TexasCHLforum.com

Obummer is going to address the nation on TV tonight from the Oval Office. I just heard on FoxNews that there is speculation he will announce executive action on guns tonight.

I'm headed off to church this morning...but seriously thinking of heading to Academy afterwards. What do ya'll think?

Blindref757 wrote:Obummer is going to address the nation on TV tonight from the Oval Office. I just heard on FoxNews that there is speculation he will announce executive action on guns tonight.

I'm headed off to church this morning...but seriously thinking of heading to Academy afterwards. What do ya'll think?

Been wondering the same thing myself as he has only done that what, three times I think?

I don't think so....

First:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... amic-state

And:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... un-control

I can't imagine him saying "ISIS is here....and this is how I am going to reduce your ability to defend yourselves..."

.....but with this guy....who knows....

chuckybrown wrote:I don't think so....

First:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... amic-state

And:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... un-control

I can't imagine him saying "ISIS is here....and this is how I am going to reduce your ability to defend yourselves..."

.....but with this guy....who knows....

The aides stressed that the number of pro-gun members in Congress has only grown since the first big push for gun control following Sandy Hook. Because of this, the White House has “no strategy for dealing with Congress that leads to significantly tighter gun laws.”

The Congressional and popular opposition to gun control is so strong, that aides have shifted from talking about gun control Obama will pass to talking about why his supporters should give him credit for trying.

Which though is why I wouldn't put it past him to try something with EA. He clearly doesn't have the support in Congress. But what about saying that an EA is necessary for example, to ban assault type weapons as the terrorists have clearly shown here and now that they can get them and will use them. Not going to take away anyone's guns, mind you and not going to restrict anyone's rights, mind you...just going to keep miiltary style weapons out of the hands of terrorists as a matter of national security.

So here's a question....

Say the emperor says tonight "turn in all military style rifles". What's your thought on compliance? I think it may be a trigger he can't unsqueeze....

chuckybrown wrote:So here's a question....

Say the emperor says tonight "turn in all military style rifles". What's your thought on compliance? I think it may be a trigger he can't unsqueeze....

My honest response would violate several forum rules, so I'll just say, "NO".

"If we don't accept the worlds huddled masses, ie Syrians too cowardly to fight for their own country, the terrorists win" blah blah blah.
We don't exist to feed and house the worlds huddled masses and if we don't correct this "no borders culture" soon we will lose this country completely with imported foreigners voting for things. May already be too late, we shall see with the next election or two...

Here we go again, another gun scare....... No ammo anywhere....again......

All obummer is doing by taking executive action on guns is hurt his hopes of having another democrat in the white house in this next election.

He is gunna try to use what just happens to make people fear guns and side with anti-gunners.

If he can get our guns, there won't be anyone who can shoot back at his muslim brothers and sisters when they come...and they are coming.

The President cannot just haul off and order whatever pops into his devious little skull. The President is limited to authority in the Constitution and in statutes enacted by Congress. He can't even fill gas in his big black car without Congress voting the funds.

He can reinterpret some existing statutory provisions, make life a little more miserable for us in free states, barely noticeable in socialist hellholes like CA, maybe, but given the trend of gun legislation and court decisions in the last 25 years, not much will happen. Maybe he will draw a red line or something, huff and puff and stomp his feet.

He should be cautious. He may have gun owners voting Republican for the next 200 years or something.

After the Paris massacre, Ann Coulter opined that Trump was elected President, that night.

chuckybrown wrote:So here's a question....

Say the emperor says tonight "turn in all military style rifles". What's your thought on compliance? I think it may be a trigger he can't unsqueeze....

Perhaps. He could also or instead ban new sales, or even try slipping in a CA measure and require background checks for all ammo used in military style rifles. There are so many rules now about what is a handgun vs. a rifle, they could slip a few more in based on learning that the terrorists in San Bernardino shooting were able to modify one of the rifles used able to accept 30-round magazines. Desperate times for a president unable to get what he wants as the clock runs out, so it could be more about laying out the road for Clinton to continue on.

Glockster wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:So here's a question....

Say the emperor says tonight "turn in all military style rifles". What's your thought on compliance? I think it may be a trigger he can't unsqueeze....

Perhaps. He could also or instead ban new sales, or even try slipping in a CA measure and require background checks for all ammo used in military style rifles. There are so many rules now about what is a handgun vs. a rifle, they could slip a few more in based on learning that the terrorists in San Bernardino shooting were able to modify one of the rifles used able to accept 30-round magazines. Desperate times for a president unable to get what he wants as the clock runs out, so it could be more about laying out the road for Clinton to continue on.

EA would affect Fed employees. Anything that an average joe to do, or forced to do, needs a Federal Law. Nothing would happen when Congress is run by GOP.

Beiruty wrote:

Glockster wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:So here's a question....

Say the emperor says tonight "turn in all military style rifles". What's your thought on compliance? I think it may be a trigger he can't unsqueeze....

Perhaps. He could also or instead ban new sales, or even try slipping in a CA measure and require background checks for all ammo used in military style rifles. There are so many rules now about what is a handgun vs. a rifle, they could slip a few more in based on learning that the terrorists in San Bernardino shooting were able to modify one of the rifles used able to accept 30-round magazines. Desperate times for a president unable to get what he wants as the clock runs out, so it could be more about laying out the road for Clinton to continue on.

EA would affect Fed employees. Anything that an average joe to do, or forced to do, needs a Federal Law. Nothing would happen when Congress is run by GOP.

I disagree. All he has to do is CLAIM that it has a basis under the constitution to be able to issue it. For example, interstate commerce. And then it is perfectly legal and binding on all, right up to when months and months down the road a court declares that to be unconstitional. My point is that he is fighting leaving a legacy now, so what does he have to loose.

Look. While there is no doubt that our "Great Leader" would like nothing more than to disarm law abiding citizens in order to maximize dependency on "Big Government", it is all kabuki theatre designed to make us take our eye off his real goal, that is to enable a nuclear weapons capable Iran, including the ability to deliver those payloads.

The man is a traitor on so many levels that it simply seems unbelievable. We are seeing history repeat itself...

Glockster wrote:
I disagree. All he has to do is CLAIM that it has a basis under the constitution to be able to issue it. For example, interstate commerce. And then it is perfectly legal and binding on all, right up to when months and months down the road a court declares that to be unconstitional. My point is that he is fighting leaving a legacy now, so what does he have to loose.

Nope. The Interstate Commerce Clause and similar grant power to the Congress, not the President. He can act only under a grant to the President under the Constitution, as therein limited, or under a grant in a statute.

Even a professor of Constitutional Law knows that! A claim that ultra vires would be hooted down DOA.