Will Obama Use An Executive Order To Enact Gun Control?

Tyler Durden's picture

Moments ago, MSNBC showed a clip in which "gun tzar" VP Joe Biden made it clear that "the President is going to act" on the issue of gun control, and that "executive orders and executive action can be taken." Of course "can" does not mean "will" as the fallout from an executive order bypassing Congress would be rather dramatic, especially on a topic so near and dear to at least half of America, and the response, to put it mildly, would make the Piers Morgan vs Alex Jones screaming match seems like a tranquil discussion between two dignified stoics. If "can" however, does become "will", America may have far bigger issues over the next two months than the debt ceiling, kicking the sequester down another several months, or even the quadrillion yen tuna.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jendrzejczyk's picture


What's your opinion of US vs. Miller ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Xanadu_doo's picture

Thank you for sharing the legal precidence (sp?). Hopefully today's justices will still agree (choke).

But...I want to point out, re: “The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government.”


Isn't that their intention???

I think it is, and we are fucked if we let them, so fuck that.

This gives some small hope that there were wise and honerable men leading this country, once at least.


seek's picture

Yes, this is pretty well establised law. I may be a bit of a conspiracy monger myself, but I wish people would drop this particular angle of histrionics.

One World Mafia's picture

When the gun treaty stalled over the summer, there were threats to bring it back after the elections. Since when does "histrionics" stop these people?

Zap Powerz's picture


While you are correct when you say:

"treaties cannot abrogate the Constitution"

That is assuming we have a government that gives a shit about the constitution.  This whole article we are discussing is about Obama using an EO to deny you the legal right to self defense with a fire arm.  If that doesnt scream "I dont give a shit about no stinking constitution (by Obama)" then I dont know what does.

Chupacabra-322's picture

The President of the United States was elected to ‘Defend’ and ‘Protect’ The Constitution ….Not Circumvent it with deceitful executive orders, this is Tyranny, which make him a Tyrant, an oath breaker and Domestic Enemy of The State.  A CRIMINAL.

deeznutz's picture

... which makes every president back to ??? also a tyrant

The Heart's picture

Back to Kennedy...exactly!

A Nanny Moose's picture

Think back a little further. It all started before the ink was dry on the Constitution. Such is the result of force.

Texas Ginslinger's picture

"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans...

Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt to place the United States under authoritarian rule.

While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the Weimar Republic."

--Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) September 30, 1973


trav777's picture

have you maybe looked at the overlap between crime and Obama's staunchest supporters, on a county-by-county basis!??!

I mean am I the ONLY ONE who notices the gd'd elephant taking a dump in the room?

akak's picture

Say it openly, racist: "Niggers".

We, and you, all know that that is exactly what you are just itching to say.

Mad Mohel's picture

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

akak's picture

Why am I repeatedly (and, I suspect, kneejerk-like automatically) downarrowed merely for putting the word "nigger" into Trav's mouth, when HE is the racist and the one who AGREES with the sentiment behind that word, while I am not and do not?

trav777's picture

I can answer this:

because you're a b!tch, loser.

You refuse to acknowledge the elephant and you call me names for pointing it out.

That makes you a little nanny trying to get me to conform to an orthodoxy on this subject.  I have no animosity toward the people you claim I do; I merely point out facts. 

It won't work.  You can't shut me up and the truth doesn't need your consent to exist.  I don't care how uncomfortable facts make you.  Any of you.  I know you'd really LIKE IT A LOT if the whole "we're all equal" meme were true.  That's the thing tho, it's NOT.  And most of you have IMMENSE trouble accepting that.  So how do you expect me to take you seriously if you come onto ZH and talk about being a "freethinker" and taking the red pill and all of this BS when you can't divorce yourselves of this massive denial?

When confronted, you punt.  You always do, akock.

akak's picture

You are a truly a digusting, vile, collectivist, racist piece of human filth, and I have utterly no compunctions about labeling you as such.

Do you know why you are such a vile piece of filth, Trav?  Because you are a racist, which is to say, a COLLECTIVIST pure and simple --- you focus on and label individuals based on vague and all-but-meaningless group statistics (which are open to interpretation and debate in many cases anyway). You would condemn ALL members of a given human genotype based on their race's position within some Gaussian curve rather than on their individual merits and demerits.  Your thinking and your innuendos are EXACTLY the same as those of the Nazis, the Hutus and Tutsis, the slave traders and the misogynists: damnation based on supposed group guilt and group inferiority.

Let me ask you this once again, the question which you in your cowardice have NEVER deigned to answer: Given your reading of the racial Gaussian curve, and the supposed inferiority of blacks, just WHAT are your concrete policy prescriptions?  Tell us!  Since you seem to want to play God in deciding who is "worthy" and who is not, just what would YOU do, given the power, with all those who are "unworthy" in your eyes?  What do we as a society do about the "inferiors" in our midst?  Go ahead, tell us --- I dare you.

It is having to share the planet with the loathsome likes of monsters like you that makes this life a madhouse and a Hellhole.

BooMushroom's picture

Nice ad hominem.

Correlation, causation or Falsehood? We all know trav is a racist asshole, but is he right? 532 murders in Chicago says maybe.

trav777's picture

The biggest irony on ZH is how you people REFUSE to accept that what you think you know about race is actually CONDITIONING.

You seem to believe you've been LIED TO about EVERYTHING except that.

Go figure.  Go and look up who runs the NAACP and SPLC, along with media and finance.  Oh but they told you the truth about race, right?  The marxists who pushed for multicult...it's really actually TRUTH they peddled to you on this subject while lying everywhere else.

54% of the homicides say they were lying even bigger about that, bud.

But, I'm a "racist."  I don't think anyone even knows wtf that means anymore.

BooMushroom's picture

It's racist to say that American blacks are more likely murder people. It's judging them by their race, ergo racist.

It's also mathematically provable, true, and pretty much in your face unless you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout "La La La I can't hear you!" Especially if you spend any amount of time in Chicago, New Orleans, Stockton, or any other majority black, Democrat-run city.

I think what you are saying is true, and it is unpleasant, and I don't see a good solution to it. I can't divine whether it is nature or nurture though. I've given up on disagreeing with you, as it is backed up by the numbers, the headlines, and the security camera footage, youtube, as well as my own personal experience.

For helping change my thinking on this, and slipping that particular red pill in with my usual ZH red pills, I dub you an asshole.

knowless's picture

While i don't take the same course of logic you do, i do think the west has at the very least an ignorant and myopic view of race, other groups proudly accept that racial identity has something to do with there heritage.

But yeah, blinders on, restitution is necessary, even if your "white" ancestors came here as indentured servants or share croppers. Racial identity is bad (as long as your not part of the "oppressed").

On an interesting note, a recent huffpo article put the numbers on whites and blacks as near equally taking government money.

Xanadu_doo's picture

wow - I just thought he meant the bankers...

trav777's picture

the conditioning you have against acknowledging reality is so incredibly strong, it consistently amazes me.

Why do you suppose that is?  Is it because you're too frightened of the consequences?

I mean the REST of the "american dream" message is all total BS, red pill time, right?  You "get it."  You people will believe 911 was an "inside job" but the SPLC and the multicult marxists have been telling you the TRUTH for your own good about race for 100 years, you know, to stop you from being an evil nazi.  Because lord knows you can't discern for yourself or use common sense.

When the dude who discovered DNA is saying something, you oughta listen.

Banksters's picture







During a? speech in 1995 Eric Holder says people need to be brainwashed into thinking negatively about guns.




Chupacabra-322's picture

The Executive is supposed to carry out the laws of Congress, which is the Constitution. If Criminal Obama bypasses the Constitution, again, and if the Criminal Congress allows him to do so, again, all members of the two Criminal branches of government (the third being along for the ride) will be rebelling against our Constitution and the American people again. Only this time, many citizens have drawn their last line in the sand. They had better be very damn careful.

Banksters's picture



I couldn't agree more.    We the people are fucking pissed.    Bankers go free, Americans get sold out, and ultimately become the 'problem.'



Chupacabra-322's picture

Their Criminality isn't "hidden in plain view" anymore.  It's all out in the open for all to see.  The Criminals need The American People disarmed before the orchestrated, engineered, all done by design/agenda Economic Collapse. 

The Heart's picture


We have a winnner here folks!

One World Mafia's picture

The bank-owned senate can constitutionally kill the 2nd amdt thru a treaty with foreign nations.

Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

all Treaties made…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When the constitution was written, senators were elected by state legislators, easily rigged electronic voting didn’t exist and people knew each other at the polls, global power hungry organizations like the UN didn't exist. False flags were fewer, and there were no psychotropic drugs. However, Article 6 is so stupid it looks like it was set up to doom us.

Ghordius's picture

"global power hungry organizations like the UN didn't exist" <sigh>

ok, so a bunch of ambassadors propose a treaty between countries - according to the wishes of their governments

this treaty might or might not be ratified - in the same manner as a law is

pls explain, what is this "global power hungry" again?

yrbmegr's picture

No, they can't.  It says treaties shall be supreme notwithstanding any state's laws or constitution.  It doesn't say treaties trump the US constitution.

GeezerGeek's picture

Arguing over which would be supreme, a treaty or the Constitution, is futile. One could argue that the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments came later and therefore override the provisions in the Constitution itself. All I know is what I learned from Mao. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

masterinchancery's picture

No, the Constitution cannot be amended by Treaty, but only by the mechanisms set forth in the Constitution.

TeMpTeK's picture

Hey Fuck heads.... tyranny exists because all the brightest people in the room actually believe the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without an act of congress, make laws that abrogate the US constitution...WTF is wrong with you people.. Executive orders have no weight or effect of law in any one of the 50 states.. This is however an epic display of how little Americans understand their govt and its LIMITED authority.. Needs Proof?...Just ask all the medicinal marijuana growers in Claifornia and elsewhere who legally violate federal drug laws everyday and there aint shit the feds can do....Wake the fuck up people!..

TeMpTeK's picture

Let me educate u....

The feds can only legislate and intercede in states affairs when the activity in question relates to "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" . The article you point out specificially cites the Feds only angle...

"Attorneys for each of California's federal districts announced a crackdown on "commercial trade" in medical marijuana..."

The commercial or "commerce angle" is all the feds have...Medicial Marijuana facilities not ALLEGEDLY engaged in commercial activities have been albeit "Messed With" but have not been shut down by the feds... More proof of the feds limited authority is the 1990 "Gun Free School Zone Act" ... Declared unconstitutional... because The feds can NOT even legislate guns in or around school zones in anyone of the 50 states of the union.. Please see the American Peoples victory also known as US vs Lopez 1995. 

So if the feds cant shut down Every single Medical Marijuana spot in the country and if they cant legislate guns in or around a school zone in any one of the 50 states of the union ... then what makes anyone think a presidential Executive order is some "New Power" not specifically delegated and outlined by the US constitution???


Clark Bent's picture

I take your point, but I am not so sanguine as you about these limitations being respected. There is the example of substantive due process wherein the Supreme Court conceives new "rights" and attaches them to classes of people, often enough as a politically-favored class. Mischievous at best. Then there is the novel announcement by Justice Roberts last summer that all Obamacare is really just a tax scheme to generate revenue for thhings not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Seems to me this leaves a great deal of room for anxiety about whether a man who can pick up the phone and have a flying robot drop a Hellfire missile on somebody anywhere in the world (wihtout reference to collateral killings even) will be modest about his ability to issue edicts that enjoy popular support (at least part, certainly the media part, of the populace). As a lifelong radical marxist with a distinct inferiority/superiority complex, who as yet has not faced any real resistance, who can feel secure in anything? Why would this mentally disordered narcissist refrain from taking this risk? One might ask whether he is capable of even understanding the American commitment to liberty, as he clearly operates on the belief that all people are motivated primarily by fear and self interest. Patriotism is unknown to him except as a tactic. He does not understand why someone would actually risk status or their lives to stand for a mere principle. He won the lection, his "peeps" are urging him to be bold; why wouldn't he try it? 

TeMpTeK's picture

"I am not so sanguine as you about these limitations being respected"..


Oh believe me... they wont be respected.. the ever encroaching arm of the gummerment is at work 24hrs a day 7 days a week....Get your AR15s while its easy....

Meatballs's picture

Not arguing the facist piece of your statement, however, you are ignoring the first part of the amendment- which I predict will be the piece brought into play. An axiom most ignore that is extremely relevant is this- If you want to fuck something up- bring in the lawyers. They're going to bring them in a big way before this is over.

redpill's picture

SCOTUS has already ruled definitively on that.  The right is an individual one, just like all the other amendments that make up the bill of rights.

SamAdams's picture

They plan to eliminate your Bill of Rights.  They told you this clear as crystal when they erected the Masonic columns in front of the IRS headquarters.  They always tell you in advance, albeit subtly, what they intend to do.

ChacoFunFact's picture

remember that the seventh year of revolution is harder than the first.

FEDbuster's picture

Problem with Heller is they allowed states and local jurisdictions to regulate what type of "arms" can be owned.  You may end up with a right to own a single shot, 22lr with a four foot barrel.  

Karlus's picture

You hit the nail on the head. The plan is to erode over time. The logic now is you cant have an army weapon. You cant have a "high" (aka normal) capacity magazine. You cant have a caliber higher than...there needs to be a mechanism that does not let you fire too many shots too quickly, limit fps of projectile...etc

Im worried people will never take a stand

Totentänzerlied's picture

"Im worried people will never take a stand"

Allow me to allay your fears!

The people will take a stand for what they believe in!*



*It just won't be what you believe in, or what you hoped they believe in, or anything good

CPL's picture

All those documents are written in pencil now and the eraser is coming out of the drawer.

Meatballs's picture

Appreciate the head's up and will research it. Was operating from years of seeing how shit like this goes...regardless, if they want something badly enough, we all know they will find a way.

Zap Powerz's picture


You are correct sir.  The SCOTUS did rule that way. However, we have a government that does not abide by the constitution so, in effect, the constitution does not matter.  You have no rights.  I mean, you do and they are intrinsic because youre a human being, but you have a government that does not respect that principle.  To them, you dont have rights, certainly not the right to protect yourself from them with a gun.

So, you can tell the nice BATF agent all about the recent SCOTUS ruling after the flash bang goes off at 3:30am, your dog has been killed and your kids are screaming in terror as they drag you out of your house wearing only your underwear in the dead of winter.  You will then be held indefinantly without being charged for a crime.  You will not have a lawyer.  You will sit in a prison cell somewhere until you die because you were labled a terrorist for owning a .22LR single shot rifle.  If you had a weapon of larger caliber you would be too dangerous to apprehend and you would have just been shot on sight along with your family.

Welcome to the USA.