Obama’s Gun-Control Order Is Dictatorial, and It Won’t Work

National Review ^ | January 5, 2015 | John R Lott Jr

[richardb72]

Today, upset that Congress has refused, in his words, to do “something, anything” to stop gun violence, President Obama released executive actions that bring the country closer to his oft-stated goal of “universal” background checks that cover the private transfer of firearms.

The current law is very clear. Only federally licensed gun dealers are required to conduct background checks, and only sellers whose “principal objective of livelihood and profit [is] the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” are required to obtain a federal license. Anyone “who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms” is specifically exempted from the licensing requirement.

But that doesn’t matter to Obama, whose actions today will require many sellers to get a license if they sell even a single gun. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told reporters that licenses would now be required based on such things as, “whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

In an era when private individuals can set up their cell phones to accept credit cards, accepting credit-card payment for one gun will now make selling firearms your “principal objective of livelihood.”

Yet Obama doesn’t have to unilaterally rewrite the law to achieve meaningful reform. He could easily pass universal background checks through Congress, just by including three simple and reasonable changes: . . .

[Lazamataz]

I love John Lott, but he failed to adequately research what this EO actually is. It’s not nearly as damaging as Lott says and what Obama would prefer. I’ve done the homework.

[2banana]

Trump should violate this EO tomorrow and dare obama to arrest him...

[Maelstrom]

Refuse.

It’s unconstitutional and no one will dare oppose wide-spread refusals in court, because this DOES spark a violent civil war within America.

[Maelstrom]

There is no power granted to any branch of government that allows what Obama did to happen.

[adorno]

Obama is so misunderstood...

I think the president is right on with his executive order to cut gun violence. He has the right as president to go over the congress to impose his way on the people, especially when the congress gets in his way and tries to stop his every move.

Obama is the president, and, nobody has the right to question his actions, especially if he can save at least one life. Never mind all of the other laws and restrictions and regulations already in existence to control guns and gun violence. One more regulation and one more executive order won’t be felt much.

Also, never mind that the criminals will still be able to get their hands on guns, no matter what current laws and regulations exist, and no matter how many executive orders are imposed on the people. Criminals are just that, criminals, and they will not obey any laws or regulations, no matter what. What Obama is doing is for the good of the people, and most law abiding people won’t violate the law, so, hopefully, Obama’s new regulations will keep the good people from obtaining guns, which could find their way to the law-breaking bad people.

Oh, by the way...

Obama might have broken constitutional law by going over congress’ head, but, when it’s “for the good of the people”, any law can be broken. And, while Obama doesn’t have the right to limit the right of the people to practice their right to bear arms, it’s still for the good of the people, and so, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is secondary to the good of the people.

The executive order could have the effect of disarming Americans while the bad guys will still be able to get their guns, but again, since we can’t keep the criminals from getting weapons, we have to do the next best thing, and keeping guns from people who could potentially harm someone accidentally, is of the utmost necessity.

Obama believes in what is best for the American people, and breaking the law and doing things that are unconstitutional, are okay, because, it’s “for the greater good”.

Repugnicans will never understand the goodness of Obama’s heart.

[laplata]

You’re right. People are going to carry on as usual.

The only thing Obama accomplished is to again expose himself as the POS he is.

[Mack the knife]

I am perplexed about this action. Why is Obama changing the law to require anyone who wants to sell one of their personal weapons to get an FFL? As I recall, the BATF has been harassing FFLs to get them to quit and turn over all of their sales records; the number of FFLs has plummeted. Yet the subjective nature of the new definition, and the size of the penalty if you guess wrong, will force people to go to the trouble and expense of getting an FFL to sell even one gun from their personal collection; and then with the FFL comes the obligation to allow the BATF to demand entry to inspect every one of your firearms at any time.

In any event, I agree with Lott that this action is lawless. Congress had the opportunity to enlarge the scope of the law when they passed it, and refused to do so. Changing the definition of the words in the law to change its meaning is not permitted by the Constitution.

Other Obama actions are lawless because they define new crimes and modify the text of the HIPPA medical privacy law.

[castlebrew]

Luv ya like a brother Laz, but it’s worse.

Pinprick-in-chief continues to violate the separation of powers, and continues to debase our Constitution, our Natural Rights, and our Liberty.

Just another in a long train of abuses and usurpations, evincing a design to reduce us under despotism.

[BwanaNdege]

[Tzimisce]

THEN WHY DID YOU BACK FUNDING IT NATIONAL REVIEW???????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eyedigress]

Damn, My Mom gave me my first gun for Christmas, Shortly after buying it!

Got to hell Obama.

[patriot08]

Well, let’s see; Hussein is trying to disarm America, guts the military and imports thousands upon thousands of Muslim ‘refugees’. What do you suppose he’s up to? hmmmm?

[midwest_hiker]

Obama is taking the long way home.
This is the next step, so when they do not get the results desired, another step towards total confiscation.
Up the ante, for when EVER has a law NEVER been revamped or increased.
Take DUI, not enough results, lower the %\, and call it “for the good of everyone”, a sensible logical next step.
Why is every day Americans being treated like a “Pre -Criminal”

[laplata]

I see your point and agree.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

[b4its2late]

More posturing and PR by Bambi than actual teeth. As the tears fall.....

[JayAr36]

Why isn’t the Muslim Mutt disarming his brothers in the hood. His constant attack on law abiding citizens is a joke. This moron can’t see the forest for the trees can he?

[catnipman]

President Trump has vowed that on his first day in office, he will revoke this EO and every other unconstitutional EO issued by Obama. It would be even better if President Trump simply revoked ALL of Obama’s EOs with Trump Presidential EO #1, and then reissued any that actually might some merit.