Reuters
Even without Congress, Obama could act to restrict guns
Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action to improve background checks on gun buyers, ban certain gun imports and bolster oversight of dealers. …
Having just won a second four-year term, Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights and he could press ahead without lawmakers on fronts where federal law enables executive action. …
His administration has the power to issue executive orders or new rules, options that Obama is likely to consider in combination with possible new laws. …
Many of the ideas have to do with the background checks that licensed gun dealers run on potential buyers.
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 Next »
No rule, no law, no executive order will prevent some nut from doing whatever he wants to do short of locking up all nuts.
Leave us the hell alone tyrants.
darwin on December 18, 2012 at 7:38 AM
Why stop at the 2nd Amendment? Why not just dissolve Congress and let Obama do as he pleases?
dernst2 on December 18, 2012 at 7:38 AM
Phase II
clippermiami on December 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Well yeah, he can “deem” WTF-ever he wants.
MelonCollie on December 18, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Yeah. That will end well.
The world is turning into a giant pressure cooker, where it blows I don’t know, but when it does it is gonna be bad.
Gatsu on December 18, 2012 at 7:48 AM
And, quite a few useful idiots will cheer.
Fallon on December 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Tru Dat
trs on December 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Hugo Obama
Oil Can on December 18, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Go for it, sport. I”ll buy a lower every payday. And cash in when the time is right.
wolly4321 on December 18, 2012 at 7:57 AM
“having just won re-election” he can say screw the will of the people.
wolly4321 on December 18, 2012 at 7:59 AM
Barak “Chavez” Obama.
While the loudest noise is coming from the anti-gun Left, the biggest result of all this is an increase in gun and ammo sales.
There is the whole middle of the country that is “Red” and would make life miserable for those “Blue” edges.
I just don’t think those thugs in Chicago would bother to abide by any E.O. that 0bama would put into place.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some nut someplace decided to use non-gun violence, perhaps against political persons, to illustrate the point that it isn’t the guns that are the problem.
After all, you can still get fuel oil and fertilizer and rental trucks.
And as so many of our friends and family have learned when serving overseas, it doesn’t take much to make an IED.
Guns are preferable because you CAN limit your target to the bad guy/deer/paper target.
Explosives aren’t as selective. And that’s what would probably end up being the weapon of choice of bad guys.
Again, the problem is really Gun Free Zones. That’s where the targets are that can’t effectively shoot back are located.
Columbine saw not only guns but propane tanks as potential bombs. They just didn’t get exploded.
ProfShadow on December 18, 2012 at 8:01 AM
Obama & Congress can only do what the people let them do.
And so far the people have let them pass UnConstitutional laws & edicts & executive orders etc that are UnConstitutional.
And no amount of legal jockeying is going to make any of that nonsense legal.
It’s all illegal and no one has cared since Wilson or even before to actually stop this nonsense.
All of the UnConstittuional power grabbing has happened bcs America is not playing by the rules it set for itself.
Can’t.Even.Play.By.The.F@cking.Rules.
Might as well have none of these rules, for all the attention people pay them.
Infringement includes RESTRICTIONS.
There is no part of infringing that is legal.
But they do it anyway.
It will be interesting to see just how many Americans really have the guts to stand up for this right.
Bcs they’ve pi$$ed all the rest of them away.
Badger40 on December 18, 2012 at 8:05 AM
I believe even those Red Staters will embrace their communist overlords eventually.
People in this time have grown soft. Society is now less rural & more & more are dependent upon society’s perks like electricity & roads, medical care, their bennies like SS.
Nah.
This Republic, what is even left of it, will die with nary more than a pathetic squeak.
There are simply not enough of us willing to water that tree of liberty bcs our fellow Americans en masse have accepted the comfort of that false safety.
I hate to be so pessimistic, but I’ve watched what I thought were moral upright people who seemed sincere turn on a dime when it meant their particular bennies.
Badger40 on December 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM
In other words, Obama just may write into creation more taxation of the people.
Bigger government, more federal employees, increased regulations, more taxes to pay for all of that, Obama to increasingly restrict and refuse to “support, uphold and defend” our US Constitution.
And some of his advocates claim he ISN’T a dictator?
Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 8:17 AM
I found a ranch in Concho AZ with a 5 mile long driveway. Galt.
wolly4321 on December 18, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Fault lies at the feet of Congress for abdicating their responsibilities with lazy legislation allowing the Executive Branch to make new law via rules and regulations.
ButterflyDragon on December 18, 2012 at 8:22 AM
I’d rather Obama deem America an Islamic nation and quit all his pretense.
tom daschle concerned on December 18, 2012 at 8:24 AM
The Constitution and the 2nd amendment were meant to be a constraint on the government, the dear liar wants to remove that constraint.
How is it that there are some who cannot remember history and see how this will turn out?
Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 8:27 AM
You’d be surprised at the myriad of materials that could be used for such things – ordinary flour can be an explosive.
The point is that getting rid of the people’s right of self-defense does not solve the problem – example: Gun-free zones.
Letting them defend themselves would.
But the Oppressive aren’t really interested in solving anything are they?
Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Well, of course he can. Constitution? What constitution? Dictators don’t need no steenkin’ constitution.
The Rogue Tomato on December 18, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Reuters approves of this message.
Bitter Clinger on December 18, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Yeah, right off the bat – have the EPA ban bullets because they’re made of lead, a toxic substance. But then again, that’s the whole point.
Red Creek on December 18, 2012 at 8:48 AM
Also, we need to get a strong House Leader that believes in what the founding fathers put forth.
I’m so tired of hearing how certain actions by the President or Congress could create a “constitutional crisis”.
Good, let one be had and get it in front of SCOTUS. Let’s quit trying to dance around the problems that have existed since FDR.
ButterflyDragon on December 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Having just won a second four-year term, Obama does not need to fear alienating The Constitution.
hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 9:02 AM
It may someday eventually go the way most here at HA want but not in the lifetimes of anyone alive today. We will become an oppressive dictatorship because that is what most of the people in this country want or at least were taught to want. Basically the hippies won. The final goal will be the legalization of drugs and then they will achieve they sex, drugs and rock & roll utopia they have wanted all along. The problem though is that it will very quickly go down hill just as the communes of the 60s and 70s did.
This morning on the way into work I was listening to an interview with the MA Suffolk county sheriff and she made it very clear that she was a gun grabber. She was even proud to have gone to the great utopia of OZ and saw first hand how wonderful and safe a country is without firearms in the hands of the citizens. She suggests the boiling frog approach to eliminate firearms. Add a small law here and there and over time you will be able to ban firearms completely. She also managed to get in a few anti-Bush jabs on taxes, believe it or not.
I have no doubt in my mind that if BO pulled the crap of confiscation via EO that 99% of all law enforcement and military would be standing right behind him. I also have zero faith in the people of this country and think that 99% of the firearm owners will be tripping over each other to turn in their firearms simply because they are law abiding people and it will be the law right or wrong.
Frank Enstine on December 18, 2012 at 9:03 AM
This is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers feared would eventually come to pass, and the impetus for the Second Amendment, a limitation upon government power.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
turfmann on December 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Keep the faith, Badger. There are enough of us, if we consolidate. I’m working out how to maneuver myself back into red territory, soon.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
GWB on December 18, 2012 at 9:15 AM
Been listening to conservative pundits (oreiley) and Goldberg talking last night. What struck me was they actually mentioned folks who have guns because of that are crackpots and extreemists. They also said we should expect to lose some of our freedoms in exchange for security. They actually said that.
Durka-Durka on December 18, 2012 at 9:16 AM
Isn’t it fun living in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts?
As Suffolk County Sheriff, Andrea Cabral is basically powerless to effect any change in gun control.
However, as the new Secretary of Public Safety, she will be far, far more powerful.
As to her credentials, just take a look at her photograph – it really says it all.
Years of law enforcement experience, walking the beat, rising through the ranks on the wings of competence?
Pffffttt…
That’s for the melanin-challenged. Just get your ticket punched at law school and become a partisan, moonbat hack.
This state is overrun with them.
turfmann on December 18, 2012 at 9:16 AM
Not sure about the police, but the military would have a difficult time with confication. Even if they had a majority of soldiers and officers who were keen on helping to take away other America’s weapons, (and they certainly don’t) the active military is restricted under Posse Comitatus (Did you just call me a pussy Communist?/Name that movie) really unless obama enacts martial law. The National Guard can be used in that regard as can the Coast Guard, but I work with and know at least the NG folks. I am currently working with four TN Guardsmen taking our Mike Model aircraft transition through our contract at Ft. Campbell. They have already talked about the crapstorm that would follow if they were asked to do anything of the kind. They guys are almost further right than me. (Almost)
hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM
I put a comment through that is in moderation for whatever reason. I love Hot Air and I’m sure the moderators have saved me some embarrassment with poorly thought through comments with profanity. But I also wonder that we are not getting too restrictive because of the fear of the connotation of certain words. Scratching my head what one set it off. Here it is again.
Not sure about the police, but the military would have a difficult time with confiscation. Even if they had a majority of soldiers and officers who were keen on helping to take away other America’s weapons, (and they certainly don’t) the active military is restricted under Posse Comitatus (Did you just call me a p#ssy Communist?/Name that movie) really unless obama enacts martial law. The National Guard can be used in that regard as can the Coast Guard, but I work with and know at least the NG folks. I am currently working with four TN Guardsmen taking our Mike Model aircraft transition through our contract at Ft. Campbell. They have already talked about the crapstorm that would follow if they were asked to do anything of the kind. They guys are almost further right than me. (Almost)
hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Scratches head again.
hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM
I can only Hope that you are wrong about the LEO’s in you last paragraph. I can’t disagree with the rest of what you said.
Believe me, the Oppressives know they can’t just try to collect all of our guns and melt them down. They know that they need to incrementally destroy our right of self-defense.
Their ultimate goal is of course: CONFISCATION, but they need to have a few things in place to get there.
The Oppressives will have to know who has what – REGISTRATION and to get that they will have to control everyone’s personal property in how they can buy and sell said property.
Which why they have that “improve background checks on gun buyers” on their oppressive agenda – they know that won’t solve anything and the next time there is a shooting the can take the next bite out of the apple – implementing registration.
And of course, since that still won’t solve the issue, the next time there is a shooting, well let’s just say they will move-on to their ‘final solution’.
Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 9:28 AM
The laws aren’t for the criminals, they’re for the rest of us.
WeekendAtBernankes on December 18, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Maybe because I used They where I should have used These?
Alas.
The point ius, confiscation is a whole new ballgame in America. It will not go well if they try it.
hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Most intelligent folks can see the handwriting on the wall.
Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM
The Oppressives know that – hence they’re trying to incrementally get to that goal.
They also know that none of these measures will solve the problem – they’re Okay with that because they DON’T CARE if it solves the problem.
Ask yourself: What would yield them more power?
More mass murder crisis they can ‘exploit’ to their benefit or a real solution to places where the innocent are defenseless?
Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM
I absolutely agree. It won’t happen in our lifetimes.
The logistics behind it would be an absolute nightmare. And to be honest, I cannot imagine a President willing to inflict massive casualties of American citizens in such an attempt.
ButterflyDragon on December 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM
Because, like it says in the “good and plenty clause,” “The rights of gun dealers near the southern border shall be up for grabs.”
Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Precisely how do they intend to forcibly confiscate well over 40 million semi-automatic pistols?
And who is going to volunteer for that task?
TexasJew on December 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM
I wouldn’t consider anyone confiscating these guns from law-abiding Americans to be American citizens at all.
TexasJew on December 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM
They can’t. It is in it’s basic intent, the end of our nation. And they know it.
hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Not really. He just needs a law or a pseudo law via EO that all guns not specifically designed for hunting are illegal and must be turned in under threat of imprisonment. In most states they already know who may have firearms because of permits and in some cases what types they have. I know that here in MA there is a crap load of paperwork on file with all the details on me and the type of firearm purchased. Having a permit will be probable cause enough to search a residence.
There will be hold outs and there will be deaths but BO just needs to get on TV and declare everyone that has not turned in their firearms are criminals and terrorists. After a few clashes with the holdouts people will question why these people didn’t obey the law and will agree that they are in fact terrorists and not patriots.
Frank Enstine on December 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM
I wish I could be as optimistic about this as you-all are.
But recall what has happened elsewhere – the Oppressives in Germany and the UK used registration to build lists of who has the guns and they worked down from there.
Also remember that Registration is effectively the same thing confiscation – because as soon as you need the government’s permission to defend yourself, you are under the control of said government.
And we are Dangerously close to that point.
Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 AM
“I (n.)___ do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation of purpose of evasion, pledging my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, so help me God.”
Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Unfortunately I think you are both right. There are very few people in this country who are truly willing to fight for freedom. It seems to me, most people are ok with their freedoms being taken from them as long as the economy is doing well and they have job security.
Fazman on December 18, 2012 at 10:08 AM
The same people that tell us that it would be impossible to deport 12 million illegal aliens.
Oldnuke on December 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM
Perhaps it is time for everyone to get some PVC and store up a few extra items for safekeeping so it will be impossible for them to take them all.
Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM
The current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue took this oath.
Every member of Congress takes this oath.
Every member of the Supreme Court takes this oath.
So much for oaths.
Oldnuke on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »