Possible underlying reason for Executive Actions

[cktad]

I thought Executive Orders were written documents but so far I haven't seen a thing that has been issued in writing even on the WH website. I did find this on one site:

First, it must be noted that what was issued yesterday was not, in fact, an “executive order” by the President, but merely an “executive guidance” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE). The portion of the policy change related to the “gun show loophole” states explicitly on its second page: “The guidance set forth herein has no regulatory effect … ” Further, at least part of that guidance (the portion addressing changes to rules for NFA items, such as machine guns) will not even take effect until 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, and it’s not clear that step has even been taken as yet.

And this issued 02 Jan 2016 by the BATFE https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download .

 

[rawhide]

I think Executive Action is the term. While I am concerned about the president's attempt to expand the regulation of firearms I'm seeing the latest tearful speech and executive actions as smoke and mirrors. A distraction from the failures of his presidency and propaganda to stir the base in an election year. While he won't be running, thousands of Democrats across the country will be running.

If President Obama really wanted to implement these changes he would have done it when he had majority support in both houses. He would also have obtained funding in the recently passed Ominibus Bill that appears to have given him everything he wanted. But he didn't ask for any of the funding that is included in his statement from Tuesday.

Simply an election year stunt without a downside for him. If it sticks he wins, if it fails some Democrats may win.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

All these supposed actions are the means toward the end of disarming the people. Disarming the people is a means toward the end of subjugating the people.

Woody

 

[mightymouse]

They are people--many of them now in high public office--that fear guns. What they fear, they hate. We love guns, they hate guns. Unfortunately, often hate is a stronger motivator than love. But, as we love our guns, it is our fear that someday they may be taken away. And so we hate those who would try to take them away. In a climate of fear, there is no room for compromise. We should brace ourselves for a long, hard fight.

 

[farmerbyron]

I think Executive Action is the term. While I am concerned about the president's attempt to expand the regulation of firearms I'm seeing the latest tearful speech and executive actions as smoke and mirrors. A distraction from the failures of his presidency and propaganda to stir the base in an election year. While he won't be running, thousands of Democrats across the country will be running.

If President Obama really wanted to implement these changes he would have done it when he had majority support in both houses. He would also have obtained funding in the recently passed Ominibus Bill that appears to have given him everything he wanted. But he didn't ask for any of the funding that is included in his statement from Tuesday.

Simply an election year stunt without a downside for him. If it sticks he wins, if it fails some Democrats may win.

Dispite what the media portrays, gun control is still a political loser. The president pursues this agenda at the democrats running for office peril.

 

[gerhard1]

Point of fact, if I might; as has been pointed out, what Obama has done are Executive Action, not Executive Orders. They don't have the force of law.

Also, I might also point out that the only way to enforce UBC's is by imposing universal registration. The 'camel's nose' or the 'slippery slope' arguments are usually logical fallacies, but in the case of gun control they are valid. Why? Because the advocates of gun-control themselves say that their pet bill is only a first step towards what they call 'more comprehensive' gun laws later. In other words, they are simply laying the foundation as it were for extremely restrictive laws. As evidence I offer Nelson P. 'Pete' Shields.

Shields was an executive with du Pont, who lost his son in the 'Zebra' killings in San Francisco in the early 1970's. These were a series of racially-and-religiously-motivated killings of Whites by members of the Nation of Islam in which a handgun was used.

Shields in his grief, decided the thing to do was to outlaw handguns, so he founded Handgun Control, Inc., which later merged with The Brady Campaign.

In a 1976 interview, he revealed his game plan, saying this:

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."

In the “The New Yorker,” July 26, 1976, 57-58

Can their ultimate goal be any clearer?

 

[SMS]

Action or Order, some of the recent stunt does have the force of law in that the president and/or agencies being directed already have the authority under existing law. They are arguably ineffective or "rearranging the deck chairs" but it's oversimplifying things to say they don't have any force of law.

The "Action": https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Items 1) b,c,d 2) a,c,d,e 3) b,c and 4) a,b require no action from congress and are within the existing authority of the Executive...

 

[gerhard1]

Action or Order, some of the recent stunt does have the force of law in that the president and/or agencies being directed already have the authority under existing law. They are arguably ineffective or "rearranging the deck chairs" but it's oversimplifying things to say they don't have any force of law.

The "Action": https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Items 1) b,c,d 2) a,c,d,e 3) b,c and 4) a,b require no action from congress and are within the existing authority of the Executive...

Point taken, but the actions that Obama wants the most have to have Congressional action. Here, I refer to requiring UBC's or re-defining what a dealer is. These require legislation, which I don't see happening anytime soon. Remember 1994?

 

[SMS]

Agreed.

 

[druryj]

Possible underlying reason for Executive Actions? Oh that's an easy one! Simply put, Obama did this to polish his already sterling legacy as one of the USA's greatest presidents.