• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

(during Press conf. 1/9/2013)Biden: Obama May Use Executive Order To Deal With Guns

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
read the freaking Constitution

U.S. presidents have issued executive orders since 1785. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Executive Orders must use Constitutional reasoning as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office. Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Right. Because legality translates to morality.

For example: Assassinating a US citizen and his juvenile son in a foreign country via drone strike for suspected connections to terrorism without arrest, right to counsel, or a trial by a jury of his peers. Totes legal because no one has said that it isn't yet. I hate referencing the Hitler fallacy, however allow me to make my point: Everything Hitler did was legal.

I will bite: Link me up to any EO Obama made that was not moral.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
Bloomberg is one of a multitude of individuals that 'have his ear'. I suppose you accidentally forgot to include the NRA, and Republicans talking to Obama about the issue of firearms as well.

"Obama wants Congress to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks and restrict high-capacity magazines. Other recommendations to the Biden group include making gun-trafficking a felony, getting the Justice Department to prosecute people caught lying on gun background-check forms and ordering federal agencies to send data to the National Gun Background Check Database.

Some of those steps could be taken through executive action, without the approval of Congress. White House officials say Obama will not finalize any actions until receiving Biden's recommendations."

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-meets-gun-safety-victims-groups-165021174--politics.html

Seems to me the intent on any EO on this would be to place restrictions.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I dont get what is so wrong with what he said. In order to get rid of, bypass, infringe, substitute, or encroach the 2nd Amendment is by amending the amendment. No executive order can over ride the Constitution. Period. Show me, in the Consitution, where its says a president can supercede any law found in the constitution with an executive order.

Signing an EO, or passing a Law that limits magazine capacity is not a infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms.

Read the the Articles of the Constitution, you will find it in there.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
U.S. presidents have issued executive orders since 1785. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Executive Orders must use Constitutional reasoning as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office. Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.


Listen, when you are quoting word-for-word, WIKI, you have to post the link as well, and quote the portion pasted.

BTW, if you think for a moment that they have not formulated a Constitutional Reasoning, well, you don't give them as much credit as they deserve. Thanks for the example though. What you have offered up is an argument for EO's being above Congress, and above SCOTUS review.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
"Obama wants Congress to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks and restrict high-capacity magazines. Other recommendations to the Biden group include making gun-trafficking a felony, getting the Justice Department to prosecute people caught lying on gun background-check forms and ordering federal agencies to send data to the National Gun Background Check Database.

Some of those steps could be taken through executive action, without the approval of Congress. White House officials say Obama will not finalize any actions until receiving Biden's recommendations."

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-meets-gun-safety-victims-groups-165021174--politics.html

Seems to me the intent on any EO on this would be to place restrictions.

I see, so you affirm that an EO to ban, say, high capacity magazines, fall under the Power of the EO?

I see Magazine capacity limits, and so-called Gun-show Loopholes being plugged.
 

MamabearCali

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
335
Location
Chesterfield
Bullets are part of "arms" so yes, limiting magazine capacity is "infringing"


I actually was not referencing Hitler, but Chamberlain who was taken for a fool by Hitler. For a liar to lie is nothing new. I believe Obama to be a proficient liar, you may not, but I certainly do.

You may continue to say "peace in our time", but most us here know better.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Bullets are part of "arms" so yes, limiting magazine capacity is "infringing"


I actually was not referencing Hitler, but Chamberlain who was taken for a fool by Hitler. For a liar to lie is nothing new. I believe Obama to be a proficient liar, you may not, but I certainly do.

You may continue to say "peace in our time", but most us here know better.

Really? The Second Amendment speaks nothing to "bullets." Please, point out where it states "bullets," in the Constitution--anywhere, not just the Second Amendment.

President Obama is a politician, lying is a prerequisite.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
Executive orders would most likely direct DHS agencies such as BATFE, F.B.I. ICE, and DEA to take actions constituting harrassment, and interference with the civil rights of gun owners, and those seeking to become gun owners. Expect to see enhanced DHS interference, and harrassment at state lines under the guise of drug enforcement activities.

I expect such executive instructions to produce enhanced levels of transgressions upon fundamental, substantive civil rights secured under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

Extremism with the EO pen could provided the needed impetus for the House to commence impeachment proceedings.

Perhaps then the representatives of the people can pull the plug on this dictator.
 
Last edited:

shastadude17

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
150
Location
United States
Really? The Second Amendment speaks nothing to "bullets." Please, point out where it states "bullets," in the Constitution--anywhere, not just the Second Amendment..

Declaration of Independence said:
...that all men are created equal...

What do you know, the Declaration of Independence said nothing about women...

Obama-lol.gif
 
Last edited:

MamabearCali

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
335
Location
Chesterfield
Really Berretta? Really? Firearms are nothing more than clubs without bullets. The founders just fought a war, they would know that arms means the whole package gun, powder, and ammunition. There would have been no question as to what arms were/are.

Why are you here? All I see you doing here there and everywhere is using Bloomberg like logic to defend the people on Washington hell-bent on destroying the constitution. If you don't like guns there are other places you could hang out. This is gun forum. Even More so this is an open carry forum, so it is political gun forum.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Executive orders would most likely direct DHS agencies such as BATFE, F.B.I. ICE, and DEA to take actions constituting harrassment, and interference with the civil rights of gun owners, and those seeking to become gun owners. Expect to see enhanced DHS interference, and harrassment at state lines under the guise of drug enforcement activities.

I expect such executive instructions to result enhanced transgressions upon fundamental, substantive civil rights secured under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

Extremism with the EO pen could provided the needed impetus for the House to commence impeachment proceedings.

Here we go again with these silly notions, "...actions constituting harassment, and interference with the civil rights of gun owners,...." Please, point out to me where an EO banning high capacity magazines has been Found to be harassment.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Did this fellow graduate middle school? All those people who went out and bought guns did not do so to turn them in a month later. The constitution cannot be overturned by EO. Nor can legislation be done by fiat. Perhaps our president needs a refresher course on separation of powers and presidential authority. He was not elected King Obama.

These guys are blithering idiots, but they are very dangerous blithering idiots. They should take a leaf from history. The American revolution was not caused by the Boston Tea Party, but rather the crowns attempt to seize the colonists arms. Do they really think we are so different from then to now?

No, they are intelligent despots.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
I see, so you affirm that an EO to ban, say, high capacity magazines, fall under the Power of the EO?

I see Magazine capacity limits, and so-called Gun-show Loopholes being plugged.

I don't think that can be done with an eo alone. To me that's reserved to congress. Smarter people than I can work on that.

I don't get why you are trying to troll me. I was simply showing what they may try to or use a eo to do.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Obama has already done a lot of things we thought "could not be done" in America. We no longer live in America, not since his original election. I hope to live in America again one day, but right now, America does not exist.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I don't think that can be done with an eo alone. To me that's reserved to congress. Smarter people than I can work on that.

I don't get why you are trying to troll me. I was simply showing what they may try to or use a eo to do.

I'm not trolling you. Just responding. Don't take it personal.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Really Berretta? Really? Firearms are nothing more than clubs without bullets. The founders just fought a war, they would know that arms means the whole package gun, powder, and ammunition. There would have been no question as to what arms were/are.

Why are you here? All I see you doing here there and everywhere is using Bloomberg like logic to defend the people on Washington hell-bent on destroying the constitution. If you don't like guns there are other places you could hang out. This is gun forum. Even More so this is an open carry forum, so it is political gun forum.

I could be wrong about this, but magazines didn't exist at that time. The Founding Fathers were speaking to magazines in the Second Amendment?

I am here because I OC, every day (not in the rain though). This is an OC forum, right?

I'm not sure if Washington is destroying the Constitution. It's nice to seem someone is sure of that.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Obama has already done a lot of things we thought "could not be done" in America. We no longer live in America, not since his original election. I hope to live in America again one day, but right now, America does not exist.

I wonder what things Obama has done, that 'we' thought couldn't be done. Can someone provide me with some examples, please.
 

MamabearCali

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
335
Location
Chesterfield
I could be wrong about this, but magazines didn't exist at that time. The Founding Fathers were speaking to magazines in the Second Amendment?

I am here because I OC, every day (not in the rain though). This is an OC forum, right?

I'm not sure if Washington is destroying the Constitution. It's nice to seem someone is sure of that.


The Internet did not exist either.....nor did the TV or radio, should we curtail freedom of speech and expression?

You OC every sunny day. Good, but the powers that be will get to that, have no fear. Your tag line will have an end date if they have their way.

If you in doubt of the shredding of he constitution go to an airport....try to be free from very invasive searches and seizures. It was bad under Bush, has taken on a vindictive flavor since Obama.
 
Top