"ONLY terrorists from my 57 states, who enter the
open borders I have left open for THEM, will have guns."
Posted on 07/08/2011 5:20:10 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
WASHINGTON (AP) - Six months after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, the White House is preparing to propose some new steps on gun safety, though they're likely to fall short of the bold measures activists would like to see.
Spokesman Jay Carney said that the new steps would be made public "in the near future." He didn't offer details, but people involved in talks at the Justice Department to craft the new measures said they expected to see something in the next several weeks. Whatever is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues, like banning assault weapons, but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.
"The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said Thursday. "That process is well under way at the Department of Justice, with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues, and we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."
Anti-gun groups have been disappointed to see no action so far from President Barack Obama, who supported tough gun control measures earlier in his career but fell largely silent upon becoming president. Some activists were using the opportunity of the six-month anniversary of the Giffords shooting on Friday to speak up.
The shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., killed six people and wounded more than a dozen others, including Giffords. Two months later, Obama wrote an opinion piece in Giffords' local paper, the Arizona Daily Star, calling for "sound and effective steps" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks. So far the president has done nothing and administration officials have signaled that no major steps should be expected, given the climate in Congress against gun legislation of any kind.
That's not stopping activists from pushing Obama. The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sent Obama a letter calling him to act.
"To prevent the next Tucson, we need a comprehensive background check system, which is what the president called for in April," said the director of the mayors' group, Mark Glaze. "That said, there are many steps the president can take on his own authority, without new laws, that could make a very real difference."
The group's suggestions included enforcing reporting laws that could have stopped the Tucson shooter from getting a weapon.
Unless the order is intended to enforce existing laws, Executive Orders are unconstitutional. The president has no legislative power under the constitution.
IMO it’s best to keep sending it back. What did we, as gun owners, gain in the 86 bill?
For one thing, the ability to pass through hostile states without fear of arrest.
I can legally pass through Kalifornia with my machine guns in my vehicle on my way to Arizona and back.
Unless I do something stupid with them Kalifornia cannot touch me.
this is particularly important in the eastern U.S., states are close together and laws vary widely.
The full bill title was the “Firearm Owners Protection Act”.
I recall ATF killing several gun collectors in their beds had some effect on it getting passed, but never heard of any ATF goons being prosecuted.
Expect the same with “Fast & Furious”.
I do not recall all the provisions of the law off hand, just that 922.(o) was a “minor” amendment with no prior discussion or support.
I also recall the amendment author died last year, good riddance!
"ONLY terrorists from my 57 states, who enter the
open borders I have left open for THEM, will have guns."
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Minor noted that this under-the-radar anecdote matches up with other reporting:
The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.
The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House’s options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. “Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “
That also matches up with Obama’s approach on … nearly everything, it seems. Regulatory adventurism has been a hallmark of every other Obama priority, whether it be health care, financial-services reform, labor policy, and now on gun control. When his agenda is too radical for Congress, Obama simply plans to bypass Congress and rule by decree.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-on-gun-control-under-the-radar/
Typical Obama.
I just based my prognostication on the fact that the AZ shooting was a high profile case where a demoRAT politician was whacked.
(Never mind that a Republican judge was actually killed...) :-(
One thing for sure: the Fort Hood shooting will be ignored.
An EO is just an instruction to the executive branch to do thus and such. It can be totally wiped out by a law passed through Congress ... but of course Bozo would veto such a law, so unless you have a veto-proof majority ... but of course Bozo ignores laws he doesn't like, too.
An EO also can't, by itself, impose any criminal penalties on anyone. It can only tell the executive branch how to enforce the laws that are already on the books. And of course it can be challenged and overturned in court.
But then we get back to Bozo ignoring court decisions he doesn't like, also.
We are very close to a dictatorship in this country. Mark Levin calls it "soft tyranny". The soft tyranny will firm up eventually unless it's overturned.
That’s what I posted in #62!
That is ALWAYS the SOLUTION.
Just ask the ROMANS.
There will be no James Carvile, but there will be nonstop screaming “racism”.
When you make an accusation, make sure it is accurate, which yours was significantly not. Then you won’t have to be concerned about conclusions that people might reach, right?
You should rightfully be burned for making the accusation that one of the finest proponents of the 2nd Amendment ever to occupy the White House did, of his own free will, concoct and put into effect something like that via Executive Order. To point out he signed filthy legislation pushed by liberals instead of vetoing it and forcing an ovverride is one thing.
To fallaciously suggest, as you did, that Reagan created an Executive Order and signed it into effect is quite something else.
And by the way-I hope you don’t take my comments personally, because they are not intended as an attack on you personally.
This is a heated subject, and your comments clearly intended to establish an equivalence to Democrat gun control actions both in the actions of Reagan and HW Bush where there is no such equivalence.
Do the Republicans live up to all of our standards in this respect? Absolutely not.
Are they as bad as the Democrats? Twice as absolutely not. And to impugn Reagan with that error in your attempt to do so was deleterious to the discussion and to the reputation of Ronald Reagan.
“I suspect there are more than enough votes to override a veto by Obama.”
The Dems would stick together. They don’t generally fuss and argue among themselves as do Repubs. They don’t have a RINO equivalent now that practically all “blue dog dems” have been voted out.
Hmm...there are a great many Democrats who come from districts where guns and support for gun rights are prevalent. They’re not so much conservative Democrats serving in Congress, as responsive to their constituents who are blue collar and have guns.
I come from a small town where the local mills are dominated by unions. These guys are fishermen and hunters, many own small hobby farms, and though they’ll vote Democrat, it wasn’t Obama they voted for in the last election - it was McCain. I doubt the Federal Congressional Rep, a Republican, will vote to support Obama.
Obama hasn’t done a lot for Democrats, if you’ve noticed, except to expect them to sacrifice for his political stances. People across the nation are getting fed up with BHO2.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.