Obama's 23 EO's

[peter nap]

maybe. but even if congress authorizes it the actions still must be legal in the state that the police officer is working in, Washington's constitution requires "authority of law" before a persons privacy may be invaded, and courts in WA have held that our privacy protection is much greater, thus officers in our state may not be able to utilize any powers congress tries to grant.

now I know this is the VA subforum, and I don't know much on VA case law, but this is just an example to illustrate maybe nothing will change depending upon the case law and protections your own state provides.

It's like seat belt laws. If the state won't legislate enforcement the Feds will withhold funding for this or that.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's like seat belt laws. If the state won't legislate enforcement the Feds will withhold funding for this or that.

But that involves statutory law. New Hampshire does not have a seatbelt law, well they do for people 16 and under. literally that's all they needed to do to get funding.

regardless of funding, if the state constitution doesn't allow a cop to do it, then the state would be required to amend the constitution. in my state that's a difficult process that involves supermajority support if the leg, and THEN by approved by ballot referendum. I would presume that most states that would be as difficult. plus the federal government has yet to pressure a state to do something directly contradictory to their own state constitution and requiring amendment, that would be a HUGE step to take and in the end congress people from affected states may quickly turn.

I'm not saying don't be alert, i'm just pointing out there will be practical difficulties in enacting and enforcing such a law, please don't misunderstand me.

 

[vt800c]

I hate "I told you so"s

Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. (Lets call guns 'bad' and question why anyone would want something 'bad')

Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. (reward people for turning in information about 'bad' people)

Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. (who ARE these 'bad' people?)

Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. (Are you a 'bad' person? Are you mentally compitent to own a gun? let's make sure...here is a referral for a mental evaluation, just to be safe)

Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. (Find the 'bad' guns)

Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. (You were stopped for a broken tail-light. they took your gun, and ran a FULL BACKGROUND CHECK. Hmmm.. you've had a referral to a mental health agency. you are not getting it back. There we have it: confiscation one at a time.)

And just because I'm paranoid that doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me.

 

[Betty_Rose]

My next letters to my elected servants will be to let them know that if they vote for this legislation, I will be one of many voting them out in the next election...

Yeah, good luck with that.

I wrote to Rigell, Cantor and Warner. In my carefully worded letter, I said plainly, "Do not touch our 2nd amendment rights. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution; not the presidency. Do not permit Obama to decimate our constitutional rights."

That was it.

And you know what came back? A long-winded letter (from both Rigell and Warner) that said (paraphrasing), "Thank you for contacting us about the tragedy at Sandy Hook..."

In other words, a complete disconnect. I was disgusted beyond words.

They're not listening to us "gun nuts."

It's maddening.

 

[crazydude6030]

Chippers will happily go along with it.

Doubt it. Some chippers have them for out of state reasons.

 

[OC for ME]

5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Is this Obama speak for imposing a rule that could only apply to federal executive branch LE departments? Unless a law is passed no state, county, or municipal LEA would be required to comply with a federal rule. Them voluntarily "complying" is a different question.

 

[Bowesmobile]

Doubt it. Some chippers have them for out of state reasons.[/QUOTE

Yes, some do... If it comes down to that. How do I return my CHP?

 

[Numenor]

Doubt it. Some chippers have them for out of state reasons.[/QUOTE

Yes, some do... If it comes down to that. How do I return my CHP?

You go down to the County Clerk and turn it in to them.

 

[USNA69]

That is why he wants to use the health care industry. He fully expects doctors to turn everyone in that admits to being a gun owner. There is no reason for a doctor to ask such questions for general health.

In light of the bad things that might now happen to us for possessing firearms, I intend to reply to any such questions as follows:
"On the advice of my attorney, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and I respectfully decline to answer any questions."

 

[skidmark]

My next letters to my elected servants will be to let them know that if they vote for this legislation, I will be one of many voting them out in the next election...

This is NOT legislation. Nobody needs to vote for or against anything. He just says "Make it so" and (robo)signs.

Your letter might work better if you explained why they should submit bills that will, wnen passed and enacted, will undo all 23 of these things.

stay safe.

 

[skidmark]

In light of the bad things that might now happen to us for possessing firearms, I intend to reply to any such questions as follows:
"On the advice of my attorney, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and I respectfully decline to answer any questions."

I prefer "Nunnya".

The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination only applies to testifying in court regarding criminal charges. (My rememberer may be fuzzy, but I seem to want to say that at one time it was not even extended to testifying at a Grand Jury. My rememberer could be wrong, though.)

I found out today that the socialist nurse at the VA objects to her medical care provider asking about seatbelt use, presence of firearms, and if she "feels" safe [from domestic violence] in her home. There may be hope yet.

stay safe.

 

[USNA69]

I continue to marvel that people are still trying to make sense of BHO’s gun proposals in the context of a reduction of gun violence and the safety of children. It has nothing to do with any of that. He is simply using that ruse and a means of laying the groundwork for the eventual and complete disarming of the civilian population. His goal is a population that has no means to resist a tyrannical and totalitarian government gone drunk on its own power. History is rife with the examples of despots who first disarmed their populations and then executed millions of dissidents. I am all but certain that the people of Russia, China, Germany, et.al., never believed for a moment that it could happen in their country … but it did.

There will come a time when federal civilian officials and law enforcement and military officers, State civilian officials and military officers and law enforcement, and local civilian officials and law enforcement ... when all of these people will have to make a decision. That decision will be whether they swore an oath to support the Constitution or to support a political leader. Those decisions will determine the fate of the United States.
I hope that each and every one of these people is giving serious thought to this decision right now. Much is at stake.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP This is NOT legislation. Nobody needs to vote for or against anything. He just says "Make it so"

[video=youtube;3bQnxlHZsjY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY[/video]

 

[MAC702]

23 Executive Actions? 23?

I'm thinking we need a limited-edition commemorative Glock...

 

[davidmcbeth]

I prefer "Nunnya".

The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination only applies to testifying in court regarding criminal charges. .

That would be too narrow a viewpoint ...

 

[crazydude6030]

23 Executive Actions? 23?

I'm thinking we need a limited-edition commemorative Glock...

that gave me a nice chuckle.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

[jegoodin]

The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination only applies to testifying in court regarding criminal charges. (My rememberer may be fuzzy, but I seem to want to say that at one time it was not even extended to testifying at a Grand Jury. My rememberer could be wrong, though.)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fifth+amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Self-Incrimination Clause more broadly than many of the Framers probably would have. miranda v. arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), illustrates this point. In Miranda the Court held that any statements made by defendants while in police custody before trial will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have (1) the right to remain silent, (2) the right to consult an attorney before being questioned by the police, (3) the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, (4) the right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, and (5) the right to be informed that any statements they do make can and will be used in their prosecution. Although the Miranda warnings are not provided in the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause, the Court has ruled that they constitute an essential part of a judicially created buffer zone that is necessary to protect rights that are specifically set forth in the Constitution.

In Dickerson v. United States 530 U.S. 428, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 147 L. Ed.2d 405 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Miranda decision was based on Fifth Amendment principles and therefore that it could not be over-turned legislatively. Congressional anger at the Miranda decision had led to the passage in 1968 of a law, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501, that had restored voluntariness as the test for admitting confessions in federal court. However, the United States department of justice, under attorneys general of both major political parties, has refused to enforce the provision, believing the law to be unconstitutional. The law lay dormant until the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1999 that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass the law. Chief Justice william rehnquist, a frequent critic of the Miranda decision, joined the majority in rejecting the Fourth Circuit interpretation. Although members of the Court might not agree with the reasoning and the rule of Miranda, Rehnquist acknowledged the essential place that Miranda has in U.S. law and society. He pointed out the importance that the judicial system places on Stare Decisis, a concept that counsels courts to honor judicial precedents to ensure stability and predictability in decision-making. A court should only overrule its case precedents if there is, in Rehnquist's words, "special justification." The Court in Dickerson concluded there were no special justifications.

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

. . . .what oath . . . .?

There will come a time when federal civilian officials and law enforcement and military officers, State civilian officials and military officers and law enforcement, and local civilian officials and law enforcement ... when all of these people will have to make a decision. That decision will be whether they swore an oath to support the Constitution or to support a political leader. Those decisions will determine the fate of the United States.
I hope that each and every one of these people is giving serious thought to this decision right now. Much is at stake.

I have worked for the state > 17 years. Maybe I forgot the event, but I doubt it---I never remember taking any oath to support anything when hired. Now, I DID do so when entering the Army, and I do definitely remember that, and try to honor that oath every day. I'm just saying if you hope to expect people in the state service to honor such an oath, I think it does not exist. If the fate of the USA, or Virginia hinges on that promise, well, . . . . .don't hold your breath!

 

[riverrat10k]

I prefer "Nunnya".

The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination only applies to testifying in court regarding criminal charges. (My rememberer may be fuzzy, but I seem to want to say that at one time it was not even extended to testifying at a Grand Jury. My rememberer could be wrong, though.)

I found out today that the socialist nurse at the VA objects to her medical care provider asking about seatbelt use, presence of firearms, and if she "feels" safe [from domestic violence] in her home. There may be hope yet.

stay safe.

Yeah, I forgot to tell you guys the doc-in-box asked me to fill out a new "history questionaire". One of the questions was did I wear seat belts. I somehow missed checking the box. When the Doc came in, he started entering the info in the 'puter and verbally asked me I wore my seat belt. I stated "That question has nothing to do with medical care and is none of your business, nor the Federal governments". He probably made a psych note. ****.

 

[MamabearCali]

On the issue of nosy nurses. Let me tell y'all how I got out of university with decent grades (honors) I got my degree in history with a minor in religion. My professors were as liberal as the day is long. They were political many of them. So how does a conservative girl Get through that and live tell the tale. Parrot talk. You tell them what they want to hear and what will get them out of your business and down to business as fast as possible. This has applications in real life too, you do not take an oath to tell the truth to your MD. Tell them whatever will get them past the forms and on to your personal sitaution.