Barry To Use Executive Orders For Gun Control?

That’s what the loonies think…:

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, CURRENT TV HOST: After Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011, the Department of Justice actually came up with a list of steps — this was reported in the New York Times this weekend — a list of steps that the administration could take to improve the system of background checks. Like pooling information from other agencies to help identify people who are not mentally competent. I, as a former person in the executive branch, used to love stuff that I could without having to go to the state legislature. The president, presumably, has an opportunity here to pick up those regulatory measures. Do you think not?

ROBERT REICH, FORMER SECRETARY OF LABOR: Yes, some can be done by executive order. And he will, I think, try to do that. If it’s an executive order, by definition, Congress can’t stop him. There may be efforts to say that he has exceeded his authority under executive order. I think the big factor here, though, for the President, the White House, for Democrats, is that the election is over. And I don’t want to appear too cynical about this, Jennifer, but one reason why the president may not have taken up what the Department of Justice had tentatively come up with, before the election, was the fear that there would be a backlash.

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Barry To Use Executive Orders For Gun Control?

  1. Greg B says:

    An executive order defying the Constitution?
    The camels back is about to break, I fear.

  2. Uke says:

    He very much can issue any and all executive orders. He can issue an executive order to murder all firstborn.

    CAN. Doesn’t mean it’ll stand up against judicial scrutiny. The way it’s supposed to work is that blatantly unlawful orders get frozen via immediate injunctions.

    Now, all that said… it doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be an injunction. It depends on how blatant–brazen–the order was.

  3. notamobster says:

    Definitely scary times we’re living through, right now. We may just see another Clinton style ban. We may however, see the whole powder keg ignite across the nation. That is my biggest fear.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      We have some advantages we didn’t have when the Clinton ban went into effect.

      1) We didn’t have Heller stating the the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

      2) There were very few shall issue states and very few CCW permits. We now have years proving that CCW does not lead to constant gun battles.

      3) We didn’t have the Internet then.

      4) We didn’t have a record of a failed assault weapon ban then.

      We are in much better shape now.

  4. Uke says:

    My fear of insurrection is fairly equally tempered by my fear of living under an unlawful, liberty-quenching regime.

    Put another way, I fear insurrection more than the lack thereof when freedom is still relatively abundant. But it’s a sliding scale. When freedom becomes as rare as water in a desert, then insurrection becomes–comparatively–less unfavorable.

    That is not to comment on where we are on that scale. All I’ll say is that we are decidedly moving towards the latter example.

  5. notamobster says:

    I get what you guys are saying and I agree with both of you. I know we’re not at the point that I would call for insurrection. Not even close.

    There are many who are just itching to roll the dice, though. I shudder to think that people would get caught up in the zeitgeist of some ill-considered revolt and we end up losing even more than we would have. Know what I mean? Basically, things turn ugly and the left eventually uses it to point to just how crazy us right-wingers “really are”.

    There are a LOT of stupid people who would just get caught up n emotion and act-the-donkey on a national level.

    • Uke says:

      Agreed. I can only maintain faith that reason and patience are not mutually exclusive from our conservative views, and our love of freedom. Which is to say, we would all be far less prone to fits of impulsiveness and violent outbursts.

      It’s a hope. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But even the lessened chances might be enough.

      Do not the qualities of forethought, delayed gratification, self-control and personal responsibility supposedly define us?

  6. notamobster says:

    Do not the qualities of forethought, delayed gratification, self-control and personal responsibility supposedly define us?

    “Us”, yes. Those of us who read, and spend time actually contemplating things. The larger Revo. You know as well as I do, that most people who call themselves conservative, couldn’t begin to articulate why.

    It’d be a hodge-podge of incongruity, religion, and popular memes they saw on facebook & twitter. I just really don’t have much faith in my fellow Americans humans, these days. I sure hope they prove me wrong.

  7. Greg B says:

    I guess I’m just agitated.
    I truly think zero believes he can rule by decree.
    At what point do citizens march on DC and say “enough”?
    In Egypt, people turned out when Morsi basically declared himself the new pharaoh. Not that it seems to matter much since sharia seems to be winning.
    But is there going to be a time when ten million citizens will actually stand outside the Capitol?
    Or is just up to someone else?

  8. notamobster says:

    Americans will have to become VERY UNCOMFORTABLE before it comes to that. Even with all of the money and attention the media gave to Occupy, it was an utter failure.

    We need to keep leveraging the social media and the internet as a whole. That’s why I have increased my presence on Facebook. I’m trying to distill conservative ideas down to bite-sized morsels for mass-consumption. (I just told a fellow Revoista on facebook, this very thing).

    I think Barry plans to rule by executive fiat – just as soon as he gets back from his vacation… (He’s a soup-sandwich of incongruity. Lazy ambition is the best way I can think to describe his style. He wants to be in charge, without doing any of the work. Thus, the executive decrees.) Seem plausible?

  9. Pirate Morgan says:

    the flame is very near the fuse now…..

  10. Jim22 says:

    “Lazy ambition is the best way I can think to describe his style. He wants to be in charge, without doing any of the work.”

    I think that’s a fair analysis. The trouble is he doesn’t have to do any of the work. He occupies the most powerful seat in the world. He has millions of people to do his bidding. All he has to do is say – or even hint – that he wants something and it will be done.

    What’s interesting is his inconsistencies. He has what used to be called a ‘Mercurial’ personality. He doesn’t stay with anything for long. If it was your kid it’d be called ADD.

    But it’s not much of a weakness because he can make any number of mistakes, tell any number of falsehoods, and no one will call him on it; not even the Republicans.