira was invented by Brazilians who couldn’t have weapons.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Every time Maobama opens his mouth I feel like I am being assaulted with an assault weapon. I say we ban that and restrict similar foreign imports.

RandallinHerndon on January 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

American gunsmiths are as good as there is.

Bmore on January 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM

He’ll take all 19, then order the EPA to lower the lead ammo and smokeless gunpowder booms.

Don’t know about smokeless powder (it’s a fairly good fertilizer, hard to make the case for environmental damage), but greenies have tried to push the EPA towards a lead ammo ban before. So far they’ve failed, but Obama might give it another try. Problem is that it primarily affects hunters which is the biggest component of the anti gun control special interest, so you could see Congress moving quickly to block it. It also has almost no effect on criminals since you don’t need many bullets to commit a crime spree, but that’s never stopped a liberal from wanting it anyway.

Socratease on January 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM

just to prove to gun-rights activists how “reasonable” he’s being

Thus far, Leftist are going out of their way to demonstrate otherwise;

New Leftist Video Game: Bullet to the Head of the NRA

/so progressive

Terp Mole on January 15, 2013 at 9:59 AM

From Politico

The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws…

No doubt the dumbest in society, what we euphemistically refer to as Obama voters, will lap this right up on the same day David Gregory is let off the hook.

MNHawk on January 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Don’t know about smokeless powder (it’s a fairly good fertilizer, hard to make the case for environmental damage), but greenies have tried to push the EPA towards a lead ammo ban before. So far they’ve failed, but Obama might give it another try. Problem is that it primarily affects hunters which is the biggest component of the anti gun control special interest, so you could see Congress moving quickly to block it. It also has almost no effect on criminals since you don’t need many bullets to commit a crime spree, but that’s never stopped a liberal from wanting it anyway.

Socratease on January 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I’m sure the EPA will invent something (see Global “Warming”).

Steve Eggleston on January 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Former Pa. Gov.: The ‘Good Thing’ About Newtown Is That it Was ‘So Horrific,’ Gun Control Advocates Have Been ‘Galvanized’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/msnbc-contributor-the-good-thing-about-newtown-is-that-it-was-so-horrific-gun-control-advocates-have-been-galvanized/

Just keep in mind that even if the Oppressives don’t succeed in grabbing out guns THIS TIME, they can simply wait until the next “Horrific” murderous massacre to incrementally destroy the 2nd amendment.

Because they know damn well that the Dear Liar’s little EO won’t do diddly squat to stop criminals from being criminals.

Galt2009 on January 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Reminder: Karate was invented by Japanese peasants who were not allowed to own tor carry weapons…

Archivarix on January 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Pure capitalist propaganda. Obviously, the Chinese government that ruled over them built karate for them.

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM

The only way the final two years of his presidency will have meaning is if Democrats take back the House in 2014. Why do something stupid now that jeopardizes their chances?

AP, you’re still assuming that they plan on abiding by the governmental structure enshrined in that obsolete document we call the Constitution. And that’s a totally unjustifiable assumption. They don’t care anymore, except that it looks better if they push it through a rubber-stamp legislature.

From the Politico article:

The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation

That, of course, is the whole frickin’ point of our republic and the constitutional separation of powers!

“What? The people don’t want it? Well, I’ll solve that little problem! Stroke of the pen, law of the land!” It’s called tyranny. And, it’s not coming, it’s here.

GWB on January 15, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Yawn.

More of the same.

He’s violating the Constitution!

No action.

He’s circumventing Congress!

No action.

He’s violating separation of powers!

No action.

He’s doing this! He’s doing that!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

No one will do anything about it.

artist on January 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I presume this means Zero will go even further to ban the reimportation of historical firearms from WW1 and WW2. Someone might go on a shooting spree with a Mouser or Garand for cryin’ out loud! Those weapons of mass destruction must not be on our streets! Think of the children!

stvnscott on January 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Remember when executive orders were a bad thing? Good times…………

ctmom on January 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM

You want to know how important gun control is to the Progs? Look at what happened last night in NY. In one evening Cuomo has castrated the 2nd, 4th, & 5th Amendments. My guess is that if there are open calls for civil disobedience and non compliance that the 1st Amendment will be in danger as well.

xkaydet65 on January 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM

artist on January 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Not true, they are reading the Constitution aloud today. Sternly.

ctmom on January 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM

a gun maker is sitting around waiting for O’s order so that he can get to work tweaking his design to evade that order too.

Necessity is truly the Mother of invention.

Bmore on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Silly laws promote transparent evasions

- Col. Jeff Cooper

Reminder: Karate was invented by Japanese peasants who were not allowed to own tor carry weapons…

Archivarix on January 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM

And capoeira was invented by Brazilians who couldn’t have weapons.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Yes, and all of the above remained subjugated by the authorities (Japanese occupiers in Korea in the 15th century A.D., Spanish/Portuguese slave owners in Brazil in the 18th and 19th Centuries) who ensured that they were disarmed to begin with. Capoeira primarily uses kicks, like Savate or Muay Thai, because it was intended to be used by slaves whose hands were chained to collars locked around their necks.

The trouble is, when they tried to use it on their overseers, they usually ended up shot dead on the spot. That’s why slavery persisted in Brazil until Emperor Dom Pedro finally outlawed it in the 1870s. The slaves certainly didn’t have any say in the matter.

Hand-to-hand techniques are only effective if the attacker agrees to get within arm’s reach of you. Just try fighting someone with an MP-5 with unarmed combat maneuvers when they engage from seven to ten meters. Let alone light armored recon vehicles.

Also, forget the “armed” elements of the various systems, ranging from knives to nunchaku (actually a peasant farmer’s winnowing flail) to shaken (aka “shuriken”, “throwing stars”, or “throwing darts”). They’re already illegal to carry in most jurisdictions, and illegal even to own in some.

(Although how you “outlaw” two fourteen-inch pieces of one-inch diameter wood dowel connected end-to-end by three inches of rawhide strip is beyond me. It’s like trying to outlaw a garotte. Or water.)

In Ohio, you can be booked for having a folding pocketknife with a blade more than 3 inches in length, unless it is carried openly in a pouch on your belt. I know a lot of people who break this law every day, as they’ve never bothered to measure the blades on the Buck knives they carry in their pants pockets.

(For the record, I carry a Victorinox “Explorer” with a two and seven-eighths inch blade. Mainly because it has a screwdriver and a pair of tweezers included.)

BTW, among the other follies of my misspent youth, I earned a black belt second dan in Kenpo, and achieved a working knowledge of Tae Kwon Do. Exactly none of which is a match for a 124-grain 9mm hollowpoint bullet at 1,150 feet-per-second.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Someone might go on a shooting spree with a Mouser or Garand for cryin’ out loud!

stvnscott on January 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM

If someone has figured out how to weaponize cats then I am really out of the loop.

Bishop on January 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Just in case no one has seen this yet:

GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Colbyjack on January 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM

All lawmakers…Oh wait, the president isn’t a lawmaker.

Speakup on January 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The little dictator is consolidating his power and somebody out there in that political quagmire had better take him on and push back hard . . . before it’s too late. The Republic is slipping away and shortly it will be gone.

rplat on January 15, 2013 at 10:22 AM

All lawmakers…Oh wait, the president isn’t a lawmaker.

Speakup on January 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM

He’s a lawbreaker .

Galt2009 on January 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM

if Obama can decide to run the nation by fiat–itt stands to reason that then, so can congress–or the military–or the Supreme Court or,….the citizens themselves. This is a dangerous action without precedent–this disposing of government controls to rule by fiat, and one not without serious consequences.

Flaunting the fundamental construct of our republic at the highest levels, and by so doing, the rights given man by the highest of all authorities, Nature’s God, generates serious risk, and perhaps invokes responsibility for all decent men to oppose the destruction of a nation,by the action of one man who believes he has the right to impose his will upon free peoples.
These are crucial times in the history of all of western civilization, where in the name of progress and “evolution” man will be returned to servitude.

Don L on January 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Someone here please educate me on the impact of an EO. Congress passes laws, and EOs from the executive branch do not carry the force of law. Violation of an EO cannot result in arrest or a criminal prosecution, correct? EOs can direct policy or government spending (if we ever get a budget), but they do not take the place of laws. Or am I mistaken?

Guinness on January 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Why not just suspend habeas corpus? It would certainly make it easier for Obama to govern in the people’s interest.

morganfrost on January 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Flange on January 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Well played, sir or ma’am.

Hill60 on January 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

The only way the final two years of his presidency will have meaning is if Democrats take back the House in 2014. Why do something stupid now that jeopardizes their chances?

.
I suggest a one word answer: ARROGANCE. (Also, could be hubris but why educate Democrats – it’s a wasted effort.)

ExpressoBold on January 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM

this’ll force me to build my prototype plasma gun….

ted c on January 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I know a guy that built a hand held LASER that would blind somebody a long way, maybe miles away and set someone with dark clothing on fire from at least 200 ft and in about 4 seconds. We didn’t test it further than that. Very dangerous device that he took apart for safety.

Back OT.
The Constitution and structure of the Republic is meaningless to these people and we have nobody with enough balls to challenge them on their illegal actions so we are fracked. The Republic is no more and will never be again in our lifetimes. I fear for our future because we have some of the smartest people in the world here as well as very resourceful. I expect destruction on a scale terrorists can only dream of.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Everything you said is accurate; however, it missed the point we were trying to make (I think).

I wasn’t claiming martial arts founded out of necessity would allow a people to oppose oppressors with firearms.

I was claiming necessity is the mother of all invention. We will FIND a way to oppose oppression.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM

STILL not subject to “executive orders” ovah heah, Boss!

Stuff your bullshit, Bronco Bammy.

mojo on January 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM

BTW I recall years back Our military was playing around with using bees as weapons. Register your honey, hives, and headnets folks

Don L on January 15, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Well fertilizer killed hundred in Oklahoma so prepare to turn in old Bessie the cow. How soon before the t-men get milk-sniffing dogs in the budget…er…stimulus spending?

Don L on January 15, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Someone here please educate me on the impact of an EO. Congress passes laws, and EOs from the executive branch do not carry the force of law. Violation of an EO cannot result in arrest or a criminal prosecution, correct? EOs can direct policy or government spending (if we ever get a budget), but they do not take the place of laws. Or am I mistaken?

Guinness on January 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Try this;

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

The president’s power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day.

Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition. Presidents have used executive orders to direct a range of activities, including establishing migratory bird refuges; putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II; discharging civilian government employees who had been disloyal, following World War II; enlarging national forests; prohibiting racial discrimination in housing; pardoning Vietnam War draft evaders; giving federal workers the right to bargain collectively; keeping the federal workplace drug free; and sending U.S. troops to Bosnia.

…Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it. For example, in Dames v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 101 S. Ct. 2972, 69 L. Ed. 2d 918 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various executive orders that suspended claims of U.S. nationals arising out of the Iranian hostage crisis, citing Congress’s Acquiescence in a 180-year-old practice of settling U.S. citizens’ claims against foreign governments by executive agreement. In describing the situation before it, the Court stated,

We freely confess that we are obviously deciding only one more episode in the never-ending tension between the President exercising the executive authority in a world that presents each day some new challenge with which he must deal and the Constitution under which we all live and which no one disputes embodies some sort of system of checks and balances.

…Executive orders often omit citing a specific constitutional provision as authority. For example, Executive Order No. 11,246 (3 C.F.R. 339 [1964–1965 Comp.]), which prohibits discrimination in federal employment, simply states, “Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows …”

…To have the effect of law, executive orders must appear in the Federal Register, the daily publication of federal rules and regulations. Executive orders are also compiled annually and are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Selected orders are published with related statutes in U.S. Code Annotated and U.S. Code Service.

As Tom Clancy once said (In the Jack Ryan novel titled Executive Orders), an EO, like a Presidential Finding, essentially boils down to the President saying


The law is whatever I say it is.

Hope this helps.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM

As Tom Clancy once said (In the Jack Ryan novel titled Executive Orders), an EO, like a Presidential Finding, essentially boils down to the President saying

The law is whatever I say it is.

Hope this helps.

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Sort of like Clinton claiming sitting Presidents were immune to lawsuits.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 10:44 AM

He’s not going to do something bold and unilateral and risk a public backlash when he’s got the debt ceiling, immigration, and lord knows what else in the pipe this year.

All historical evidence to the contrary, of course. I mean, it’s not like this president has a history of flouting the Constitution, shoving “bold and unilateral” unpopular unconstitutional directives and EO’s down our throat risking ‘public backlash’, or anything, right?

*sigh*

Someday even those that claim to be on our side will wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe.

Midas on January 15, 2013 at 10:46 AM

…………….and 19 orders we can ignore.

Tater Salad on January 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Yes, and all of the above remained subjugated by the authorities (Japanese occupiers in Korea in the 15th century A.D., Spanish/Portuguese slave owners in Brazil in the 18th and 19th Centuries) who ensured that they were disarmed to begin with.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Huh? There was no Japanese occupation of Korea in the 15th century. Perhaps you’re thinking of the Imjin War in the late 16th century, which still has nothing to do with anything in this thread?

DarkCurrent on January 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I see your point. I’m just pointing out that methods which are ineffective are unlikely to produce the desired results.

Opposition to oppression which has no actual effect is mainly symbolic, and generally fatal to the opposers. See “Tienanmen Square”. China is still a Communist dictatorship, you may have noticed.

It also places too much reliance on garnering the sympathy of third parties. I ask you to objectively consider the likelihood of the American people getting any meaningful support from, say, most of Europe.

Ineffective resistance mainly provides a tyranny an excuse for more oppression. Another term for that is “playing the game by the other guy’s rules”.

Nobody ever wins that way.

/just saying.

cheers

eon

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM

DarkCurrent on January 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM

You’re right. Brain fart on the century.

But I’d say it has a good bit to do with the subject, since somebody else raised it.

cheers

eon

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM

But I’d say it has a good bit to do with the subject, since somebody else raised it.

cheers

eon

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM

I think the person who raised it was talking about the origin of karate, which was in the Ryukyus. Nothing to do with Korea.

DarkCurrent on January 15, 2013 at 10:55 AM

It’s good to be the king.

————————-Mel Brooks

I believe that I’m the king.

————————-King Barry the Destroyer

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I believe that I’m the king.

————————-King Barry the Destroyer

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM


Yesterday’s ‘Toon of the Day: “C’est Moi! C’est Moi! C’est Moi!”

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:01 AM

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I think you’re precisely on target.

If Americans were to voluntarily surrender our arms, all of those things could happen here.

If. (See #4)

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM

The 922(r) regs are both a scam and a joke… 10 or fewer foreign made parts out of a list of same…

It is just a legal hoop jumping requirement to get a few more US made parts onto guns. Great for those outfits that supply operating rods, gas pistons, stocks, handguards, and a few other select parts and the only thing it does is jack up the cost of the gun. It is a list made up by a bureaucrat put into law by Congress. I mean, really, since the receiver is on that list and since BATFE considers that to BE the gun… once that is MADE in the US, then who cares what other parts you put on it? Ah, not our ever-wise and deficient Congress, that’s for sure. Was that trigger actually MADE in the USA? Is it STAMPED with that? How about the sear? The disconnector? Hell, can you even stamp a few of those parts or cast them with a small USA on them?

Idiocy in action.

If you are collector then you dread the day that one part of your gun breaks that is on that list and you can’t find another source to keep it complete… because that means the entire thing needs replacement parts, which can be more than the cost of the entire gun to START WITH.

Yes, lets get more bureaucratic laws in place to make law abiding gun owners into potential criminals because they don’t have enough parts made in the USA to satisfy Congress. Do EXACTLY as Congress says or ELSE.

Heaven forbid you remove that mattress tag.

ajacksonian on January 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM

It’s mostly marginal stuff dealing with mental-health reporting requirements by federal agencies, broader sharing of databases among law enforcement, more prosecutions for crimes under existing laws, etc.

Allahpundit

.
“MORE PROSECUTIONS” ? ! … “for crimes under EXISTING LAWS” ? !
.
How is this not openly admitting to “slacking off” on gun-crime prosecutions in the past?

listens2glenn on January 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM

I don’t understand why someone would even need 19 executive orders, therefor, I think high volume executive orders should be banned.

Flange on January 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

I have heard that those high capacity “magazine-clips” could hold more than a hundred pages together.

Dasher on January 15, 2013 at 11:06 AM

As Tom Clancy once said (In the Jack Ryan novel titled Executive Orders), an EO, like a Presidential Finding, essentially boils down to the President saying

The law is whatever I say it is.

Hope this helps.

eon on January 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Yet, the Supreme Court has overturned Executive Orders so the President can say “the law is whatever I say it is” except when it isn’t.

For probably the best example under exigent circumstances, see Truman’s failed attempt to nationalise the steel industry, which had been swept by strikes that had impacted war materiel manufacturins, during the Korean War. The case was Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

If the Commander in Chief cannot violate the 5th Amendment during wartime when strikes are impacting the country’s ability to wage war, the idea that a President can use an Executive Order to ban guns or create new laws/restrictions on the Second Amendment is equally dubious.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Of course, we didn’t think SCOTUS would agree with forcing private citizens to buy products from private companies either.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM

…………….and 19 orders we can ignore.

Tater Salad on January 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM

.
Maybe we can, but does Minister Farrakhan know about these “19″ EOs?

listens2glenn on January 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM

You know what a Whopper looks like in the ads compared to what comes in the bag? That is how the libs will view Barry’s EOs. That said, the Reps will roll over and let them all go, giving Barry his opening for the next set of EOs. America by fiat.

Limerick on January 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Spitting nails here. What is the purpose of Congress if EOs are acceptable to the plebs? Send them home with pink slips. Bow, fools.

Limerick on January 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM

“…more prosecutions for crimes under existing laws, etc…”

Interesting. Somehow we need an EO to more vigorously prosecute existing laws?

Why does that require… anything new from the President?

Midas on January 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Technically, the Court did not hold that the Federal government could force anyone purchase health insurance from any private, public, or non-profit company. The holding was that the government could tax people for failing to carry health insurance.

And, most importantly as that ruling applies in the instant matter, Obamacare was legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. It was not an Executive Order where the President attempted to write law.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Interesting. Somehow we need an EO to more vigorously prosecute existing laws?

Why does that require… anything new from the President?

Midas on January 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Also, isn’t prosecuting people under existing laws RAAAAAACIST? That’s what they tell us when it comes to existing immigration law.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM

If the Commander in Chief cannot violate the 5th Amendment during wartime when strikes are impacting the country’s ability to wage war, the idea that a President can use an Executive Order to ban guns or create new laws/restrictions on the Second Amendment is equally dubious.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Except we have a different president, a different SC, and a different century. Recent history would seem to indicate that we can not only presume that farther history matters less in terms of guessing what the SC might do – but in fact the SC has given us evidence to presume the worst, from a Constitutional perspective.

Midas on January 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Went to Wal-Mart last night… the shelves are almost bare of ammo and guns. About half a dozen oddball rifles left. No pistol ammo left in any caliber. Almost no rifle ammo left…. a few boxes of 30-06 as about it. Almost all lead shotgun shells are gone, except #7-1/2 and BB. Some steel shot left… which shows what people think of it.

Place is basically cleaned out.

cane_loader on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Also, isn’t prosecuting people under existing laws RAAAAAACIST? That’s what they tell us when it comes to existing immigration law.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Indeed! :)

Midas on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM

All true.

I’m just very fatalistic when it comes to Obama and the things he may or may not do.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

That is how the libs will view Barry’s EOs. That said, the Reps will roll over and let them all go, giving Barry his opening for the next set of EOs. America by fiat.

Limerick on January 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Fortunately, American citizens are not limited by the inactions of their leaders in Congress. Anyone impacted by an Executive Order can sue.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Fortunately, American citizens are not limited by the inactions of their leaders in Congress. Anyone impacted by an Executive Order can sue.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Can sue whom? We may need to talk. :)

Midas on January 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Comforting. EOs from the black robes. Gives me so much hope.

Limerick on January 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Allahpundit;

The only way the final two years of his presidency will have meaning is if Democrats take back the House in 2014. Why do something stupid now that jeopardizes their chances?

Obama and the dems already played the “stupid” card when they front loaded the financing of Obamacare til 2014, to bump the taxes on the middle class past his re-election.

Cavalry on January 15, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Fortunately, American citizens are not limited by the inactions of their leaders in Congress. Anyone impacted by an Executive Order can sue.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Quite a few people were impacted by whether 0bama was allowed to be president. They were all told that they didn’t have standing to sue, because they couldn’t show they had been harmed.

Wonder if it’s time to demand the b.c. again, and this time SHOW the harm?

cane_loader on January 15, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I’m just very fatalistic when it comes to Obama and the things he may or may not do.

Washington Nearsider on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

I know and I fight my darker forces daily. Perhaps, it is my love of the law that leads me to have a little more faith in the Court than I should, especially after the Obamacare ruling, but what is the alternative? If I believed that the Court would uphold any and everything that Obama did/does, then there would no longer be a reason to fight…unless one wants to see bloodshed, which I do not. I prefer the non-violent means through the court and legislative process. Only if they fail — and the latter is almost there — can we honestly say that there is no other alternative but violence.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM

cane_loader on January 15, 2013 at 11:25 AM

The birth certificate issue is a loser, but it does give much ammunition to the forces on the Left.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:27 AM

And who the hell can pay an attorney to carry the case when Uncle Sugar makes trillion dollar coins to put in tip jars?

Limerick on January 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Can sue whom? We may need to talk. :)

Midas on January 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Generally, the defendant would be the head of the agency or department, i.e. Eric Holder as Attorney General, Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, or Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, etc, that is imposing/implementing the new rule/regulation. For example, the Obamacare cases named Sebelius most often and she is, again, the official named most frequently in the religious liberty/contraception mandate cases.

So, the plaintiff/petitioner is suing the Federal government, but naming the person in charge of implementation.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM

And who the hell can pay an attorney to carry the case when Uncle Sugar makes trillion dollar coins to put in tip jars?

Limerick on January 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

There are a lot of organisations that take these type of cases on a pro bono or contingency fee basis.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

The birth certificate issue is a loser, but it does give much ammunition to the forces on the Left.

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Let things get bad enough here… might not be as much of a loser as some think.

The basic problem is that he was in Indonesia for his formative years. He was not taught about American values, love for the Constitution, and rule of law. He was raised under rule of the dictator, Suharto.

The reason he keeps running afoul of the Constitution is that he was not raised with respect for it.

Hence the natural-born-citizen clause.

The problem with 0bama is that the SCOTUS has repeatedly fled from defining it, as it is nebulous. Clarence Thomas even said – albeit jokingly (maybe) in a committee meeting that they were ducking the issue.

cane_loader on January 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Went to Wal-Mart last night… the shelves are almost bare of ammo and guns. About half a dozen oddball rifles left. No pistol ammo left in any caliber. Almost no rifle ammo left…. a few boxes of 30-06 as about it. Almost all lead shotgun shells are gone, except #7-1/2 and BB. Some steel shot left… which shows what people think of it.

Place is basically cleaned out.

cane_loader on January 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Which is why I have given up on Wal Mart. I was told by someone working in that department that if I want ammo, I have to be there when the delivery truck arrives, because they sell out in a matter of minutes. I’ve since placed sizeable orders online.

RandallinHerndon on January 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Spitting nails here. What is the purpose of Congress if EOs are acceptable to the plebs? Send them home with pink slips. Bow, fools.

Limerick on January 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM

That will happen after 2014 when the dems don’t take both the House and Senate. If they get both well, it doesn’t matter because they will just be a rubber stamp making EOs not needed.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

51% of the nation decided that it was cool to re-elect the cool black guy, because of his race. I doubt you would actually find a majority who elected him on his policies.

cane_loader on January 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

If someone has figured out how to weaponize cats then I am really out of the loop.

Bishop on January 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Where ya been, Bishop? I used to have a black high capacity assault feline – very scary.

ghostwalker1 on January 15, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Interview of former AG Edwin Meese re Obysmal’s efforts to initiate EOs on gun control and assorted other topics of consequence:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/meese-obama-guns-impeachable/2013/01/14/id/471412?s=al&promo_code=11F25-1

onlineanalyst on January 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM

cane_loader on January 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

His mum was an American citizen and he was born in Hawaii. It matters not what his father was. Further, even if you believe he was born in Kenya, it is STILL irrelevant if he was born to an American mum and registered as an American.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but his mum was an American citizen. He is a natural born American. He is eligible to run for President.

Marco Rubio was born on American soil to Cuban parents. He is eligible to run for President.

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents. He was eligible to run for President.

George Romney was born in Mexico to two American parents. He was registered as an American citizen at the American Consulate and was never a Mexican citizen. He was eligible to run for President.

I was born to British parents in London. I may be an American citizen, but I am ineligible to run for President.

But, here’s a bone:

Chris Matthews: Birther?

Resist We Much on January 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2