Executive Orders?

[ubersoldate]

Most of New York is a red state. But we are consistently overruled by that liberal infected part of the state known as "New York City".

Their population density is so high they have the majority vote, hence NY is seen as a communist liberal blue state.

The best thing that could happen to NY STATE is for NY CITY to separate itself from us and become their own liberal communist utopia (and take Jackass Andy with them).

Of course, they'll never do it since the rest of the state's taxes go to propping up NYC and they won't bite the teat that feeds them.

Same here...Except our NYC is San Francisco...

[T2K]

I read them all here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...e-and-make-our

I see nothing about a hard figure of how many guns sold or bought or whatever per year?

I do see the "people who can't manage their affairs" go into the NICS denied database.

I also see a line about ending or changing the use of Trusts for Class III or NFA weapons.

However, I just quickly scanned them all. I will need to read them all in greater detail.

[alismith]

Why tell any doctor about anything to do with guns? WTF? Is the doctor a gunsmith? WTF does he need to know about GUNS? None of his business whether we have 'em or not.

My understanding is that if the doctor is going to honor Obamacare, he has a list of questions he has to ask, or, if not one of those docs, and the doc feels that you are having mental issues and pose a threat to yourself, or others, then he is required, by law, to find out if you have any firearms available in the house. If so, he is obligated to report that to the proper authorities.

From what I heard today, if you refuse to answer the questions, the doc makes a note of that and the authorities, automatically, will assume you have firearms available....)

So far, I have never had a doctor ask any of those kinds of questions.

(And, I'm not volunteering any answers, either.)

[rci2950]

Just lie. Act all upset, start dry heaving and cry when they mention guns like the antis do. Then they will think you are one of them.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I have heard the same things but cannot find something official stating what was concerned about. What I can find, using your numbering:

1. A level will be set (what I read was 50/year) and it will apply even if you sell the firearms at different locations. This does not really violate the SA any more than it is already violated requiring FFLs. What it would do is remove ambiguity that the ATF can use in determining what does and does not require an FFL.

2/2A. Only if the person is a threat to themselves or others. My concern with this is why hasn't Congress done this. I seem to remember other constitutional issues about privacy making this hard so I am concerned with it being done by Executive Order. I would agree this is the one that concerns me the most as reports and the WH press release on this states that they will remove the SA right from SS recipients who are "not able to take care of their own affairs." Not sure what that means and who determines this. If due process is not involved, and I don't think it is, it is very bad.

So anyone that ever had depression can no longer own guns? That's a LOT of people.

[alismith]

So anyone that ever had depression can no longer own guns? That's a LOT of people.

Yup....

That was the intent of his EO....

[ltorlo64]

Here is the best information I have found so far on the EOs issued.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...the-president/

For the most part I am not sure why he needed to use EOs for this stuff, except to make a big media circus out of it. I still see this as more of a distraction to keep us occupied while he does something else. The other possibility is with 23 of them (at least) he is hoping the real important stuff will be missed in all the extraneous stuff he issued.

[ltorlo64]

So anyone that ever had depression can no longer own guns? That's a LOT of people.

And if he is proposing to do this without "due process" it is unconstitutional. From what I can find he wants to explore how to do this. As most of us agree that mental illness has led to at least of few of these shootings looking at the right way to do this is not bad, but we have to make sure it does not become just an administrative action.

[5.56NATO]

Am I missing something or are these executive orders that the President has been touting the last month or so more show than substance. So far the only thing I see he has actually done, or tried to do, is make it easier for mental health professionals to provide information to the FBI. I need to look into why they don't before I know if this is over reach on his part or not. Remember, I am not for gun control but what I see so far is "much ado about nothing" which then makes me wonder what we are missing while we are watching these executive orders.

At issue is similar to the resistance met when trying to get those listed on no fly lists barred the purchase of arms. Those who make the lists have say over who goes on them. The regime could easily tell drs that conservatism, patriotism, love of country, christianity, are mental illnesses and to note patients with these symptoms so their arms can be confiscated.

[Krupski]

And if he is proposing to do this without "due process" it is unconstitutional.

Virtually EVERYTHING 0bama has done is unconstitutional. So, what's new?

[shorthair]

Janet Napolitano had her white paper...do you remember?

[NAPOTS]

I'd like to believe that since these seem like mostly clarifications of existing law that the AG (as much as I dislike her) told Obama that there isn't much he can do and this was a token gesture to the gun control groups which have been putting a lot of pressure on him to do something.


Now we all could go out and apply for FFL licences and sue the shit out of them if we don't get one which will render the whole thing kind of meaningless.

[ltorlo64]

So I have spent the last two days arguing with people why anything that the President talked about, especially universal back ground checks, are useless and only designed to hurt those who follow the law. The people I have been talking to are all younger and I was surprised at how willingly they will give up a right. I was actually told by one person that the government should do background checks to verify that you have "earned the right". That same person also argued that the government can violate the Second Amendment because it has been violating it since at least the Civil War and because English law allowed for restricting people carrying weapons. I explained that one of the reasons for the Second Amendment was because of English law restricting and subjugating people and he told me that we didn't need to discuss it any further. People say that I am closed minded.

[stevelyn]

The Marxist Pig's EO just reiterate what is already law.

The upside is that in the confusion, the BATFEces have now eliminated CLEO signature requirements on NFA items.

http://bearingarms.com/sound-fury-si...paign=baupdate

[O.S.O.K.]

Well here's some good news: http://theweek.com/articles/460591/n...deral-gun-laws

"Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are the federal government's primary enforcers of the nation's gun laws, tasked with regulating weapons in all 50 states. But if a new Missouri bill clears a gubernatorial veto and becomes law, ATF agents could soon end up being charged with felonies for simply doing their jobs.Yes, the Missouri state legislature is on the verge of passing a bill that would nullify all federal gun laws, and make it a crime for U.S. agents to try to enforce them within the state's borders. The legislature will reconvene in September to vote on the bill, and it seems destined for passage.
Though it sounds far-fetched, Missouri is just one of many states that have looked for a way to circumvent Washington's gun laws and police the issue independently. Indeed, similar bills have been introduced in at least 37 states, according to ProPublica."


I believe that Texas and Kansas have recently passed such laws. From what I hear, Gov Bryant here in Mississippi is working on drafting a bill to present to the legislature as well. About time!!

It's one thing to say or hear that "the local LEO's won't enforce"... it's another to have a state law forbidding them from enforcing.