Obama readies 19 executive actions on guns

[Jaguar]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/b ... ml?hp=t1_3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

I don't think it will happen without a fight, see below.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-c ... n-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

[ajwakeboarder]

The comments in that story make me sick to my stomach.

[texanjoker]

[K.Mooneyham]

So, let me get this straight: the POTUS is going to make it illegal to OWN more-than-10-round magazines with the stroke of the pen? REALLY? And once again, they are going to enforce that HOW? I put this question to the LEOs on the forum for them to think about and talk with their fellow law enforcement compadres about, I am seriously not looking for them to answer me...are YOU going to arrest everyone you see that has a 20 or 30 round magazine if the POTUS makes an executive order banning them? And furthermore, how much money are state and local law enforcement agencies going to devote to enforcing this sort of thing? I know that some agencies already have tight budgets...is that going to be money well-spent?

[mamabearCali]

His title is president, not king, emperor, czar, or anything else. This man has lost all perspective. If he tries EO like that he needs to be run out of town on a Rail.

[OldCannon]

Looking forward to the first person that posts a YouTube video showing Obama all the "illegal" mags he has, telling him his address, then challenging Obama to arrest and prosecute him. If he doesn't, it means his words were empty and he has no intention of backing an executive order. If he does, well...that will be fun to watch.

[gigag04]

The LEOs in this forum aren't well enough acquainted with the statutes, well enough supported to enforce, or well enough interested in, federal law. Most of the fed interaction for our agency is when the DEA picks up a dope case to go fed'l with it. Once in a while a theft ring will get picked up by Feds, but we aren't in a position to charge folks with violations of federal law that are not restated at a state level.

Example: felon in possesion of a firearm at home > 5 years after release...

[fickman]

The way this reads, I don't think the magazine ban will be an EO.

To get the AWB and mag capacity changes, they'll do a full court press using the media, Brady group, Soros, Giffords, unions, occupy, hand selected victims, and their "foot soldiers" from November.

They'll try to change the conversation, make gun owners sound like extremists, and try to divide us using invented "moderate" pro-gun groups that like hunnting but hate AR-15s. They'll try to embarrass and harrass gun owners. I fully expect more public shaming like we've seen in New York. Sheer intimidation and bullying.

Moderate states will be in jeopardy... Michigan, Indiana, the libertarian New England states, Colorado, etc.

This is going to be constant for the next four years. No matter what happens, we have to be ready in two years to increase our seating in both houses of Congress and pray for the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

[PBR]

so if an EO happens there will be no grandfather involvement for 30rd mags? -- or is that something they can choose or not choose to add or go for? -- i got 30rd mags and nothing else seems like would have to be some grandfather clause involved like the prior ban had

[ryouiki]

Did they update this story or something?:

“It was all focusing on enforcing existing law, administering things like improving the background database, things like that that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).

[DocV]

Did they update this story or something?:

“It was all focusing on enforcing existing law, administering things like improving the background database, things like that that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).

I do not think the article changed. In fact, my impression of the press conference led me to believe that the EOs were to be exactly as Congressman Scott said. We shall soon know.

[A-R]

I don't see EO banning hi-cap mags here:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... regulation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

I don't see EO banning hi-cap mags here:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... regulation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She is delusional.

Anygunanywhere

[punkndisorderly]

From what I'm reading/hearing the executive orders are administrative in nature (more data collection, more prosecutions of prohibited persons attempting to buy, etc.).

The confusion stems from every report mingling the discussion of EO's with possible changes in law.

[longhorn_92]

The comments in that story make me sick to my stomach.

Here is one such comment:

I hope one of those 19 EOs includes declaring the NRA a terrorist organization. That is really all that's needed to put them away for good. Just imagine Wayne Lapierre playing soccer with the Taliban down at Guantanamo. Priceless! Maybe they can teach him how to make a suicide bomber vest and demo it to his NRA compadres. LOL...

Wow!