“If it happens, there’s not a lot I can do about it, I will comply with the law. If it does happen, boy it would be a good week, and then I wouldn’t have anything to sell and no one would be buying anything for a couple of months.” – Joe Morrell, owner of Old Town Gunslingers in Obama plans executive action on gun control soon [via idahostatejournal.com]
He doesn’t make law. Theit invalid.
If it happens I will NOT comply…
He can’t make law it would be invalid. Gun owners don’t comply! Stand up people don’t put up with this tyrant crap.
It would absolutely be valid, regardless of your position on the issue. Slavery was made illegal by EO. Try capturing someone and keeping them as a slave and see how invalid an EO is after you get life in prison.
Um slavery was made illegal by a constitutional amendment. Slavery was still legal in the slave states that did not join the Confederacy. Lincolns EO was directed at the union soldiers to release/free any slave. He had zero power to free any slaves in the territory still under control of the Confederacy.
Oddly enough, in areas of Louisiana that were under Federal control, such as the New Orleans area, slavery actually continued–legally.
Also note that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in Union states like Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky. Lincoln was not the hero he is often set up to be.
Also, there were challenges to the emancipation proclamation in court that had a strong chance of success. The early republicans loved the idea of a strong, centralized federal government with a unitary executive (kinda like almost all republicans in power do today). They thought a court dismissing Lincoln’s proclamation would weaken the presidency and shift the country from nationalism back to federalism, so they passed the 13th amendment, which made it a moot point. The courts dismissed the case, and we have been stuck with laws created by presidential fiat ever since.
Slavery was not made illegal by an EO. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states (and, in Louisiana, areas of a state) that were at war with the US. It had no actual legality whatsoever, it was pure propaganda to induce the British to decline to recognize the CSA. Slavery was made illegal by a Constitutional amendment.
It is my understanding that was a unique constitutional amendment, while we’re at it. Supposedly, instead of the usual ratification process, it is simply listed as “Decided on the field of battle”. Which really makes sense, since there were a lot of states (the entire confederacy) which would have never ratified it. Can anybody confirm that?
@ LarryinTX
The 13th Amendment was ratified normally. Any language about being ratified on the battle field is purely editorial in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification
It followed the normal ratification process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_by_the_states
ratified normally although only those who did not take part in the secession could be a part of the process.
You’d probably get away with it as long as you just forced him to bake gay wedding cakes.
Woo hoo, yep he just went there….Cake anyone?
The validity of executive action depends on a variety of factors, including whether the legislature has acted or manifested its intent not to act. Zero’s executive order would almost certainly run counter to the intent of congress and invade the purvue of the states and would be invalid.
Not to mention that pesky Amendment…
No, he can’t make “law,” but he can make regulations to implement a law passed by Congress, regulations that have the force of law. And congress has a habit of passing ambiguous laws, empowering the legislative branch to enact regulations interpreting those laws. For example, the applicable federal statute does not define “in the business of selling” firearms, and thus it is up to the President, through his executive agencies, to define the term. For a long time, the BATFE has defined “in the business” as selling more than 50 firearms per year; that is about to change, and the regulation will be lawful, absent Congressional action.
Where did you get tat “50 a year” number? I have read over and over again that there is at present no set number of transactions that defines being “in business”.
That’s debatable. Under the interpretation favored currently by the Federal Government, sure, the President can make law. He gets to decide things like what “in the business means”.
I would say it’s a blatant violation of the Constitution. The Framers were well-acquainted with Administrative Law, and they did not include any provision for it in the Constitution. They didn’t think the executive should be allowed write the laws and enforce them, and that was the interpretation favored by the Federal government and Supreme Court until the late 19th Century.
in the wise words of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson … “Just Bring It!”
I thought you were going to go with “IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!”
We need to close the “Executive order loophole”
There, back at ‘cha.
O2
There’s no such thing as an executive order loo-
Oh, i get it.
How ’bout a loopy executive?
Obama is not constrained by the constitution, good sense or even common decency. If you voted for him, take responsibility and express publicly to your friends and family your mistake. Maybe it will change the 2016 election. Also, if you did not vote, get off your @ss and do it next time. Don’t waste it on a libertarian! The republicans are terrible but at least are not actively making it worse.
“Mediocrity over Active Sabotage.”
You should work for the Jeb campaign.
Peter, attack me instead of the message. If people would have not voted libertarian in 2008 we would right now had a real chance of having Palin running the country. A little better than Mr. Obama no? I don’t like Jeb, I do like Cruz if that helps you to understand my position. If you vote libertarian you hand the keys over to Marxists.
Sorry, neither blue nor red tribe deserves my vote. You must do what you think is right for you. YOU do not decide for ME. If you think so, you are part of the problem. Actually, after reading your posts, you are the problem. Tribal nonsense that you are drinking like cool aid.
Enjoy and have a nice life. Me, I will vote my conscience and sleep well at night.
Just don’t complain when Hilary is the prez.
Libertarians are not Marxists. Karl Marx thought that Capitalism inevitably leads to socialist revolution and eventually a communist style of government.
Libertarians are the exact opposite of that.
“If people would have not voted libertarian in 2008 we would right now had a real chance of having Palin running the country.”
What facts even remotely support this conclusion? While struggle with that, allow me to lay down some facts. In order for Palin to be president now, McCain would have to have won in 2008, either chosen not to run for re-electionbor else diedbin office, and Palin win in her own right in 2012.
McCain winning in 2008? How? Name ONE state McCain lost, which he would have won had those voting Libertarian instead on GOP. Trick question, since there is one, but only one: Indiana. Obama won IN with 1,374,039 votes to McCain’s 1,345,648. There were 29,257 ballots cast for the Libertarians, which would have brought McCain up to 1,374,905 and won the state by a slender 866 vote margin, if they’d voted GOP. Indiana has but 11 electoral college votes, however, which would not have altered the 365 to 173 actual outcome.
By the way, in the past 12 presidential elections, McCain is the only GOP candidate to failed to carry Indiana. That alone blows any theory that he was ever on the verge if winning anything.
McCain’s still living today, so it’s unlikely he would’ve died in office, elevating Palin. He would’ve run for re-election himself in 2012, not left it to Palin. Every living president runs for re-election, unless his popularity is such that it’s unwinnable (LBJ), and then his party loses. If Palin had a chance, she would’ve attempted it in 2012 and challenged Obama. She had no chance.
And if she’s won, she might have just quit, and walked away from the office by now.
Sorry. If GOPniks want my vote, they damn better earn it. Nominating someone who is not obama-lite would be a good start.
“JEB – He’ll try not to make things any worse!”
“Don’t waste it on a libertarian!”
When this is the only thing both parties actively agree on, you have to wonder why. I see that you have bought the party line in this regard. This is what keeps us mired in the pile we are in. Simply put: we dont have a viable third party option because the two existing parties keep telling us not to. Voting for Libertarians isnt a wasted vote. We need to actively vote out more of the establishment, and vote in people who will do what we want. And if they get into office and dont do what we want, we need to vote them right on out on their ears. Perhaps electing a third party president will have enough impact that more beneficial things would get done in Washington.
That worked out well for us in 1992. Or did you forget Ross Perot splitting the repubs and giving Bill Clinton the White House. He was a friend of the 2nd right?
Idealism in politics rarely if ever works well. Sadly history teaches us again and again that ugly fact.
Sure, because too many people were too concerned with the D, I, or R that came after the candidates name, rather than what we really needed from a president. G.H.W.B. was not the republican president we were looking for. Also, voting Libertarian IS NOT handing the keys to the Marxists. However, the thought that we CANNOT elect a third party IS handing the keys to them. The party line is whats killing us. Voting the party line IS NOT working.
Sorry, we’re a two party system. Always has been and I don’t see any reason it’s going to change soon. A third party vote will simply hand the keys to more people like Obama. Good luck with that.
Actually, a third party vote, Green Party in 2000, handed the election to the Republicans. Nader’s 97,488 votes in Flori-duh easily would have overcome Bush’s 537 vote victory in the state, and pushed Gore into electoral college majority.
Republicans don’t lose because some people vote Libertarian. Republicans lose because:
1. They try to be “Democrat-lite”, and liberals prefer to vote for the real thing.
2. In trying to appeal to liberals and mythical”moderates”, Republicans turn off their conservative base of support, who then stay home.
As for libertarians, far more either stay home or get duped into voting Dem based on inconsequential fringe issues (legal weed, gay marriage, etc.), than actually go vote Libertarian. You can’t lose votes you never had.
Republicans need to be loud and proud free market conservatives, leave the social issues to the states, and they will win the White House. If not, they’ll lose.
Get a Republican candidate who isn’t a fear mongering, racist, Christian nutjob, and (s)he might have a chance at getting my vote. Until then, no R or D.
In 1992, if the Repubs had dropped out, as they should have given the lack of noticeable difference from the Dems, then Perot would have won, and the following years might have been even better, as it was they were pretty good, once Bill noticed that he needed to leave guns alone and drop single payer med care.
Nick, you forgot “sexist”.
Someone who is so easily and completely duped into believing every Republican is a Christian racist nutjob probably shouldn’t be voting for a viable candidate anyway. Please go ahead and vote for marginal candidates.
>> Sorry, we’re a two party system.
A two-party system doesn’t mean that it’s always the same two parties. Depending on how you count, the parties in question have already changed radically 5 or 6 times since the founding of the Republic. In most cases the names were retained in the process, but not always, either.
It is entirely possible that some kind of libertarian party would replace GOP. Or possibly take over from within, retaining the name again.
But it won’t happen if you keep voting for the right lizard so that the wrong lizard doesn’t win.
You all need to remember it is The Electoral College Vote that wins the Presidency. Do some research and you’ll learn the reality is that splitting the Vote either R or D can affect the ECV.
Take a look at this website: http:www.270towin.com
Why is Rand Paul, an avowed Libertarian, trying to get the Republican Nomination?
Why is Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist, trying to get the Democratic Nomination?
In the end only a Republican or Democrat is going to win the Presidency, and that’s a hard fact which is just plain short-sited to refuse to acknowledge (to put it charitably).
No, those guys just want the shortcut of established parties.
First, a political party represents a brand. That brand is associated over many years with certain traits. It’s why you can walk into a MacDonald’s in Bangkok and know you’ll get the same tasting Big Mac as in Beaumont. (I know it, because I’ve done it.)
If you start a fast food joint or a political party from scratch, you have to build that brand awareness yourself, which can take decades. For example, in the last twelve years, Five Guys Burger and Fries has added over one thousand stores, with another fifteen hundred currently under development.
Impressive? Yes, but it took SEVENTEEN years to get up to the first five stores. In politics, ain’t nobody got time for that, as the kids say. Everybody wants to be King today. Nobody wants to spend decades at the grassroots building a party infrastructure.
Second, just getting on the ballot is a Herculean task, for lack of existing party infrastructure. Take Texas: a political party is automatically on the ballot and is eligible to field candidates in every race, if that party garnered 5% or more of the statewide vote in the prior election. Dems and Reps meet that threshold everywhere. Startup parties have to go the petition and/or write-in routes everywhere.
Even if they pull that off, they have to sustain it with electoral success. None of the “third parties” out there is on the presidential ballot in all fifty states. Their eligibility ebbs and flows each election.
Your major third party presences over the last century or so have been vanity candidacies playing spoiler roles. Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Perot in 1992, and Nader in 2000. Even Trump has flirted with running as an independent if he fails to win the GOP nomination.
Trump and his larger than life presence could pull that off. Paul? Sanders? No way. Lacking that personal presence or years of party building, they run as Dems and Reps.
My rhetorical questions about Sanders and Paul were intended to elicite the answer you gave. There are no viable third party runs in the 2016 scenario. Even Trump would fail.
My point was to remind those quibbling about “wasted votes” that in the end one needs to be conscious of the Electoral College and its history in the past few Presidential Elections when one casts his/her vote in November 2016. Either the Republican Nominee or the Democrat Nominee will garner the 270 votes required to win the Presidency, and NO ONE ELSE. Voting for a Party Nominee with no chance of Winning the Presidency, or abstaining from voting because your person did not get one or the other of the viable Nominations can be dangerous to your long-term interests. Play around with the EC Map at http://www.270towin.com and you can see that every vote in every State is critical, in this upcoming Election.
Uh, I think Paul is a Republican Senator.
Yes, Rand Paul is officially a Republican, but strongly Libertarian in his core thinking…a LIBERINO? He appears to have put on a Republican cloak to get elected Senator in KY.
Bernie Sanders was an :”Independent” up until 2015 when he magically became a Democrat to run for President because he knows a Socialist could never get a viable run at the Presidency, but not-so-secretly Sanders is a Socialist.
I’d like to apologize for my vote in 2012. I was part of the problem then, plan and being part of the solution now.
“Don’t waste it on a libertarian!”
With all due respect, BULLHOCKEY!
Your vote is really nothing more than a means of communication. If you don’t vote you’re communicating that you’re happy with the decisions of the other people that actually vote. If you vote R or D, you’re communicating that you’re happy with what that party is doing and the status quo. If you vote for a third party such as Libertarian, you’re communicating that you are unhappy with what the R’s & D’s are doing along with the added benefit of showing where you fall with the issues.
So don’t tell me my L vote is a wasted vote. The only wasted vote is when you vote R or D while holding your nose because you’re casting a vote for the lessor of two evils.
Actually, when I don’t vote I am signaling that I am removing my consent from the process all together. You voted, you are for blame for the mess.
Not to me. Not voting signals you’re too lazy to get in the line. I always vote, and if nobody has earned my approval, there is always a name there with no possibility of winning, so I signal that I got off my ass and showed up, but no one had earned my vote. If you don’t vote, nobody cares, your vote was unwinnable.
More fun, I am no longer certain that I believe that anybody actually counts our votes, as opposed to just faking numbers to suit a predecided winner. Likely a further symptom of being unable to believe there were enough people stupid enough to elect Obama TWICE!
In 2012, did you vote for the candidate who had promoted socialized medicine, signed a gun ban, supported war both abroad and against the American people or did you vote for Obama? Like they say, don’t urinate on my back and tell me it is raining. Both parties are corrupt and unworthy of my vote. We have had the same people in control since late 1992, big war, big business and big government. Invade the world, invite the world. No thanks, I remove my consent.
“Both parties are corrupt and unworthy of my vote. We have had the same (*) people in control since late 1992, big war, big business and big government. Invade the world, invite the world. ”
…(*) kind of …
Fixed it.
And yes, ^THIS!!
Both parties ARE corrupt!!
Can’t argue with that! I don’t even remember who I voted for, but it was not a Dem or Rep. One of our sorrier choices, tho I’m not sure it was worse than 2008.
Actually primaries matter. If you have a democrat as your congressman or senator , you likely will next year too. Vote in democratic primaries. You can still vote republican in the general if you want. Let’s get the far left worst of the worst out of the Democratic Party.
Obama wants to dictate to the people, free of the constraints of the Congress and of the constitution.
That is called being a dictator. The same process happened in Rome where the emporor was a temporary position voted in by the Roman Senate, that over time, the emperor became a lifetime position of what was no longer considered a man, but that of a god.
All bow before his demi-godhood, The Obama. At least, that is what Obama craves, needs with all of his definitely narcissistic and probably sociopathic soul.
Supposedly there is also a new “research” piece by the Hemmenway’s Harvard group that shows in a random survey of 2000 gun owners, 40% got their guns with no background check.
I always love cherry pie with fresh picked cherries.
Before i started building my own, I only had 1 gun that was purchased through a FFL, buying a slightly used firearm for 150 less or more than buying from a gun store was the least expensive alternative I’m the last year I probably bought 8 rifles through private sales, I had to sell 5 after being laid off, including my carry gun. After regaining employment I sold two rifles to fund two built rifles and bought two handguns. Unfortunately all of my guns now except for 1 are on a list somewhere.
Providing that 40% isn’t just a complete lie I can pretty much guarandamtee you that the vast majority of those nonbackground checked acquired firearms fall under the “Inherited legal firearm from (fill in deceased relative) category”
Of course that little fact won’t be mentioned.
They found 2000 people stupid enough to admit they were gun owners to a stranger on the phone? I say BS flag, not in the whole country. They falsified the results.
Given the abysmal state of polling in the US, this is where I am at: The results are somewhere between totally skewed and outright falsified. The response rate for political polls is around 9%, and most national polls (which are expensive) are based on 400-1000 people right now. They polled 2000 gun owners? No way.
CONTACT YOUR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES (DEMAND OVERT AND VOCAL RESPONSE), IF THEY CAN’T PROTECT YOU FROM THIS CR_P, THEY NEED TO PACK THEIR GEAR AND GO HOME, AND RENOUNCE THEIR RETIREMENT.
We don’t condone communism or facism in the Whitehouse, we tolerate even less from our other representatives when they tolerate it.
Then there’s this – HR4269 – 124 sponsors
https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr4269/BILLS-114hr4269ih.xml
Wow. The stupid, it is strong among these!
It’s going to be fluff, folks.
People of the gun seem to be growing stronger, on the whole. Compared to the 80’s and 90’s, the gun culture of today is sh*tting in high cotton.
We’ve taken some licks, yeah, but that’s how fighting goes; at times you hit, at times you get hit.
Don’t panic. Or do. I honestly don’t care if you panic.
I like buying cheap guns and ammo off people who panic buy and over extend their finances.
Am I too young or what? Before Ofama I didn’t even know what an executive order is
EO’s have been around since the dawn of the Republic. They have been more extensively used, and abused, by both parties when in power, in recent years.
Typically, EOs are unnecessary because Congress has abdicated its legislative responsibilities to the alphabet agencies. These days EOs are used to further a political agenda after Congress and the agencies have indicated they’ve done all they’re going to be able to do to fulfill the agenda. Many members of the media are in full lockstep agreement with the agenda, gun control in this case, and are willing forsake their journalistic integrity to achieve this political goal. It will be more a PR stunt than anything else but its likely why you’re hearing more about them lately.
Voting? Really? The EC is ALL that matters and the fix is in. Stand by for the “Clinton Show” should run about 8 years or more……….
I remember that show from 2008. It was supposed to be a runaway blockbuster megahit. Then focus groups saw the pilot and it never got picked up.
Only thing Hillary’s ever won were a couple of carpetbagger, gimme, Senate races in deep blue New York. She’s not an able politician. She isn’t an effective campaigner. She’s not even basically likeable.
That’s why she’s outraised that socialist septuagenarian Sanders some 2.35 to 1, yet he’s nipping at her heels in Iowa and has overtaken her in New Hampshire. I’m not saying that she won’t win or can’t win, just that her winning is not a foregone conclusion.
Yep, now that Barack O’Bama has locked up the ‘Gun Salesperson of the Decade’ award he’s hell bent on locking up the ‘Gun Salesperson of the Century’ award. His campaign motto should have been ‘A (taxpayer funded) chicken in every pot and a gun in every home’. ‘Hope and Change’, how lame was that?
I am at a bit of a loss here. Depending on the executive order, I might have a difficult time with non-compliance.
To be clear, I have no problem with non-compliance of unconstitutional laws and orders, and I am willing to accept to the consequences of that non-violent non-compliance.
But what if the executive order just prohibits private sales without a background check? As an individual, am I still going to buy guns from anyone I want? Sure will, and I won’t hide it. But I don’t publicize my gun purchases, or sales, as it is now. So why would I in the future?
If the executive order is for specific types of weapons, I guess I could go buy them, but I have my 2016 FFL and manufacturer’s SOT stamp, so none of that would really apply to me anyway.
I think I know where you are coming from. I expect that for the overwhelming majority of gun owners, there won’t be a whole not to “not comply” with. In particular I can’t see how even Obama could engineer an EO to prohibit a particular type of firearm.
I won’t even know about an EO, much less comply, unless I get a registered letter. return receipt etc, and if I know it’s coming I’ll refuse it.
I have no doubt that Obama has a radical agenda for his lame duck year. No surprise here if there is a big reach with EO’s on guns. I truly wish that he makes a big enough reach to impact the Presidential election. God help us, but guns and a Mexican wall just might get Trump/Cruz elected.
I just received my 2A Foundation “voluntary dues” for $15 this week. Sending them $50. After I saw Colion Noir’s NRA video demanding national reciprocity I re-upped with the NRA for 5 more years. I encourage you all to do the same.
Lets face cold hard facts. He is going to make it law through the ATF that you must have a license to sell guns at a gun show and then the ATF being understaffed for years will not even issue licenses to people who do not have a store front in a business area zoned for business. In other words the gun shows are over. Even if people would be allowed to get a license most of course would not want to do this as the ATF can inventory and inspect your place of business at any time and your personal collection would also be at risk of being confiscated. Again the New Law destroys gun shows any way you look at it. If some gun shows do stay open it will be with just a few dealers and every sale will have to go through a licensed dealer and many people do not want to have their used gun purchases registered either. Again another nail in the coffin for gun shows.
I am glad I was able to live in the times I lived as they will never come again as the noose tightens ever more tightly around all gun owners necks until it chokes the life out of every gun owner in the U.S. We are finished as a gun owning free nation. The terrorists provided the perfect excuse for the power mad people in power to finally achieve what they have always wanted “absolute power over their worker slaves”.
It’s difficult for me to find anyone at a gun show selling more than one or two guns that isn’t an FFL, and half of them sell right off to an FFL there at the show. I don’t see it having much of an effect on gun shows.
It’s rare to find more than one or two non-FFLs selling guns at a gun show. Even then, they’re only selling one or two higher priced guns. Otherwise it’s not worth the time and expense.
Everyone knows everyone at the gun shows, and the FFLs are not going to let a non-FFL sell more than one or two guns without ratting him out to the ATF for dealing without a license. (Just how many gun sales constitutes “dealing” is unquantified, but it’s supposed to be not so many as to be a regular for-profit enterprise.)
The OP’s point referred to FFLs at gun shows who don’t have their own retail storefront elsewhere. Currently, you don’t need a store front to be an FFL, nor to sell at a gunshow. Many kitchen table FFL without storefronts utilize the gun show circuit as their travelling storefront.
If Obama targets these smaller FFLs, for not having storefronts, then gun shows could be in danger for lower overall FFL participation.
Good points. Thanks
My big concern is what he might try to do with Internet sales of firearms and ammunition. The Internet is a 24/7 nationwide gun show where anyone can compete. He may have more solid legal footing, since at least that is interstate commerce.
Even the “smallest” FFL has to do the BC thing, right? So Zero’s projected EO wouldn’t affect them. It will be aimed at “unlicensed” dealers. Or am I missing something?
Those unlicensed types still need a spot to display their wares, and gun show tables are a ways from being free. If we’re talking about people with a business big enough to afford the table, who do not have an FFL, I suspect we would be happy to call them friends, they are the ones who really MEAN “I will not comply”. Otherwise, why not have a license?
jwt, that has been precisely my experience, and I am on the other side from you. Several times I have showed up at a gun show with one or two guns to sell, I do not recall ever three. Once a person spotted a gun I hadn’t offered yet, and offered me 3X what I’d paid 25 years earlier, the deal was over so fast I didn’t know whether he was a dealer or not. Every other time, it was a dealer who purchased my guns. So such a ruling might have affected my sale of one gun in the past 30 years. Not thinking that’s a big deal.
It’ll be something WEAK so as not to lose the immaculation for the hildebeast. Like so-called “universal” background” BS. Remember 2014? THAT had a lot to do with guns. Way more involved now in gun rights/carry/ownership and tellingly-activism. BTW we’ve had uni checks in Illinois for awhile and NO difference-just another hoop for legal ownership…
The Republicans are threatening to defund the security detail of the governor of Virginia in retaliation of his ant-gun stance and the AG’s recent stunt to eliminate the reciprocity of concealed carry holders in 25 other states.
http://bearingarms.com/va-gop-may-strip-mcauliffe-protective-detail-concealed-carry/
I think that would be a fair thing to do for our Republican congress to do the same thing for our president.
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, DEFUND THE PRESIDENT’S SECURITY DETAIL.