President's Gun Control Proposals

L

lcpiper

New member
Let me link you guys to a few "good examples" of an Executive Order so you get a better feel for what they look like in writing. Then you can make up your own mind as to how they compare with what we have been shown.

The first one I chose from memory, the others I chose at random.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10290.pdf

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13205

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13218

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13128

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11478.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10399.html

This is the most recent executive order signed by President Obama just last year that is currently on record.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-14/pdf/2012-30310.pdf


Now I haven't seen any documentation that looks like any of these yet, have you ?
 
Last edited:
B

Buzzard Bait

New member
explaint to me I'm slow

OK, explain to me I'm not seeing as much here as I thought I would. I thought he was going to name 23 new laws we would have to swallow. I'm seeing for example "time for congress to renew and reinstate the 10 round limit on mags and reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban". Well that's not a out right ban,or a new law, that's asking congress to pass one which I kind of doubt that they can. But asking congress to act is way different than saying this is now the new law. Or am I missing something? I thought he was just going to say this is now the law.That's not what I think I heard. I have to admit my disgust for communism and this man makes it very hard to listen to him or even read what he has done.
 
Last edited:
R

rickyrick

New member
I see where doctors who accept Medicare, Medicaid and other government insurance are gonna get strong armed into disqualifying people from firearm ownership. Withholding funding is the Feds greatest weapon. I see highway funds and the like getting withheld from states with gun rights too.
 
B

Buzzard Bait

New member
get real can't any one in politics just say get real

Ok so where do criminals acquire guns? Would not it be realistic to think the marketplace would be something like the trunk of a car in an alley some place. Does any one think the proper forms will get filled out during this transaction? Or that any regulation of any type would have any effect? The complete ban on illicit drugs of all the different types has worked well hasn't it? The real problem might be the complete and total failure of the criminal Justis system to identify and catch criminals, and to rehabilitate any of the few they do catch and the inability to identify the ones who can't be rehabilitated and keep them incarcerated. If anything the prison system has become a college for criminals where they go in armatures and come out highly trained professional criminals almost like getting a degree.
bb
 
M

MLeake

New member
This has been said many times, already, but Executive Orders are very limited in what they can do. They can clarify or direct how Executive agencies implement laws passed by Congress. EOs do not create law.

What Obama is doing is promulgating EOs on one hand, while trying to spur Congress into passing tougher laws on the other hand. It is a two-pronged approach.

Note that in the case of EOs that Congress has not liked, Congress has specifically witheld funding (example, CDC firearm research - which is why Obama is trying to cajole Congress into funding that).
 
S

SPEMack618

New member
The BATFE director position EO is also due in part to fear on behalf of the Executive Branch that Congress wouldn't confirm a nomination for a BATFE director without Fast and Furious questions.

I have written my Congressional representatives saying that I don't want them to confirm a BATFE director until that lying, thieving, murdering group of thugs answers for Fast and Furious.
 
S

shortwave

New member
The very sad reality of these EO's Obama is so desperately trying to sell by stooping to the lowest level of using children to pull at the heartstrings of the American people is just disgraceful , have already proven to not curb violence and will not stop the tragedies in the future like Obama is trying to portray they will.
 
L

lcpiper

New member
MLeake I understand what you are saying, but try to see what I am saying.

What we have been shown is one thing. But we have been told something else and the real thing looks very different as well.

Look at those links on Executive orders and you will see some things they have in common. The are grounded in an accepted executive power, the President's way of saying, "hey, this is my job to do". The have a date when they will take effect. Depending on purpose they have many common elements. None of these elements are on any of the short summary statements of what these EOs are?

I don't believe the real language has been given to us. I do know that on TV he stated and showed us himself signing the documents.

So what did he sign and why have they not released the true language of the documents?
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
lcpiper, what happens is that the EO, if they are actual directives, go to the indicated agency and to Government Printing Office (GPO). The GPO then prints and releases the EO's to the Federal Register.... That's when we get to see exactly what was written/directed (unless, of course, it relates to National Security).

This is what I'm waiting for, before I make too many asinine comments.
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
Originally posted by rickyrick
I see where doctors who accept Medicare, Medicaid and other government insurance are gonna get strong armed into disqualifying people from firearm ownership.
Click to expand...

Neither a doctor nor any other healthcare professional can, on his/her own, disqualify anyone from firearm ownership. A doctor can, and is already supposed to, report people who they have reason to believe to be a danger to themselves or others to the authorities, but it is not the doctor that makes the final call.

18 USC Sec. 922(g)(4) states that a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if said person is one "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Adjudication of mental defect and commitment to mental institutions are both practices that are subject to due process of law and usually require at least a signed order from a judge. Your doctor cannot simply make a phone call or sign a form and disqualify you from owning a gun because he/she thinks you're a little off. The President's executive order does not change the legal definition of a prohibited person because he cannot do that without an act of congress. The President can ask doctors to report anything, but that does not mean that their reports will automatically disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
 
Last edited:
L

lcpiper

New member
Very nice. I can chill till then. I just knew that those snippets we were seeing were not the actual language so I can set my throttle to idle ;)
 
U

USAFNoDak

New member
Freedash22 posted:
Personally, I really feel that banning semi-auto military-style rifles, standard and high-capacity magazines will not provide a lasting solution to the problem. Bad guys will simply carry more magazines.
Click to expand...

You are not looking down the slippery slope far enough. They'll eventually get to another step where they'll limit the number of 10 round magazines any one person can possess. They won't stop where they're at, assuming they'll get there via congress, which is doubtful at this time. They are always thinking ahead, down the road. They patiently wait until a trigger event occurs. Then, they push for their next steps, while we complain about how the existing laws they've passed over the last 40 years are not working. They'll acknowledge that they're not working "well enough" and that more needs to be done, or the laws need to be "tightened up". See New York. They just went from a 10 round limit in the magazine to a 7 round limit. They'll eventually get around to a 5 round limit. :mad:
 
F

freedash22

New member
Magazine Capacities

I think the new 7-round magazine capacity limits in NY are offensive!

Are all pistols and rifles supposed to have capacities equal to that of revolver!?
Maybe they'll define a" high-capacity" magazine as a magazine holding more rounds than a revolver.

Then they'll make a law that bans all "high-capacity" revolvers
(more than 3 rounds).
That's insane!

What's next? They will allow the purchasing of full-autos (to act like they want to give some in exchange for the new laws) but limit proprietary magazine capacities to 1 round?

Seeing the potential of the new laws and what others have posted here, I am convinced they are setting the stage for worse laws down the road.
 
Last edited:
Y

youngunz4life

New member
best to just go for some 5 or 6shots revolvers in NY i guess...what else can one do

I am confused about the law. Can you have a larger magazine as long as when confronted you only have say six in mag and one in chamber? I thought I read something about they only have one year to SELL these larger magazines. I am a revolver guy, but how small do these mags go anyways? I mean really this seems a little ludicrous. I apologize if this has already been covered in this thread.

I do believe this might be a Nightmare for a legal citizen carrying an 8shot revolver too.

"Yeah but Sir this is a revolver." I can just see the frustration and issue(s) with this. "The law isn't supposed to mean revolvers Sir." I am a revolver guy with only 6shots as my top cylinder capacity, live in a gun friendly state, and I still feel affected by this NY law...I can only imagine the actual residents trying to do the right thing but in a jam. Firearms aren't cheap, and some people aren't into selling the accessories.
 
G

gc70

New member
USAFNoDak said:
You are not looking down the slippery slope far enough.
Click to expand...

This is precisely correct. The original proposal for what became the National Firearms Act of 1934 defined a machine gun as "any weapon designed to shoot automatically, or semi-automatically, 12 or more shots without reloading." 79 years later, the gun control crowd is still trying to limit capacity. They never abandon their goals, but only change the immediate paths toward those goals.
 
S

shortwave

New member
I think the new 7-round magazine capacity limits in NY are offensive!
Click to expand...

I think all the gun laws in NY(esp. NYC) as well as the 'oh so strict' gun regs in most all the east coast states are offensive. The sad reality is the people keep voting the same anti-gun politicians into office time after time.

And when gun issue's are not a 'hot' topic, and you bring up the topic of "why did you vote for(insert your fav, anti-gun politician) that politician is very anti-gun ", many of those that voted for that anti-gun politician response has been something to the effect of, "well...there are more important things to consider then gun control...or... I liked the way he/she(politician) did so and so and nobodies really pushing for more gun control now anyway...or...(and one of my favs.) Obama just has to much on his plate with everything else going on to worry about gun control".

Funny how quickly things can change, eh!
 
M

MLeake

New member
I see a general correlation between politicians who favor gun control and...

... politicians who favor criminalizing "hate speech";

... politicians who favor requiring licensing fees for every side job imaginable;

... politicians who favor dictating what utilities a resident may contract;

... politicians who favor banning any activity they don't like (smoking in bars, for example).

I think you would have a very hard time finding me an anti politician who doesn't also support those kinds of things.

It's all about telling the little people how to behave, and worse, how to think.
 
S

shortwave

New member
Agree, MLeake.

IMO, in short, they lean towards believing in a more socialist then capitalist society.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top