2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bunker on April 23, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
-
Seen this floating around on many of the forums and I haven't seen it definitively validated or disproved either...ban importation of ammo, magazines and gun accessories without congressional approval. Appears the Examiner is where the story originated from and the usual suspects and many gun forums are reporting this. I did a quick search and it is out there but I didn't see it in any mainstream news, but I didn't do a thorough search. So take it for what's it's worth but whether it ends up being true or not, I don't doubt Obama won't have a round #2 on gun control measures, just like he said in his recent speech.
http://www.examiner.com/article/after-senate-setback-obama-quietly-moving-forward-with-gun-regulation (http://www.examiner.com/article/after-senate-setback-obama-quietly-moving-forward-with-gun-regulation)
Federal register (Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services—U.S. Munitions Import List:
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-22/pdf/2013-09392.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-22/pdf/2013-09392.pdf)
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 447
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms control, Arms and munitions, Authority delegation, Chemicals, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Seizures and forfeitures.
Executive Order 13637—Administration of Reformed Export Controls, March 8, 2013.
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201300143/pdf/DCPD-201300143.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201300143/pdf/DCPD-201300143.pdf)
Here Come the First of the Executive Actions
http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/04/here-come-the-first-of-the-executive-actions.html (http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/04/here-come-the-first-of-the-executive-actions.html)
-
I've seen it floating for awhile too. Man, it takes me weeks before I somewhat understand what is going on in these types of gun regulations that are all over the internet and on multiple forums. Then I come to find out later down the line that it was a made up story. I think waiting till mainstream media news reports it (doubt it on this one) is the best way to verify the stories validity. My "thorough" search includes going all the way to the 5th page on google search...lol . I don't think Obama is done with gun control, but all I can do is wait and watch for now :popcorn:
-
So far, the title should read something like
After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with enforcing the laws we already have.
Which is what we all said should be done in the first place. Or so it seems to me.
~So far~
Doesn't mean it will stay that way.
-
I've been hearing a little buzz about this import/export ban thing. Not much credible sources so not sure if its legit. He can't eo import and exports like that unless he wants to get killed by congress. Nevertheless keep watching out for any new info.
-
I've been hearing a little buzz about this import/export ban thing. Not much credible sources so not sure if its legit. He can't eo import and exports like that unless he wants to get killed by congress. Nevertheless keep watching out for any new info.
what's even the point of an import export ban? it shouldnt affect a single rifle, they are already on import restrictions.
sounds like a half baked theory to me.
-
what's even the point of an import export ban? it shouldnt affect a single rifle, they are already on import restrictions.
sounds like a half baked theory to me.
Some of the stuff I have seen is trying to make a connection to the UN Small Arms Treaty in that the Executive Orders are in line with the treaty language. Not too much explanation in what I have seen so take it for what its worth.
-
Some of the stuff I have seen is trying to make a connection to the UN Small Arms Treaty in that the Executive Orders are in line with the treaty language. Not too much explanation in what I have seen so take it for what its worth.
Me too......may be just chatter but irregardless I don't believe Obama won't make another run at gun control one way or another. Probably comes down to just how he will make a run at it, not a matter of if he will.
-
what's even the point of an import export ban? it shouldnt affect a single rifle, they are already on import restrictions.
sounds like a half baked theory to me.
True but couldn't he expand the current ban that Bush senior imposed on imports? I don't know enough about it to know what he could tweak that's already in place.
-
Impossible, he cannot use Executive orders they say
-
Impossible, he cannot use Executive orders they say
Just curious....who says he can't use executive authority? I'm no lawyer but can't a president use executive authority when he deems appropriate/necessary, albeit it can be challenged, and not just related to this subject. After all that is how we got the 1989 import ban if my memory serves me correct...that didn't get congressional approval but Clinton's AWB got full congressional approval. And I believe Clinton used executive authority in later years to expand the AWB list. Jus saying and I don't know the legal answer to know any better.
-
Just curious....who says he can't use executive authority? I'm no lawyer but can't a president use executive authority when he deems appropriate/necessary, albeit it can be challenged, and not just related to this subject. After all that is how we got the 1989 import ban if my memory serves me correct...that didn't get congressional approval but Clinton's AWB got full congressional approval. And I believe Clinton used executive authority in later years to expand the AWB list. Jus saying and I don't know the legal answer to know any better.
I believe Bass Monkey's response is tongue in cheek.
-
I believe Bass Monkey's response is tongue in cheek.
Oh sorry BM...I thought you were serious but then again I get confused easily and don't have a clue about a lot of this legal stuff. So when I ask it's truly because I don't know but I'm very interested.;D.
-
Oh sorry BM...I thought you were serious but then again I get confused easily and don't have a clue about a lot of this legal stuff. So when I ask it's truly because I don't know but I'm very interested.;D.
Dooood...........now that I know you can get worked up, Imma gonna start poking the hornets' nest............... :geekdanc:
-
Dooood...........now that I know you can get worked up, Imma gonna start poking the hornets' nest............... :geekdanc:
Just as long as is doesn't involve a short Filipino guy with earrings and a replica gun. :rofl:
-
Not to post and dig, but i must have misread the post replying to mines about EO. I guess the president can do one, however, it must be cleared by the senate, and its not a "cause i can shove it down your throat" kinda thing.
-
Not to post and dig, but i must have misread the post replying to mines about EO. I guess the president can do one, however, it must be cleared by the senate, and its not a "cause i can shove it down your throat" kinda thing.
Kinda digressing but I don't believe this is completely accurate but like I said, I'm no lawyer. From everything I've read executive orders do not need Congressional support or approval because it completely bypasses congress. Once issued, it becomes law. Colt808 is extremely knowledgeable from what I've seen in this area and I recall him explaining EOs in another thread that was very clear for me to grasp. But here is what I pulled off the web that details how an EO can be overturned:
"...Executive orders can be overturned by either of the other two branches: the Supreme Court can do so through a case that is brought in front of them and Congress can do so by passing legislation that would conflict with the order or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. The president still has the right to veto a decision from Congress, which Congress can override as always with a two-thirds majority that would end the executive order. However, this is nearly impossible because of the supermajority vote that is required as well as the fact that individual lawmakers can be left very vulnerable to political criticism. Executive orders can also be overturned by future presidents.
To date, two executive orders have been overturned by other branches. This includes the 1952 Harry Truman order that put all steel mills in the country under federal government control, as well as a 1996 Clinton order that attempted to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order)
http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/detail/understanding-executive-orders-and-the-powers-they-grant (http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/detail/understanding-executive-orders-and-the-powers-they-grant)
-
i dunno, another member here posted something like that. Im confused as hell. Good thing i dont own any firearms. :shake: :shake:
-
i dunno, another member here posted something like that. Im confused as hell. Good thing i dont own any firearms. :shake: :shake:
That makes two of us. :rofl:
-
I've been hearing a little buzz about this import/export ban thing. Not much credible sources so not sure if its legit. He can't eo import and exports like that unless he wants to get killed by congress. Nevertheless keep watching out for any new info.
Yes there was to be a small arms international import export ban, etc. It was voted for by our UN represenative... the US Senate barely shot down that vote recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty)
Yes and Hirono (D-HI) voted to give away our second ammendment right to the UN by voting against the bill "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty". A traitor indeed. They nay's failed by 4 votes to give our rights to the UN.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091#position (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091#position)
Here's a complete list of those traitors involved.
Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)
Pass it on so these people are voted out of office.
Here are some links to get up to speed on that fiasco.
Here's what Forbes magazine has to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/)
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had passed would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators
were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power, the UN.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/36060-senate-vote-un-arms-trade-treaty.html (http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/36060-senate-vote-un-arms-trade-treaty.html)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty)
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/36060-senate-vote-un-arms-trade-treaty.html (http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/36060-senate-vote-un-arms-trade-treaty.html)
EO's are only applicable to the enforcement of previosly existing laws passed by congress and the exucutive branch. They are not applicable to creating new laws that bypass anything. It's the presidents ability to either enforce or stop enforcement of exisiting law and ONLY IN THAT MANNER does it bypasses congress. SO IT HAS NO bite/power beyond altering exisiting law enforcement status. ie... to arrest marijauna sellers in marijauna legal states or to not arrest them - an EO can be issued for such and in that manner it bypasses Congress. It may be an order to be more aggressive or to back off enforcement of any federal law.
So lets add to that type of power, congress may cut funding to the department that is responsible for enforcing a law that a president has ordered to aggressively enforce. An extreme eo can bite back and stop enforcement of IRS audits/ tax evasion convictions, eventually leading to limiting funds for Congress to distribute by allowing tax payers to stop paying taxes without reprisal. Then we have the Judicial branch that has the power to strike down any law it deems unconstitutional, etc. Finally we have the people, who have the ultimate power to shut down and reboot the whole show.
-
This is the action of a dictator. He was raised in the Marxist-Leninist ideology, and it shows in his contempt for the constitution. Remember, every time he says something, you can be sure he's lying his ass off.
-
Just seems like Obama and his minions are all over the place and it's like incoming artillery and you never know where the next round is coming from. No telling what that shady ass is capable of and what he will attempt to pull, and it's not just 2a related stuff. The country is going broke and they don't seem to think that's a big deal.
-
Executive orders are tricky.
Technically, no, they cannot be used to create new laws or to do things that are illegal. They cannot ~legally~ be used that way. As with all actions of authority it takes the action of another authority to hold them to account. Meaning that the president can issue whatever executive order he wants - if Congress or the Federal courts don't complain then it continues to be implemented.
An example of this kind of thing is the New Orleans Katrina "gun grab." The local authority issued a order that "only the police shall be armed" and it happened before any other authority could shout back "what the hell are you thinking?!"
A more frightening example is the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII. That was an EO that the rest of the terrified sheep in the country didn't loudly protest as a violation of their constitutional rights... so it continued. To this day most Americans are not horrified at this blatant and terrible violation of Americans' rights. So they can be used badly to do illegal things if no one else cares that its illegal.
I won't get into the deal with the Arms Trade Treaty other than that I have argued at length elsewhere how it is not possible for the UN to usurp our 2nd Amendment rights via this treaty. That's not at all what the ATT does or is even attempting to do. We can by due process abandon the 2nd amendment but that has to be an internal process - one which we are already struggling with. The UN has no authority to force it even with the ATT. We really, really, really need to understand the limits of the UN's authority. Seriously. This is the international equivalent of "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?"
That the government can regulate imports and exports is.. .damn near central to what a federal government's primary role is. It is the reason, for example, that we don't have Chinese cars available in the US for 1/3 the cost of US made cars. It is a central tool for regulating the economy and protecting your interests. It can be used politically, of course, and a ban on importing some foreign weapons is political more than economic.
But the 2nd doesn't say we have the right to buy whatever weapons we want from whatever source. If our government had that working interpretation of the 2nd then we would not have the NFA. In a sense our entire gun control push-pull in this country revolved around "well regulated" since our frequent cry of "shall not be infringed" seems to fall on deaf ears. Regulating firearms imports is entirely within the legal powers of the government and no court in the country would consider a degree of it as a violation of the 2nd amendment. The question is to what degree.
If Obama bans the import of more Korean War era Garands... so what. If he bans the import of ALL foreign firearms then we have a problem big enough to challenge. Not on 2nd amendment grounds but on economic grounds.
-
Executive orders are tricky.
Technically, no, they cannot be used to create new laws or to do things that are illegal. They cannot ~legally~ be used that way. As with all actions of authority it takes the action of another authority to hold them to account. Meaning that the president can issue whatever executive order he wants - if Congress or the Federal courts don't complain then it continues to be implemented.
An example of this kind of thing is the New Orleans Katrina "gun grab." The local authority issued a order that "only the police shall be armed" and it happened before any other authority could shout back "what the hell are you thinking?!"
A more frightening example is the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII. That was an EO that the rest of the terrified sheep in the country didn't loudly protest as a violation of their constitutional rights... so it continued. To this day most Americans are not horrified at this blatant and terrible violation of Americans' rights. So they can be used badly to do illegal things if no one else cares that its illegal.
I won't get into the deal with the Arms Trade Treaty other than that I have argued at length elsewhere how it is not possible for the UN to usurp our 2nd Amendment rights via this treaty. That's not at all what the ATT does or is even attempting to do. We can by due process abandon the 2nd amendment but that has to be an internal process - one which we are already struggling with. The UN has no authority to force it even with the ATT. We really, really, really need to understand the limits of the UN's authority. Seriously. This is the international equivalent of "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?"
That the government can regulate imports and exports is.. .damn near central to what a federal government's primary role is. It is the reason, for example, that we don't have Chinese cars available in the US for 1/3 the cost of US made cars. It is a central tool for regulating the economy and protecting your interests. It can be used politically, of course, and a ban on importing some foreign weapons is political more than economic.
But the 2nd doesn't say we have the right to buy whatever weapons we want from whatever source. If our government had that working interpretation of the 2nd then we would not have the NFA. In a sense our entire gun control push-pull in this country revolved around "well regulated" since our frequent cry of "shall not be infringed" seems to fall on deaf ears. Regulating firearms imports is entirely within the legal powers of the government and no court in the country would consider a degree of it as a violation of the 2nd amendment. The question is to what degree.
If Obama bans the import of more Korean War era Garands... so what. If he bans the import of ALL foreign firearms then we have a problem big enough to challenge. Not on 2nd amendment grounds but on economic grounds.
Tricky yes. But in this case what I see is Obama bypassing Congress on the UN Treaty. Because they voted against it, he is now using his Executive Order to introduce the same language included in the treaty. So while we are not signing the treaty at this juncture, we will have the same effect as if we did.
One problem with the treaty is that some of the language is vague and as such leaves a lot of questions unasnwered in terms of the effect on the 2a. Just me, but I decide to err on the side of caution and assume the worst. I don't have the tin foil hat on, but it is in the closet just in case.
-
I don't have the tin foil hat on, but it is in the closet just in case.
Me, too. I even have a quick draw hanger for it just in case I need it in a hurry. :shaka:
-
Me, too. I even have a quick draw hanger for it just in case I need it in a hurry. :shaka:
:rofl: