Biden: Obama Can Use "Executive Orders" To Act On Gun Control (video)

RealClearPolitics ^ | January 9, 2013 | RealClearPolitics

[i88schwartz]

Vice President Joe Biden, while addressing representatives of gun safety and gun violence victims' groups, says President Obama could use "executive orders" to enact gun control measures.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "The president is going to act. There are executives orders -- executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the Attorney General and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe is required."

[Marcella]

“the backdoor amnesty that will legalize the status of 1.8 million illegal aliens.”

That was a big one and not one word from congress. See, I think each one in congress didn't want to deal with illegal aliens and risk losing votes in their district, so they said nothing about that order.

Think it will be the same reaction if Hussein restricts guns/ammo/magazines - they stay insulated from acting.

The bills the New Jersey legislature is considering would keep anyone from buying a gun or magazines or ammo. Just one of those laws says any one who wants to buy a gun has to have psychological testing. If Christie is in favor of these bills, he is totally nuts and a liberal just like his buddy, Hussein.

[zzeeman]

Let him try. It is clearly unconstitutional for him to act as a law maker.

He's been acting as a “law maker” for 4 years now. There have been more “laws” enacted via EO and all of the extra-Constitutional federal agencies for decades now. Congress has relegated itself to rubber-stamping spending and borrowing at this point.

[EdReform]

bookmark

[panaxanax]

“Civil war is coming.”

Get ready. It may be starting sooner than you think.

Cuomo is about to announce the enslavement of NY gun owners.

10 minutes and counting......

[353FMG]

Is treason even noticed or punishable these days?

[Durus]

Maybe you meant another revolutionary war?

[EdReform]

bookmark

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

My only complaint in all of this is that there will be many law enforcement who are against disraming the public who will be forced to participate in the confiscation and be injured or killed as a result.

Even this regime is not so stupid to try door to door confiscation of firearms.

They will spend millions populating a database of who has what and then enact laws that require people to turn them in. It will happen in steps. Hypothetically speaking.

[Girlene]

I agree.

[ilovesarah2012]

Is he really wrong? Who’s gonna stop him? Not congress, that’s for sure.

[justa-hairyape]

. . just point to the crime statistics and the drug cartels which overwhelming show the inadequacy of law enforcement notwithstanding their often brave and best efforts?

Obama is actually working for the drug cartels. As is most of the Oligarchy. If they want our guns, they have to take the bullets first.

[Perseverando]

Did he say it? Probably not.
Does he believe it? Apparently!

[OneWingedShark]

It sounds like you are saying that it is NOT the Supreme Court’s job to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not.

That's not what I'm saying -- what I'm saying is that the Constitution is not what the Court says it is.
There's a huge difference there, one that ultimately comes down to authority, and as Jesus said the one who is sent is under the authority of the one sending. In the one scenario the Constitution 'sends' the court, in the other the court declares what the Constitution is.

Further, just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean that they are right. Dread Scott, Raich, Wicard are all examples:

1. Dread Scott: The court made up its ruling held that black Americans were not citizens and could not be made such by any state.
   Depriving States of sovereignty, as well as denying slaves the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights.
2. Wicard: This decision was made so as to keep entire sets of federal laws/mandates from being repealed, and incidentally retroactively validate Federal assumption of powers. -- The Filburn [mis]-construction of the Commerce Clause is so prevalent that I must explain, the clause is as follows:

   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

   Note how "the several States" is betwixt "foreign Nations" and "Indian Tribes" (which might be thought of as 'Native Nations'), to assume the level of power [regulation] the Wicard case does upon foreign nations (or Indian Tribes) would be nothing less than an act of war -- and to enforce it would be the waging of war. This is the very definition of treason given in the Constitution.
   So it is entirely possible for the court to render literally treasonous rulings.
3. Raich: This case is so logically absurd that it should have resulted in the court being forced out of office. In it they claim that the federal government is able to regulate personal growth of marijuana, even if there is no sales, because growing it impacts the interstate market that doesn't exist (but would if it wasn't prohibited).

Its hard to take that argument seriously since for the last 100 years that is exactly what they have been doing.

Just because they've been doing it doesn't make it right; the TSA is a perfect example (as they blatantly disregard the 4th Amendment).

Like it or not they do it based on precident and on how they interpret it’s meaning.

Precedent! *spit!* Precedent is nothing more than the judiciary playing the Children's game of Telephone with your [legal] Rights.
If Precedent meant anything, then this case would castrate the ban on full auto weapons.

If that is not their role, what is? Some of their recent decisions seem to ignore the obvious meaning such as McCain Feingold, or the Healthcare law. So despite how you think the court should act, we have to deal with he reality.

And isn't that the exact reason why we should expect them to be for a ban on weapons? To their thinking: It cements their place of power, and they won't have to worry about a popular uprising demanding they end their term.

[Mechanicos]

Fully Informed Jury Association. Lots of research material here.

http://fija.org/

[RetSignman]

Well, I can think of one group, besides the Marxist/ Socialists/ Communists, who are licking their chops at this illegal confiscating of our arms...organized crime.

Remember what happened during prohibition?

[Jacquerie]

Ted Cruz, perhaps as our next Patrick Henry.

[EternalVigilance]

Who’s gonna stop him?

America's Founders on the RKBA

[opus86]

These thugs in the federal government will make a criminal out of me yet.

[opus86]

These thugs in the federal government will make a criminal out of me yet.

[steerpike100]

“Impeach the kenyan or secession”.

No. No secession. Folks say it’s time for CW-2-—no, it isn’t. It’s time for the Second American Revolution. We keep what we’ve lived and worked for, and we restore the Republic.