Biden: Executive Orders Will Only Provide Guidelines Within Existing Laws, No New Regulations

Vice President Joe Biden has already started leaking his recommendations to the president ahead of Tuesday’s press conference. His proposals are expected to include a “high cap” mag ban, a ban on the sale of “weapons of war” (a.k.a., “assault weapons”) and other unconstitutional ideas. The executive orders mentioned by his boss on Monday appear to only address stricter enforcement of existing laws, such as tightening the definition of “sporting purpose” for imported rifles and shotguns. So it might be time to fold up the tin foil hats. For now. Here’s the word from one Democrat talking about his meeting with Biden . . .

It was all focusing on enforcing existing law, administering things like improving the background database, things like that that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible.

[via Politico]

And you know what? I’m kinda OK with that. If that is actually the extent of the executive orders, that is. Enforcing existing laws before passing new ones is always a good idea.

Something that might also be on the table for executive order: the expansion of the existing mandatory reporting of multiple long gun purchases along the border. Created by Executive Order when the standard “consultation” period didn’t go the Administration’s way.

I could totally see the Admin directing the ATF to require notification from FFL holders anytime something they define as an “assault weapon” is transferred. That I’m not so OK with, being a loophole designed to get around the FOPA embargo on firearms registries.

The focus for the current slew of gun control measures: DO SOMETHING. Pass new laws of implement new EOs as quickly as possible, so politicians won’t be pressured by little annoying things like their constituents calling them and telling them how dumb an idea new gun control laws are.

As in the health care debate, the Administration isn’t bothered by what the majority of Americans want, only what Obama Boyz feel is needed—for their own good. Think a parent forcing a child to take its medicine.

Understandably, the Obama Administration is hesitant to actually bring anything to a real vote or have any debate on the issues. Because they know that the longer the process takes the more voters will understand the issues. And if voters think about the issues of armed self-defense and civilian disarmament, gun control loses.

comments

  1. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I’m very leery of another program like the “Temporary Emergency Measure > Pilot Program > Automatically-renewing Southwest border states long gun registry” being enacted via EO.

  2. avatar Thrawn says:

    … Golf clap?

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      Only if we can handcuff Obama and Biden to a merry-go-round in their underwear.

      1. avatar Ted says:

        You sir, owe me a new keyboard – this one is covered in coffee.

  3. avatar Quantum Zen says:

    Nick, I hope this is the extent of it. I’ve been up sick all night, with what’s been going on in New York and elsewhere, things are looking grim for us gun owners in Connecticut…. But maybe I won’t have to worry about the federal government as much, and can concentrate on the battle in my home state. This will make it easier to sleep tonight; thanks for that.

  4. avatar C says:

    Enforcing existing laws makes too much sense. There has to be more going on.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Yeah, and what’s going on is discreet pushback from red- and purple-state Democrats in Congress who remember ’94 and want to be re-elected.

      They’re talking about an Executive Order because Obama has spent so much time talking about it that just dropping the issue would make him look weak, but by this point someone has explained to Obama and Biden exactly what can be done with an EO (it’s pretty limited). So they’re in damage control/save face mode.

      1. avatar Mike123 says:

        I pray you are right, although I really wanted DiFi’s bill voted on in the Senate. It would result in a bunch of vulnerable dems coming out of the gun-banner closet.

        Personally, I think all this might have to do with Moore v. Madigan, SAF’s lawsuit about bearing arms. Maybe the Dems are trying to show SCOTUS that Americans love their gun control.

  5. avatar SelousX says:

    I’m getting a sense of, “We know best, it’s for your own good,” from the Executive branch.
    It never is. Ever.

    1. avatar WA_2A says:

      +1. This is almost as ridiculous as when Bloomberg banned “high-capacity soft drink cups” in an attempt to stop obesity.

      Almost.

    2. avatar Damion says:

      I’m not sure how this post would give you that “sense” from the executive branch. We need to stop automatically attacking anything this guy does, and concentrate on attacking anything he does that actually threatens our rights.

      Stricter enforcement of existing laws sounds pretty good to me.

      Of course, time will tell.

  6. avatar In Memphis says:

    I will take my tinfoil hat off for now but I wont put it away just yet. I will put away my backup hat though, the lead lined one for SHTF moments.

    1. avatar Benny says:

      Oh man, I forgot about the lead lined ones!!!!

      1. avatar In Memphis says:

        Mine is pre-ban. I was hoping to get a brand new one from China, you know how they still like lead paint. But the UN seems to have a problem with importing dangerous items

      2. avatar Wyndage says:

        The lead-lined hats are the only ones that work. The tin foil hats actually amplify the signal.

        1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

          Do what I did!! I took my tinfoil hat, turned it over and lined the inside with lead wheel weights!!! Protects me, sends the amped up signal back to them, and I always have a supply of lead for reloading!!!

  7. avatar matt says:

    …that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible.

    And you know what? I’m kinda OK with that. If that is actually the extent of the executive orders, that is.

    How about instructing the ATF to not allow any semi-auto firearms to be imported because they lack a sporting purpose? The GCA ’68 would permit it. It is sad that TTAG would support any gun control measure beyond using two hands.

    1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      I’m feeling the same way. Maybe we’ve all been so stressed about the AWB that in this state we’re in we’re actually pleased by things that would’ve really bothered us a scant month ago. It’s almost like people are trying to pick up cool points by competing to be the most open minded. If they want to enforce existing laws, how about the begin with the original law regarding firearms, that being the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution?

    2. avatar William says:

      Yup.

  8. avatar Benny says:

    Yeah right.
    I know how this movie ends..

  9. avatar Patrick says:

    Advice from some one who used live in state of Kalifornia. Untill hear news from horse mouth or this case jackass Joe Biden Obama. I would rest easy all about them not try disarming us all. After all when have facts of matter that where unfavorable to Obama stop him from doing any thing he want to do in White House.

    1. avatar William says:

      I really don’t understand what you were trying to say.

  10. avatar Dave S says:

    am thinking if things get too far out of hand we just push the House to fund ATFE at the baseline of $0.00 for the next fiscal year. save a few bucks, and divvy up the legit workload to fbi ss dea and whatever other agencies still have money….this year!

    1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      I like your idea, and I had a different idea too. I think we should all take some time to go to a local armed forces recruiting station and do everything in our power to dissuade potential recruits from joining. Even if each of us only convinces one person that’ll still add up to a lot of empty bunks on Ft Jackson, Perris Island, Lackland AFB and wherever it is that they train the Navy. I know what you’re thinking,”But Barstow, the military is so important, they protect our freedom and our way of life.” Without getting into too much debate about that, I think we can all agree that the government needs our young men and women to stay in power, and despite all the complaining we’re doing about the government, we’re still standing by as they recruit our young to serve a regime that is actively oppressing us and taking away our freedoms. If they want to take away our guns, I think the peasantry should revolt by taking away our sons, until D.C. remembers who has the power.

      1. avatar Taurus609 says:

        BC, they are deescalating the war in Afghanistan, meaning a lot of troops will be coming state side and mustering out of the military. I don’t think they are worried about new recruits at this time!

        1. avatar William says:

          Actually, they PROMISED to de-escalate Afghanistan. I’m sure that promise is every bit as good as “no new taxes for folks making under $250,000” and “I’m not going to take your handguns, shotguns or rifles.”

      2. avatar matt says:

        wherever it is that they train the Navy

        Great Lakes Naval Base in North Chicago, IL.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      We need to defund the FBI, SS, DEA and any other Federal law enforcement agencies. The Federal government was never meant to have domestic police powers.
      As for “being OK” with enforcing current gun laws, what part of “…shall not be infringed…” do you not understand. If a person cannot be trusted with a weapon, they do not belong on our streets.

  11. avatar Greg Camp says:

    Here’s a challenge to gun control freaks: Show me one example of where you’ve been willing to offer anything that my side wants. Your side claims that you’re all about compromise and common sense and being reasonable. Fine. Show me one example of where you’ve offered to give up anything in return for your wishes.

    This is a war. We’re fighting it in the legislatures and courts, but it’s a war nonetheless. Any ground lost is ground lost. I have no expectation that the other side will give up anything in return, so why should I be willing to yield?

    1. avatar matt says:

      I have no expectation that the other side will give up anything in return, so why should I be willing to yield?

      Which is why you’re not a elected official. I’m sure the grabbers in congress give up things all the time, they’re just not related to gun control.

    2. avatar Ivy Mike says:

      The way to meet in the middle with the Left, and follow the Constitution, is to enforce the complete 2A and Constitution.

      1. “Emancipate” ourselves from the military-industrial-complex and disband the Standing Army by starving it of funding. (It’s been way longer than the 2 year time limit in the Constitution, and the intent of the 2A was to “prevent a Standing Army”[1] anyway.) That’s a military cut!
      2. “Organize” and “discipline” (Article 1, section 8) the Militia into a “well regulated” citizen-milita like the Swiss[2] have fielded successfully.
      3. Stop the NRA’s craven bootlicking, “supporting the troops,” which is actually supporting an “engine of oppression”[3] and “the greatest mischief.”[4]
      4. Without an unconstitutional Standing Army, the Government can’t oppress the people, so you can “dispense” with all the talk about a war against the government that scares so many people, and our nation would be safer from “Blowback” terrorist attacks caused by military adventurism.
      ____________

      [1] “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
      [2] “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791
      [3] “…no such engine of oppression as a standing army.” ~Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814
      [4] “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” ~James Madison

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Why are you so opposed to a standing army? It’s not like an army can do much good when it’s sitting.

    3. avatar William says:

      +100,000
      Here’s MY proposal: IMPEACH NOW. IMPEACH NOW. IMPEACH NOW. OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE. Compromise IS negotiation!

  12. avatar JSIII says:

    They want better sharing of info between the ATF and local law enforcment…that meams they will let the locals do what the feds “cant” maintain an illegal firearms registry.

    1. avatar matt says:

      Local LEOs all ready have access to eTrace.

  13. avatar Silver says:

    Actions, buddy, not words. Words from a politician are worth less to me than the Constitution is to a leftist.

  14. avatar Smaj says:

    Many thought Obamacare would not get through congress. It got through congress. Many thought the Supreme Court would declare it unconstititional. The SCOTUS did not. Many thought Obama would not be reelected. He got reelected. These people have a knack of getting their way. The people fighting for our 2A rights against these people are definitely worried about this and are definitely NOT wearing tin foil hats.

    1. avatar Schizuki says:

      This +1000000.

    2. avatar In Memphis says:

      SCOTUS has made rulings regarding unconstitutional gun control.

      Apples and Oranges

  15. avatar Joe M says:

    I’ll be more than happy to fold up my tinfoil hat when this is all over with, until then I’m keeping an eye out and an ear open. Allowing the president to directly enact legislation is dangerous and in my opinion unconstitutional.

  16. avatar Schizuki says:

    Obama has a long record of blatant, shameless bullshitting. This isn’t nearly over.

  17. BE VERY WARY OF THEIR UNDERLYING AGENDA. THEY CAN’T BE TRUSTED. I’D BET THAT THE BRUNT OF THEIR DISARMAMENT INITIATIVE WILL BE FELT WHEN THE UN RECONVENES LATER THIS SPRING.

    1. avatar Anmut says:

      Exactly – piss people off in the winter when they are stuck inside and you will have a fight. Piss them off in the spring when people have to make the choice between calling/writing officials and going to play golf and you will have a very reduced fight.

      I believe this is their exact plan.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Earth to Jeffrey — turn off the caps lock.

  18. avatar TangledThorns says:

    I could see a EO on magazine bans so Obama can say he did something and provide cover to congressional Democrats. No bans on semi-automatic rifles though.

    1. avatar William says:

      You are about to find out how wrong you are, midday tomorrow. Will you AT LEAST wake up then?

  19. avatar Outlaw says:

    “And you know what? I’m kinda OK with that. If that is actually the extent of the executive orders, that is. Enforcing existing laws before passing new ones is always a good idea.”

    First, you believe Biden.

    Second, you advocate enforcing existing bad law even harder.

    I’ll wait and see.

  20. avatar pk in AZ says:

    Quote: “Something that might also be on the table for executive order is something like the existing mandatory reporting of multiple long gun purchases along the border that is currently im place.”

    BULLCRAP!

    The only reason this is being done was due to the FACT that they (ATF, DOJ, obama, holder etc.) GOT CAUGHT WITH BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS WITH FAST AND FURIOUS!

    And those asshats tried to cover it up!

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Not only that, but I thought that this was in direct violation of the law congress enacted requiring this kind of reporting on handguns. I read somewhere that this law specifically prohibited this sort of reporting requirement on long guns. So the President and the ATF are once again breaking the law.

  21. avatar Anmut says:

    Step 1) Get the natives in a tizzy about banning their guns.

    Step 2) Show them that you’re “only enforcing existing laws”

    Step 3) Wait for them to calm down

    Step 4) Wait for spring when the weather is nicer and then quietly shove a Fienstein bill down their throats.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      shove a Fienstein bill down their throats.

      I think you got the direction and the body part wrong.

      1. avatar In Memphis says:

        Ralp, do you mean latteraly in to her ear?

  22. avatar Peter says:

    With these clowns it is like hoping that you only get raped a little, don’t even give them an opportunity!

    1. avatar matt says:

      Just the tip

  23. avatar chris says:

    The amount of “common-sense” the politicians have to take “sensible” actions amazes me. On a side note if I have to hear or read those two words when talking about gun control from the current administration, I might vomit.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      If ideas are common sense and sensible, they will stand on their own. Anyone that says these words without putting their ideas on the table is trying to bullsh*t you.

  24. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Politicians lie yet we keep believing them. Why?

  25. avatar Saul Feldstein says:

    Ah, the lull before the storm. Threaten then supplicate. Typical Marxist techniques.

    If you want to understand Obama you better read Rules For Radicals.

    Your tinfoil hats arent thick enough for what this guy is planning.

    1. avatar William says:

      Well, it’s Hegelian, which is the source of all this deception. Marx merely borrowed it.

  26. avatar Armchair Command'oh says:

    “. . . such as tightening the definition of “sporting purpose” for imported rifles and shotguns”

    That’s the problem right there. If the ATF says that a pump shotgun with a capacity over 5 rounds is non-sporting for the purposes of the ’68 Gun Control Act and is thus not importable, all such pump shotguns (even U.S. made) would also be non-sporting for the purposes of the NFA. Consequently, these shotguns would be deemed destructive devices and require registration and a tax stamp.

    In fact, the ATF has already laid the groundwork. According to the ATF, even mounting a flashlight on your home-defense shotgun would be non-sporting! (See page 11 of the 2011 report below)

    http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

  27. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    In 1998, Clinton forbade the import of 58 types of firearms and their accessories.

    “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

    -Clinton staffer Jose Cerda

    [LA Times, Oct. 22, 1997.]

  28. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “So it might be time to fold up the tin foil hats. For now. Here’s the word from one Democrat talking about his meeting with Biden . . .”

    And you believe any statement by Biden or any other Democrap member of the ruling class because ….. ?

  29. avatar RKflorida says:

    If he moved his lips, he’s lying. This brain dead slug is only a breath from the presidency. There’s a happy thought. I think I just wet myself, gotta go.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email