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.
lunaticfringe's picture

Ignore the Bill of Rights? Ok. I guess they'll have to suffer the consequences. 

Everyone has choices to make. Molon Labe. 

Randall Cabot's picture

"If he does, there will be a civil war... or hopefully the military will intervene before that and overthrow his ass along with congress."

Gen. McChrystal Throws Weight Behind Effort to Ban Firearms


lolmao500's picture

Yeah I know. The military is full of those sycophants... Still, I'm sure there's lots of REAL patriotic military officers out there.

DCFusor's picture

I've recently talked to a lot of low level whatthefuckistan vets who are really upset about what we've allowed this country to devolve into while they were in harms way "protecting" it.  If it comes down to it, those guys are going to be on our side.  They remember that their oath was to the Constitution, not the commander in chief.

NotApplicable's picture

Luckily for law enforcement, those kids have already been classified as terrorists.


mckee's picture

What will civil war do to the sales of iPads? Should I sell my APPL prior to the war?

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Nah, the guy who made those silly kiddie bullet proof backpacks will come up with the " personal bulletproof iPad jacket ". APPL saved, you're good.


Bohm Squad's picture

No...just buy the Civil War app...you can fight along with the resistance from the comfort of your living room.

oddball's picture

There is a drone for that.

MachoMan's picture

Considering the SCOTUS recently decided that owning a firearm was a fundamental right, I'm not sure where you're going with your post...

Further, as long as you're wishing, you need to wish to keep the military the fuck away from political control...

lolmao500's picture


Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

In Turkey, they do a good job. The military has been keeping the tyrants away for the last 70 years.

pods's picture

Does Turkey need to blow up any brown people around the world who refuse to accept their debt money?

Kind of like comparing apples to hand grenades.


MachoMan's picture

Are you a troll or something?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

The SCOTUS already took a shit on your thesis.

lolmao500's picture

Yeah sorry I wanted to edit but I couldn't.

Still, if they can make a judge change his vote, they can overturn any previous decision...  wouldn't be the first time... Citizen United overturned what... 100+ years of jurisprudence?

Same goes for Obamacare, with enough twists and turns, they declared it constitutional...

MachoMan's picture

That would be exceptionally rare in the span of a couple of years...  the only way these types of decisions typically get overturned is after 100 years have passed and the court thinks the coast is clear.  However, it may be "clarified" as each case largely rests upon its own facts and circumstances...  thereby reducing its application and, thus, effectiveness.

secret_sam's picture

What part of "Obamacare" is supposed to be unconstitutional, anyway?  A 3rd-grade level understanding of the Constitution doesn't really suffice in a courtroom, you know.

lolmao500's picture

They treated it as a tax. It's total BS.

secret_sam's picture

Total BS, yes, lousy legislation, yes, but not unconstitutional.  Sorry, but that's really just a stupid claim.

lolmao500's picture

Why treat it as a tax to make it ``constitutional`` if it's constitutional in the first place? Ah yes, because it ain't.

MachoMan's picture

This is what happens when the judiciary is result oriented...

secret_sam's picture

Which part of it is not Constitutional?  You never answered that.

Have you ever READ the Constitution?  Go ahead and give it a try, it's not that long.  Find the part that "Obamacare" violates.

lolmao500's picture

You're forced to buy a service from private companies.

The commerce clause forbids the government from compelling people to enter into commerce.

Right there it's unconstitutional.

If you do not enter into commerce (buy private medical insurance), you're forced to pay a fine... which is unconstitutional... (forcing you to enter into commerce or else) so they just said it was tax instead and they found it legal since congress has the power to levy taxes.

It's unconstitutional.

secret_sam's picture

    You're forced to buy a service from private companies.

And this conflicts with *what* in the Constitution?

I'd say stuff like drug prohibition and the draft are unconstitutional, too, but hey, that's just like my opinion, man.

Abaco's picture

And you would be correct.

lolmao500's picture


secret_sam's picture

How hard can it be to quote the text from the document, eh?

Abaco's picture

There is no grant of authority for the federal government to regulate health care. Therefore Obamacare is an unconstitutional arrogation of power.

Abaco's picture

Your entire premise is back asswards. You do not look for what clause a law violates.  You must find what clause provides authority to do something. Every power not specifically granted to the Federal government is prohibited to it.

secret_sam's picture

I agree with you in theory, but you have to throw out a few hundred years of USSC decision in order to "get there."

The Supreme Court has delivered a lot of decisions over the years, in case you've forgotten.  There is very little Federal law today which can "qualified" as Constitutional according to your definitions, which is all fine, except you're neither the Supreme Court nor the absolute dictator of the USA.

(As a personal note: at the end of the day, folks should distinguish between the personal opinions I happen to hold and my ability to reason about the ARGUMENT.)

GeezerGeek's picture

Just which part of Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the authority to pass this kind of law? Ditto Medicare and Social Security. It is only the contorted, fallacious/malicious reasoning of the courts that allowed these kinds of programs to exist. Perhaps the problem is in the wording, where the framers perhaps intended "general welfare" to be a goal and not something that could result in legislation.

Abaco's picture

The federal government only has those powers specifically granted to it by the constitution. There is no such grant of authority to regulate health care.  Health care is NOT commerce. The feds do have the authority to regulate the interstate commerce of goods used in health care. A 3rd grade level of understanding of the Constitution would be an improvement for you.

secret_sam's picture

The Affordable Care Act doesn't regulate health-care at all.  It regulates health INSURANCE.  Insurance is an industry provided numerous special legal privileges in exchange for extensive regulation.

It's all bullshit and never should have passed, but it's not what you're claiming it is.

(As an aside, incidentally, if the Feds can't regulate healthcare at all, where's anyone supposed to get justification for prohibition of abortion?)

Abaco's picture

Insurance is not commerce. Commerce is the exchange of of goods, merchandise at a wholesale (not retail) level. 

lolmao500's picture

Everything sold is considered commerce. So is insurance.

Abaco's picture

As for your aside - the feds have no authority to pass any legislation regarding abortion, murder, or most anything else unless restricted to the District of Columbia.

aerojet's picture

That ruling is out of date--that was from June 2 of 2012?  The 7th Circuit apparently has overridden that lower court decision by forcing Illinois to enact a concealed carry law.  Chicago may still have slimed its way out from under the ruling, I don't know.  It's bullshit that major cities where people need concealed carry the most are the places where they are prevented from exercising that capability. 

trav777's picture

mcDonald v chicago applied the 2nd to the States, 561 US 3025

this still won't stop the gov't from trying to weasel out

trav777's picture

every single law school student learns that the 14th Amendment applied the BoR to the States.

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Indeed there are open threats against the US judges

US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead in Arizona in 2011 shortly after ruling against Obama and the US gov't

Media barely covered it, but the US judges all have the message

If more US judges are killed, more drugged-up 'lone gunmen' can be supplied to 'confess' just like with dead Judge Roll ... making more 'proof' for the gun-grabbers too

That was the reason for Supreme Court Justice Roberts' nervousness when telling the lies upholding Obamacare ... He has to please his bosses or die

Once inside the mafia, there is no way out

lolmao500's picture

Yep. They could stage an assassination or a new OKC.

lakecity55's picture

Do not rule out a fake attempt on Kenyatta.

It was discussed by the Insider before the fake election.

secret_sam's picture

If it weren't so incredibly difficult to get a gun in AZ, no one would have to worry about government assassinations being carried out there.

Meatier Shower's picture

“We the people are the rightful masters of both The Congress and the Courts - not to overthrow The Constitution but to overthrow men who Pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln


The Gooch's picture

Divide and conquer, continued.

Good luck with that, Uncle Clown.

TheAlchemist's picture

If Obama bypasses Congress (as well as the Consitution) by issuing an EO on this matter... I don't believe he will like the results.


If he does an exec order, there will be an attempt to impeach him.  The Union will be split. 

lolmao500's picture

Riiiiiiiight. Who will impeach him? Boehner? Harry Reid? LOL!

The only way to tell Obama to go to hell if he does that is for states to plan SECESSION REFERENDUM WITHIN A MONTH OF HIS EOs. I'm sure it would pass in many states.

Or at the very least, governors and state legislatures telling Obama that any of his EOs and unconstitutional federal BS won't apply in the state.

pods's picture

Yeah I think it could be done with several vocal state AGs flatly telling him they will not enforce that decree because according to the constitution that they (states) passed, CONgress makes the laws.