White House Prepares 19 Executive Orders re: guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE]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.Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips. But Biden, who has been leading Obama’s task force on the response, spent two hours briefing a small group of sympathetic House Democrats on the road ahead in the latest White House outreach to invested groups. The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting. The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said. “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.). The White House declined to comment on the details of what Obama will propose. But Biden did indicate that the remains of the Obama campaign apparatus may be activated in the effort. “He said that this has been a real focus on the policy and that the politics of this issue, that a strategy on the politics of the issue hasn’t been undertaken yet,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told POLITICO. “He did remind us that the campaign infrastructure is still accessible.” Biden did not address two of the more significant issues in the gun debate: the appointment of a permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the role violent images in the entertainment industry play in the nation’s gun violence. Obama touched on his expected legislative guns agenda at his own news conference in the East Room on Monday, while stressing the power he has via executive order. “How we are gathering data, for example, on guns that fall into the hands of criminals, and how we track that more effectively — there may be some steps that we can take administratively as opposed through legislation,” Obama said. Even Democrats who back gun control concede that reinstating an assault weapons ban — the 1994 law expired in 2004 — will be a heavy lift for the White House. During his meeting with gun-rights groups last week, Biden mentioned only an assault weapons ban when telling the NRA and other organizations that Obama has “made up his mind” to support it. “I think everybody acknowledges that the assault weapons ban is a challenge, but other things — like the size of the magazines, the background checks, straw purchases — are all things that have a good chance of passing,” Scott said. Speier said she told Biden the White House should do as much as it can on its own. “I urged him to do as much by executive order as possible,” she said. “Frankly, I don’t have a lot of confidence that this Congress is going to do anything significant.” And Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Democrats’ Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said the magazine ban and universal background checks would be far more effective than an assault weapons ban without the political cost. “Probably the most recognizable thing you can say in this debate is ban assault weapons,” Thompson said. “But the other two issues” — forbidding high-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring universal background checks for gun purchases — “those two things have more impact on making our neighborhoods safe than everything else combined. Anytime you try and prohibit what kind of gun people has it generates some concern.” Biden’s personal gun violence outreach now includes the families of the 26 victims of the Dec. 14 school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Biden told the Monday meeting that he’s been reaching out to the families. A White House official confirmed the vice president has been in touch directly with some of the families. “The vice president mentioned that he has called every one of the families that has lost children in Connecticut, and that the conversations have lasted no less than 45 minutes,” Speier said.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html]Source[/url]

Or, Joe Biden finds nineteen new ways to wipe his ass with the constitution.

[quote]“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,” [/quote] I'm sure people will overlook this, and assume that guns will be taken.

If the following appears: - Hi-Cap Magazine Ban - Assault Weapon Ban - Pointless 'bullet tracing' introduction Call for impeachment

As I said in another thread, it currently takes a super-majority (2/3) in Congress to override an executive order. I personally think that the requirement should be reduced by some to help prevent the "imperial" presidency from occurring and because Congress should be the body of government drafting such policy. The Executive branch can at least suggest what they want to be done, and it should be up the the most representative branch of government (Congress) to make the actual law.

Hi-Cap mag ban is the only thing I support in this gun control debate. If you didnt hit shit with the first 10 rounds, you dont need the 20+ next.

[QUOTE=areolop;39224396]Hi-Cap mag ban is the only thing I support in this gun control debate. If you didnt hit shit with the first 10 rounds, you dont need the 20+ next.[/QUOTE] we've already talked about this. "You don't need it" is never sufficient reason to ban anything.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39224425]we've already talked about this. "You don't need it" is never sufficient reason to ban anything.[/QUOTE] Literally no good reason for it. Its excessive for hunting and sporting.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39224369]If the following appears: - Hi-Cap Magazine Ban - Assault Weapon Ban - Pointless 'bullet tracing' introduction Call for impeachment[/QUOTE] None of these are impeachable crimes.

[QUOTE=areolop;39224436]Literally no good reason for it. Its excessive for hunting and sporting.[/QUOTE]Literally NO REASON TO BAN IT EITHER. No gays need to get married, why can't we ban gay marriage?

[QUOTE=areolop;39224436]Literally no good reason for it. Its excessive for hunting and sporting.[/QUOTE] But no good reason exist to remove them.

[QUOTE=areolop;39224436]Literally no good reason for it. Its excessive for hunting and sporting.[/QUOTE] Who are you to define what is "excessive" for sporting? And this point has been beaten to death already but you have no real good reason to own a lot of things in this world but people still do

Leave my guns alone.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39224438]None of these are impeachable crimes.[/QUOTE] Isn't the failure to uphold oath a reason for impeachment?

and if it ends up just being [quote]“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,”[/quote] then that isn't a big deal. but if there's actual gun control then fuck no [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [quote] “I urged him to do as much by executive order as possible,” she said. “Frankly, I don’t have a lot of confidence that this Congress is going to do anything significant.”[/quote] also damn, what a bitch. She basically might as well say "this won't be popular, we know it won't be popular so just push it through as hard as you can and ignore the legislative branch."

[QUOTE=areolop;39224436]Literally no good reason for it. Its excessive for hunting and sporting.[/QUOTE] The Second Amendment has literally nothing to do with hunting or sport. I don't know why anyone who had ever read the single sentence that it is composed of would think that it does.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39224438]None of these are impeachable crimes.[/QUOTE] They go against the constitution.

I have no issue with this unless it actively infringes upon a normal person's rights. Calling for more research, or more aggressive enforcement of existing laws is perfectly fine, not only because it would only affect the criminal primarily, but because it's actually within the power of the executive branch to call for. If i remember from school, the executive branch handles enforcement and has the ability to accept or deny any incoming bills, judicial is for interpretation of laws and actions, and legislative for proposing new laws and such.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39224470]and if it ends up just being then that isn't a big deal. but if there's actual gun control then fuck no [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] also damn, what a bitch. She basically might as well say "this won't be popular, we know it won't be popular so just push it through as hard as you can and ignore the legislative branch."[/QUOTE] Even though I don't have much of a problem with enforcing existing laws, despite not liking existing laws, executive orders are never the way to go. It's not a way to start wars, it's not a way to implement laws or enforce them. It's just unconstitutional as far as I can see.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;39224343]I'm sure people will overlook this, and assume that guns will be taken.[/QUOTE] see: the post above yours [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman VII;39224470]and if it ends up just being then that isn't a big deal. but if there's actual gun control then fuck no [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] also damn, what a bitch. She basically might as well say "this won't be popular, we know it won't be popular so just push it through as hard as you can and ignore the legislative branch."[/QUOTE] you should watch "Lincoln"

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39224494]The Second Amendment has literally nothing to do with hunting or sport. I don't know why anyone who had ever read the single sentence that it is composed of would think that it does.[/QUOTE] Second amendment literally says nothing about the ammunition. Everyone would still be entitled to bear arms, but they wouldn't have 30+ round mags.

How about they focus on helping the people with Mental health issues.

[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39224530]see: the post above yours [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] you should watch "Lincoln"[/QUOTE] care to elaborate more? I don't feel like watching a movie right now. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=areolop;39224551]Second amendment literally says nothing about the ammunition. Everyone would still be entitled to bear arms, but they wouldn't have 30+ round mags.[/QUOTE] by simple definition you are infringing on the peoples right to bear arms, it's pretty clear cut at least how I see it

[QUOTE=areolop;39224436]Literally no good reason for it. Its excessive for hunting and sporting.[/QUOTE] Hunting, perhaps. But as for sporting? [video=youtube;UbbkyN2gyMw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbbkyN2gyMw[/video] [video=youtube;Ye30b3TL5wI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye30b3TL5wI[/video]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;39224343]I'm sure people will overlook this, and assume that guns will be taken.[/QUOTE] anyone who doesn't realize that this is what executive orders do is deluding themselves in paranoia. the president cannot create new laws, only give guidelines to federal agencies regarding enforcement of laws already on the books.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39224575]care to elaborate more? I don't feel like watching a movie right now. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] by simple definition you are infringing on the peoples right to bear arms, it's pretty clear cut at least how I see it[/QUOTE] The fifteenth amendment was passed using brute force, bribes, etc it's for the good of the people I'm sure everyone here agrees that ethics are above law.

[QUOTE=areolop;39224551]Second amendment literally says nothing about the ammunition. Everyone would still be entitled to bear arms, but they wouldn't have 30+ round mags.[/QUOTE] If we don't need 30 round magazines, why do we need the internet? or tv? phones? Both are an extension of the Bill of Rights.

[QUOTE=Del91;39224559]How about they focus on helping the people with Mental health issues.[/QUOTE] uh how about they do both Look just from an outsider perspective here, as an Australian, I think Obama is probably doing the right thing in the long run Seriously I have still heard no acceptable justification for why Americans need big guns in their home with huge mags and lots of bullets [QUOTE=IliekBoxes;39224589]If we don't need 30 round magazines, why do we need the internet? or tv? phones? Both are an extension of the Bill of Rights.[/QUOTE] This is not an acceptable justification

[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39224588]The fifteenth amendment was passed using brute force, bribes, etc it's for the good of the people I'm sure everyone here agrees that ethics are above law.[/QUOTE] When your 'ethics' are 'you don't need that think of the children' you can fuck off

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39224438]None of these are impeachable crimes.[/QUOTE] A weapons ban would be, as it is outside of the abilities of the Executive Branch. Stuff like that legally has to go through Congress.