The shoe's getting ready to drop.

[SMS]

And on the EO. Are you sure about that? Did you notice the new ATF mandates on reporting on dealers in only border states? They (the administration) pulled that right out of their a$$, and IIRC no EO required. What's next that will just happen by edict?

Yes. Fairly certain on the EO front. EO's can only be used to give direction to an agency of the Executive branch operating within the constraints of authority given that agency by the Constitution/Legislative branch.

In otherwords, Obama can order a review of certain firearms and how they meet the "sporting" definition of a law regarding the importation of weapons because Congress gave the executive branch the authority to control the importation of weapons...but he can not sign an EO ordering a domestic manufacturing ban of semi-auto AR-15s because the executive branch doesn't have that authority.

ATF pulled their reporting stunt based, arguably, off of their existing authority to monitor and regulate FFLs. The policy change did not change or create law and has withstood court challenges.

All that being said, I'm not going all in with a paycheck or anything because I know they are right now pouring over the books to find any and all loopholes they can find to make a show-dent with an EO or agency policy change.

 

[mons meg]

Well, did the multiple long gun reporting requirement actually stick? I haven't kept track, but it was being opposed by not only the dealers, but various rights organizations.

 

[Billybob]

Well, did the multiple long gun reporting requirement actually stick? I haven't kept track, but it was being opposed by not only the dealers, but various rights organizations.

It's my understanding it stuck and is in use now.

 

[mons meg]

Seems so, but probably wouldn't survive SCOTUS review.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

No, sir, I am not "missing the point." Parents may be the primary teachers of morality and religion/faith/belief but the school used to be a mirror of the parents' morality and beliefs. That was stripped away while I was in grade school about sixty years ago. Sixty years-that's a generation or two of children who grew up in a world where the school did not conform with the morals and beliefs of the parents. Sixty years where the educational system slowly inculcated into society that religion was not important, that people had a "right" to feel good about themselves no matter what it meant to those around them-that their happiness was above all else. It is any wonder those children grew up into parents who believe that corporal punishment of children is never a good idea, but screaming their selves hoarse, threatening and bribing children to be "good" (i.e. quiet, behave, etc.) and who have abdicated their responsibility to teach morality TO THE SCHOOLS?

You wrote "Parents should...", "Parents should..." but who is there to backstop the teaching of morals and the difference between right and wrong when the parents fail to do so? You also wrote "...I keep my mouth shut, as I am not their parent." Even Hillary Clinton recognized that it "takes a village to raise a child." If you consider your extended family a "village" then by your own admission you are turning away from your responsibility to assist/backstop/bulwark your sister and brother-in-law. This attitude of yours is just one example of the legion of failures that give rise to situations such as we have witnessed of late.

The backstop should be the other parent. I agree that it may take a village to raise a child, but the village should mimic and back up how the parent wants to raise their child. And others should either help in how the parents see fit, or keep their silence.

 

[Glocktogo]

The backstop should be the other parent. I agree that it may take a village to raise a child, but the village should mimic and back up how the parent wants to raise their child. And others should either help in how the parents see fit, or keep their silence.

That's all well and good, until what the parents want results in an out of control child or young adult in public. When it reaches the point that Lanza and quite a few others have, was it the parents ultimate goal to have their child die by gunfire?

When it gets to the point my help comes in the form of putting their kid down for a dirt nap, I have a big problem with that.

 

[Shadowrider]

Seems so, but probably wouldn't survive SCOTUS review.

And therein lies the whole dang problem. For far too long Congress and Administrations just pass stuff with not a care if it will pass constitutional muster. Hell, I even think that it may be their position that that's what the purpose of the Judicial branch is for!

For the purpose of discussion lets just say that Obama issues an EO banning the manufacture and sale of collapsible stocks and high cap mags. ATF then drafts regulations to carry it out. Then they go to Magpul and let them know that they are no longer to make or sell said items and that existing inventory and work in process is to be destroyed or surrendered. Of course Magpul could beat it in court in all likelihood. But how do they survive for the 1 to 3 years it will take to get it into a District Court for an actual trial? Answer: They wouldn't. They don't have the financial resources to wither this storm if they have 98% of their revenue yanked. So while the letter of the law might get established correctly, the government still wins by bankrupting the manufacturers.

This is the exact reason I think out government is broken beyond repair. Congress and Presidents legislate and regulate knowingly unconstitutional BS and if the "subjects" don't like it, well tough, just let them sort it out in the courts if they wish.

 

[CHenry]

Magpull makes sevetal other items besides mags and stocks. Hell, they make mag pulls.

 

[Shadowrider]

Magpull makes sevetal other items besides mags and stocks. Hell, they make mag pulls.

I know that but how much of their revenue comes from them? Besides they were just an example, you could use any company and the premise is the same. Gun companies are not GEs or IBMs, not even close.

 

[SMS]

Even these rabid ideologues need to thinly cover their actions in the color of law...Congress has not given the Executive branch authority to regulate domestic production of magazines by capacity and they won't try. Now an EO ordering the Treasury Dept to evaluate the importation of high caps...that's possible (if it's not already the case). But we will not see an EO banning the manufacture.