Gun control advocates 'confident' on executive action from Biden after White House meeting

The Washington Times ^ | 10 Feb, 2021 | David Sherfinski

[MtnClimber]

Leaders of prominent gun control groups said Wednesday they expect to see substantive action from President Biden on the issue in the near future after a meeting with White House officials.

“President Biden is committed to taking executive action and working with Congress to put in place reforms that will keep this country’s kids and communities safe,” said Peter Ambler, executive director of the group Giffords. “Today’s meeting was a strong affirmation of that commitment.”

Mr. Ambler and other leaders met virtually with Susan Rice, who leads the White House Domestic Policy Council, and Cedric Richmond, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, said they’re “confident” about seeing executive and legislative action in the “near future.”

The other groups represented at the meeting were Brady and Everytown for Gun Safety.

“We are pleased that the administration recognizes the gravity of this issue and look forward to continued discussion with and actions by the administration to begin confronting the ever-present threat of gun violence that claims over 100 lives a day,” said Kris Brown, president of Brady.

The Wednesday meeting included talk about violence intervention programs, background checks, and banning homemade “ghost” guns, according to the White House.

Some gun control advocates have been frustrated with a lack of early action after Mr. Biden campaigned aggressively on stricter controls like expanding background checks and banning military-style firearms like the AR-15.

[servantboy777]

Glad I live in Texas. I believe the Governor/state legislature are working on 2nd amendment sanctuary status.

[jospehm20]

I am fairly certain the Joestapo will be very occupied when that goes down.

[Cboldt]

-- Enumerated Powers Act would have required Congress to justify all legislation with constitutionally enumerated powers. --

The House does that now, without a legislative mandate to itself.

CRS R44729

Clause 7 of Rule XII requires that each bill or joint resolution introduced in the House be accompanied by a Constitutional Authority Statement citing the power (s) granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the proposed law.

What Scalia's twisted logic was used for, was to enable law that SCOTUS found unconstitutiuonal decades earlier. It (SCOTUS) then allowed lower courts to misinterpret the precedent for decades. Thus the long standing application of law that SCOTUS had held to be unconstitutional, SCOTUS decided became constitutional because SCOTUS liked the law after all.

In partiucular the Miller precedent. But too, Presser was applied for the opposite of what it said, for decades. Legal academia and the courts are intellectually dihonest. Similar to so-called climte "science" and COVID "science," the people in power make it up and bury the reader in reams of prose.

[Cboldt]

-- ... the problem is that patriots have likewise forgotten the significance of the necessity of constitutionally enumerated federal government powers. --

If there was an effective way to keep the feds in bounds, we wouldn't be in this situation today. The public wants a father/mother government, and by golly, universal suffrage will give it to us.

[joma89]

Leftists who want to disarm you and I through illegal means are the enemy, folks.

[servantboy777]

Millions of Americans will just tell the leftist to FO.

[Amendment10]

After doing some scratching, it appears that associated Constitutional Authority Statements: Suggested Citations may be liberal rubber stamp version of Shadegg’s Enumerated Powers Act.

Constitutional Authority Statements: Suggested Citations for Commonly Introduced Legislation (pdf link may not work with some browsers)

https://constitution.congress.gov/static/files/constitutional-authority-statements.pdf

[familyop]

"Some creative EOs could go far to choke out the firearms industry. Nothing “infringed” per se, but no way to practically function beyond homemade muskets either. Near nobody can make a gun, and feed it, to modern standards without being a big enough business that can be shut down by prohibitive regulations.

That would still be an obvious infringement, per se.


From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

  Infringe \In*fringe"\, v. i.
     1. To break, violate, or transgress some contract, rule, or
        law; to injure; to offend.
        [1913 Webster]
  
     2. To encroach; to trespass; -- followed by on or upon; as,
        to infringe upon the rights of another.
        [1913 Webster]

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

  Infringe \In*fringe"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. &
     vb. n. Infringing.] [L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere
     to break. See Fraction, and cf. Infract .]
     1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill
        or obey; as, to infringe a law, right, or contract.
        [1913 Webster]
  
              If the first that did the edict infringe,
              Had answered for his deed.            --Shak.
        [1913 Webster]
  
              The peace . . . was infringed by Appius Claudius.
                                                    --Golding.
        [1913 Webster]
  
     2. To hinder; to destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to
        infringe delight or power. [Obs.] --Hooker.
        [1913 Webster]

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :

  per se
      adv 1: with respect to its inherent nature; "this statement is
             interesting per se" [syn: intrinsically, per se, as
             such, in and of itself]

[ctdonath2]

Of course it’s infringement ... but then you have to make that argument after the fact, when Progressives have created a system (by EO) where anyone is allowed any weapon, with the well-established norm of merely (!) requiring paperwork and modest (!) taxes, and sorry if no business can attain the reasonable (!) standards needed to safely (!) regulate such a dangerous product.

We’ve already given them power of regulation, paperwork, taxation, certification, etc over gun ownership. Don’t be surprised if they use it.