Patterico's Pontifications

1/4/2016

President Obama Says Recommendations On Gun Control Executive Action Well Within His Authority

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:20 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Having just returned from a vacation in Hawaii, President Obama began making good on his New Year’s resolution of taking executive action on gun control.

After meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other law enforcement officials, the president made this statement:

The good news is that these are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch, but they’re also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.

Although President Obama was short on specifics, there is speculation about the expected focus of his forthcoming action:

Gun control advocates and White House officials say the focus remains on the so-called “gun show loophole,” which allows certain sellers of guns — at gun shows and elsewhere — to avoid conducting background checks before making sales.

Congress would still need to act in order to make background checks fully universal. But advocates and administration lawyers have struck upon a provision in the law that could allow for Obama to expand the background check requirement to additional sellers.

The president, believing that he Must Take Action to save American lives has yet to explain exactly which lives would have been saved if these restrictions had been in place. Nonetheless, he is convinced lives will indeed be saved, and he is pushing to convince voters of this:

“This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country. It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting. It’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal,” he said. “It will potentially save lives in this country and spare families the pain and the extraordinary loss that they’ve suffered as a consequence of a firearm being in the hands of wrong people.”

It is expected that the president will make a formal announcement tomorrow from the East Room of the White House. The president will also be holding a town hall this Thursday on CNN in a last ditch effort to convince us of the legality and viability of his desperately sought after legacy plans to protect the American people.

–Dana

109 Responses to “President Obama Says Recommendations On Gun Control Executive Action Well Within His Authority”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Hello back atcha. One more attempt to distract Americans from the EPIC FAIL of the Obama administration on multiple fronts.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  3. So does it appear that Obama will set a firm firearm sale number that begins the requirement for a federal background check? The DoJ statute is ambiguous now.

    Dejectedhead (81690d)

  4. Hello back atcha. One more attempt to distract Americans from the EPIC FAIL of the Obama administration on multiple fronts.

    Today’s Obama Administration is a lot like the Clinton Administration post-impeachment. Their agenda has long since been left for dead, so they are down to small-bore measures intended to “win” the news cycle but with pretty much no effect beyond propaganda usefulness.

    JVW (d60453)

  5. Mark Knoller has tweeted the following updates in the past hour:

    “Pres Obama to seek congressional funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to expand enforcement of gun sale regulations.”

    “Social Security to begin rulemaking on providing information on beneficiaries prohibited from possessing guns for mental health reasons.”

    “Similarly, @HHSGov to finalize rule allowing States to report on people barred from possessing a gun for mental health reasons.”

    “Pres to announce adding staff to NICS – the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, now dealing with >53,000 checks a day.”

    “Pres Obama directs DOD, DOJ and DHS to pursue gun safety technology to reduce accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms.”

    Saving lives.

    Dana (86e864)

  6. …but with pretty much no effect beyond propaganda usefulness.

    …don’t forget his legacy, JVW. FTW.

    Dana (86e864)

  7. Soooo…why didn’t he staff background check personnel better before? Didn’t it come out in a Congressional hearing that the DoJ did zero follow ups on failed background checks?

    Dejectedhead (81690d)

  8. failmerican hoochies are responsible for their own abortions i think

    it’s a question of individual responsibility you see

    which is a central value of the conservatism what a lot of people believe in for example me

    things what i also are believe in are stouffer’s french bread pizza

    that witless phone-poking is not a good thing for to indulge in

    that star wars is over-hyped

    that oprah winfrey is not a good person deep down

    and that the one thing you should never skimp on is mustard (especially if you like sammiches)

    happyfeet (831175)

  9. The administration is also working to improve the quality of background checks by encouraging states and government agencies to share more information about criminal histories, domestic violence and mental illness that could disqualify a person from buying a gun.

    omg that’s naked racism why doesn’t obama just put on a damn hood and light him up some crosses

    happyfeet (831175)

  10. well this is his wheelhouse, like agitating outside Citicorp, to lower lending standards,

    narciso (732bc0)

  11. People who adopt a pro-choice quasi-religion or moral philosophy based on a faith emanating from a penumbra and preached by men and women with a god-complex do not generally recognize the evolution of human life from conception. They engage in a pattern of “witch” hunts, where a human life is denied basic human rights until they are granted, and aborted or cannibalized when determined to be inconvenient or lucrative, respectively.

    As for determining intent based on perception, there are better measures of future orientations and behavior, including commonly held principles and uniform action.

    Obama proposes to restrict the rights of Americans predicated on possession.

    n.n (3e9803)

  12. If the new rules are only intended to limit person-to-person gun sales (several hundred) per year by requiring individuals engaged in such excessive private sales to get a Federal license and perform background checks, then a reasonable case can be made.

    However, if the new rules also prevent citizens from buying guns if their names appear on no-fly lists then the new rules should be opposed tooth and nail. There is no real due process available to those listed, no explanations provided, no notification given. An anonymous federal official puts your name on the no-fly list and your 2nd amendment rights vanish like smoke on the wind.

    It’s one of those things that look pretty good on the surface, but look deeper and the dangers are immediately visible and compelling.

    ropelight (ad0b47)

  13. One more attempt to distract Americans from the EPIC FAIL of the Obama administration on multiple fronts.

    More like add rather than distract

    Pons Asinorum (49e2e8)

  14. There have probably been more third-trimester non-emergency abortions than rifle deaths.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  15. people forget also that a lot of people what get killed by guns, they wanted killing

    not all of them but a lot more than you’d be comfortable admitting i bet you

    happyfeet (831175)

  16. Under the Sullivan Act, the mobs had a free hand, under the velvet fist that the Windy City has been operating for a third of a century, the crips and the bloods rule, same on the shadier corners of our citadel on the potomac, years after Heller.

    narciso (732bc0)

  17. But advocates and administration lawyers have struck upon a provision in the law that could allow for Obama to expand the background check requirement to additional sellers.

    Aah! The administration lawyers. I see. Apparently they struck upon something in: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” which will allow Obama to expand an already unconstitutional law thus just tweaking it towards a tad more unconstitutional. Okay, I’m down with that. I assume you all are seeing the same Deconstruction of Our Republic that I’m seeing, correct?

    It’s nice to know the “administration” i.e. government has well paid lawyers on the public payroll whose entire job is figuring ways of screwing their employers out of their God given Constitutional rights. IOW, bastardizing the law.

    Why am I a stranger in my own country? Better yet, why did I go to Nam and kill dozens of commies just to come back and have one as president? They say that French half-fag Kerry threw away his medals. That’s sounding like a good idea.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  18. french half-fag kerry he lived in a shoe

    he had so much ketchup he knew not what to do

    so he met a french fry guy and took him to bed

    while syrians labored to count up their dead

    but a peacey peace peace prize is all what he wanted

    so he traded in the french fry guy for this geriatric norwegian dude

    happyfeet (831175)

  19. but really though if this is all food stamp can do with his faggy american president executive orders

    it’s not much really is it

    happyfeet (831175)

  20. It’s much worse than it’s being portrayed in early media reports: The following excerpt is from The Washington Free Beacon 1/4/16 by Stephen Gutowski.

    Obama Executive Order May Require Those Selling Even a Single Firearm to Become Licensed Dealers

    Order also brings back plan to keep certain Social Security recipients from buying guns

    …“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

    “Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution.”

    Jarret then said that selling as few as “two firearms” could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further. “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun,” Lynch said…

    ropelight (ad0b47)

  21. i think AG lynch gets off on smelling her own farts

    happyfeet (831175)

  22. food stamp is just trolling for a reaction what makes his loser ass feel relevant

    happyfeet (831175)

  23. So if it is all within his authority, and it needs to be done, why didn’t he do this in 2009?

    Obviously this is pandering to his base, and a stick in the eye to the rest of us.

    John Moore (8ad7da)

  24. Having just returned from a vacation in Hawaii, President Obama

    Dana, your writing style, intentional or not, gives the thing in the Oval Office more importance, grace and dignity than it deserves.

    I recall many parts of the MSM often referring to the previous US president as, simply, George Bush or Mr Bush, casually omitting “president” before his name. I suspect that style of writing or speaking (from people in the electronic media) was not unintentional.

    Referring to the thing in the White House as a “thing” may be sophomoric or overly rude. But the left has made us a juvenile, rude society, so right back at-cha, you wonderful liberals you.

    Mark (f713e4)

  25. The general rule is to identify the subject individual the first time his name is mentioned by his full title. After that simply use the last name. It’s standard practice.

    ropelight (ad0b47)

  26. people forget also that a lot of people what get killed by guns, they wanted killing

    A point I often make. As you say, it isn’t a comfortable thought, but it’s a true one.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  27. “Let me be clear, we must do something now. That’s why I’ve embarked on an executive action that my own legal team said was implausible and unworkable. It’s the only way to stop mass shootings… except for those mass shootings committed by those who steal their guns or who have terrorist leanings but aren’t checked by my DHS.”
    –Barack “background checks would’ve totes stopped Lanza from stealing his weapon because shut up, that’s why” Obama

    top116 (d094f8)

  28. So, just to lay it all out there, Obama is embarking on a deeply unpopular policy that ranks very low on the list of American priorities (whereas the economy and terrorism rank high)… and all during an election year, no less. Sound familiar? Why, yes, this is like Obamacare. It’ll be a massive failure, enrage voters, and cost Democrats dearly in November.

    Obama’s legacy is assured. In addition to being an epic failure on every conceivable policy, he will have severely damaged the Democratic party for at least a generation. Well done.

    top116 (d094f8)

  29. It’s standard practice.

    Apparently not in Dana’s case.

    Having just returned from a vacation in Hawaii, President Obama

    Although President Obama

    I’m not sure if Dana is one of those who deems the office is more important than the individual, so even if it’s currently occupied (IMHO) by a thing or an it, Dana may think the office/title should be treated with respect. If so, my ethos or writing style is different from his.

    As far as I’m concerned, that which is currently in the White House until no later than January 2017 (God willing) has gone from “What’s-His-Name” to “Thing” or “It.” Of course, these threads aren’t necessarily meant to be nose-in-the-air, erudite discussions, so if I can be snotty and snide, well, since we live in an era that plumbs the depths, snottiness and snideness seems quite appropriate at this time.

    Mark (f713e4)

  30. Obama Executive Order May Require Those Selling Even a Single Firearm to Become Licensed Dealers

    Not quite. They still need to be genuinely engaged in the business of dealing, or at least the ATF would have to be able to convince a court that they were. Someone who was merely selling off their own collection, let alone someone who was merely selling one or two guns of their own, would be safe. What this really means is that, far from being a bold new initiative, there will be no change from the current situation. “A mountain gave birth to a mouse.”

    …“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

    In other words, exactly as it is now.

    “Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution.”

    Exactly. That’s why when all the talk for the last few weeks has been that 0bama would impose a definition of 50 sales a year, I’ve been saying that I wish he would do that, but every time it’s been proposed in the past the ATF has been against it, because they like the flexibility the current situation gives them to bully people.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  31. So if it is all within his authority, and it needs to be done, why didn’t he do this in 2009?

    Because he was hoping to do something real. What today’s announcement really means is that he’s given up on making any real change, and is resigned to making some minor adjustments to existing regulations, that hardly anyone will notice, and hyping it up as if it were something major.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  32. Mark,

    I believe you are focusing on what’s not important about this post rather than what is. The president is again behaving in a lawless manner as he works to limit the rights of Americans. That is what should be the focus. Certainly not my writing style.

    For the record, President Obama is just that, the president.

    Dana (86e864)

  33. President Obama Says Recommendations On Gun Control Executive Action Well Within His Authority

    For what it’s worth I think he’s right about that. All these extremely minor measures he’s announced seem well within his authority, and that’s not saying much.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  34. Watch out, Dana, or he’ll start accusing you of leftist tendencies.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  35. R.I.P. Robert Stigwood

    Icy (8c543e)

  36. For the record, President Obama is just that, the president.

    Yep, Dana, but you don’t have to run that point home (or, to me, analogous to someone playing the sound of nails on a chalkboard) by mentioning it (ie, the thing in the Oval Office) with the preceding word of “president” more than once per blog entry.

    That thing is so disgusting and contemptible — and when I think of its statement several years ago about if Republicans bring a knife to a fight, that it (and its disciples) should bring a gun — that I wish it would point that gun at itself.

    Mark (f713e4)

  37. Watch out, Dana, or he’ll start accusing you of leftist tendencies.

    Milhouse, I observed the way you concluded our discussion in that other thread, and at least — at the very least — realize those left-leaning emotions or glints in the back of your mind certainly, most definitely, do not enhance your common sense, logic, honesty, integrity or compassion. So when you do feel those liberal biases welling forth deep within you, tell them, hey, get the hell out of here!

    Mark (f713e4)

  38. Barcky says he must do this, even if it “saves just one life”.

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  39. Hey, President Feckless Distractor… how about a minimum sentence of 30 years if convicted of committing a burglary, robbery, assault while brandishing/threatening with a firearm?

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  40. That’s not a good idea Colonel, for the same reason now evident with the Hammond’s. The law will start with that then go to including toy guns then no gun but “saying” the guy has a gun. Minimum sentencing does not allow for enough variances in sentencing and what happens is a lot of cases are plead down to avoid the sentence. That’s bad because something like an armed car jacking can be plead down to auto theft which won’t show on the guys rap sheet as a violent crime just theft.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  41. Gun control affects mostly, overwhelmingly in fact, black men. They are the victims of the draconian sentences for felons in possession or the Lautenberg Amendment; the discretionary denial for not being solid enough citizens; and they are the ones least able to afford the $1,000 or so (Illinois price) for a carry permit, above the cost of the gun, ammo, and range time.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. The law/government is charged with keeping the people safe from crime. If they don’t have the will to tell the ACLU to screw itself and reinstitute lawful mandatory institutionalization of the mentally ill and similarly won’t keep violent felons in prison for their full sentence and at the same time refuse to execute those sentenced to death in a timely manner this is the result. Since the law and those who run it won’t do their jobs they look around for excuses or scapegoats. Guns are just that. There are only two kinds of people who use guns unlawfully: criminals and crazy’s. (I deliberately leave terrorists out because they are neither, they are jihadis).

    I’d also like to point out if we remove the democrat dominated cities and the hell holes they create we do have a pretty low murder rate. As usual, the leftist democrats in their blind, ignorant desire for some dumbass utopia have created the very cesspools that create lawlessness and violence.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  43. Gun control affects mostly, overwhelmingly in fact, black men.

    I think you mean law-abiding black men. This comment from the WSJ article explains much:

    The irony is that there used to be more licensed dealers. There were many licensed small dealers that were covered under the FFL laws enforced by the ATF. The Brady Act in 1993 initiated mandatory background checks by all dealers as well as making being a dealer more difficult by increasing license fees and other requirements.
    From 1968 until 1993, any person who was over 21, paid a $10 annual fee, had premises from which to operate, and was not prohibited from possessing firearms was issued a license by the ATF.
    The number of “Type 1” FFLs (dealers licensed to sell firearms, as opposed to those licensed to manufacture firearms or sell ammunition or curios) saw an even more dramatic decline since the reforms of the early 1990s. The number of Type 1 FFLs dropped 79 percent between 1994 and 2007 (from 245,628 to 50,630).
    If they had left the licensing intact, the small part time “dealers” that sell at gun shows would have been required to run background checks. You might say that the Brady Act shot itself in the foot.

    Obama is just trying to do something that was undone by the Brady Bill.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  44. Well, yes, a guy facing 6 to 30 for armed robbery or 20 to life for murder won’t worry too much about 1 to 3 or 2 to 5 for unlawful possession. On the other hand, a person with a felony conviction trying to get his life together but still living in a s***hole wants to protect himself and his family too.

    Holder got it, even if Obama never read about it in the newspapers or saw it on cable news. The DOJ had a program, Project Safe Neighborhoods, where it hunted down gun owners with felony records (think marijuana conviction from 30 years ago) and sent them back to the pokey for five years. Holder mostly put an end to that. The DOJ still cooperates and coordinates with local law enforcement to enforce the “no guns for felons” rule but leaves the actual prosecution to the discretion of the local (state and county) authorities.

    nk (dbc370)

  45. 44… I dunno, Hoagie, maybe law enforcement is there to protect criminals from the people.

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  46. Is Holder that warped nk?
    I mean, what political gain did he get with that?
    Are they that interested in the felon vote to do harm to the law abiding?
    Or did he think he was doing a favor for those who “wanted to go straight but needed to protect themselves”?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  47. If Obama was serious, he’d get serious about dissuading criminals from using guns to commit crimes and get off the backs of law-abiding people, they aren’t the problem.

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  48. Well, he’s not getting on the backs of law-abiding people, at least any more than he already was. The measures he’s announced should affect approximately zero law-abiding people. Or non-law-abiding people for that matter. If he simply did these things without announcing them, nobody would ever notice.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  49. I wasn’t joking about the thirty-year old marijuana felony, MD. And, personally, I think law-abiding ex-cons have the right to self-defense too. But I’ll give you a better example. It never happened to any of my clients because I was their attorney, but for almost 20 years now in Illinois carrying a gun in public without a permit is a felony. That means that an otherwise law-abiding gun owner would be barred from owning, that’s owning, any firearm, ammunition, or ammunition components, for life, subject to five years in prison, because he got caught with a gun outside his home, farm, or fixed place of business. I think this is one of the more sensible things Holder did.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. because *within the past 20 years* he got caught with a gun outside his home, farm, or fixed place of business.

    nk (dbc370)

  51. Wheeee!!!! Now I can finally get that FFL I’ve been wating all these years!!!

    MJN1957 (6f981a)

  52. BTW, the “felon vote” is one of the many frauds perpetrated on us that turns me off the GOP. Only 11 states do not allow felons who have completed their sentences and/or terms of parole or probation to vote. 37 do allow them to vote; and 2 (Maine and Vermont, who else) allow them to vote from prison.

    nk (dbc370)

  53. The good news as proclaimed by the deer-in-the-headlights Obama is that he’s pledged to get himself some help with his mental health issues…

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  54. Obama wipes the tears away… sheesh.

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  55. The Crying Game

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  56. He hasn’t done a goddam thing to stop the black on black carnage in Chicago.

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  57. The Obama administration could’ve been aggressively enforcing federal gun laws. They have not done that.

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  58. I can accept that a “law abiding felon” should be able to own a firearm like anybody else.
    But with the recidivism rate, one would like an easy way to reduce the guns held by people who are temporarily out of jail.

    Felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote except with granted approval after no longer being on parole, but I agree there are bigger fish to fry.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  59. With the president’s announcement this morning, it appears that if a person has a dissenting opinion re guns and his doctor is made aware of this, that person can them be labeled mentally ill by the doctor and then report his patient to the FBI. Wow.

    Dana (86e864)

  60. But with the recidivism rate, one would like an easy way to reduce the guns held by people who are temporarily out of jail.

    The recidivism rate isn’t nearly as high as it’s cracked up to be. The common belief that it’s so high is based on an elementary statistical error.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  61. How about a new rule preventing gun ownership for anyone actively preaching or promoting fundamentalist Islam, jihad, or terrorism in a Mosque, on the Internet, telephone, TV, or print media?

    ropelight (923c8f)

  62. With the president’s announcement this morning, it appears that if a person has a dissenting opinion re guns and his doctor is made aware of this, that person can them be labeled mentally ill by the doctor and then report his patient to the FBI. Wow.

    Where are you getting that from. I haven’t found any actual description of his measures other than what was released last night, and I don’t remember seeing anything like what you say then.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  63. How about a new rule preventing gun ownership for anyone actively preaching or promoting fundamentalist Islam, jihad, or terrorism in a Mosque, on the Internet, telephone, TV, or print media?

    That would be blatantly unconstitutional. The first amendment protects such speech.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  64. Maybe not, see the Alien Enemies Act 50 USC Sections 21–24.

    ropelight (923c8f)

  65. The measures he’s announced should affect approximately zero law-abiding people. Or non-law-abiding people for that matter. If he simply did these things without announcing them, nobody would ever notice.

    Unfortunately Milhouse, that’s how leftist fascists work. Drip, drip, drip. Just one small almost unperceivable drip at a time until POOF! gun ownership is gone. Leftist never try and accomplish their goal in one swoop. It’s always the steady drip that wears away the resistance.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  66. When idiot interpretations of the US Constitution prohibit a school boy from saying Merry Christmas but an Islamic terrorist is allowed to preach bloodthirsty jihad then it’s time to take notice of a few of the penumbras surrounding Constitutional authority.

    Specifically the ones that protect the lives of Americans.

    ropelight (923c8f)

  67. Milhouse,

    I was reading this:

    Delivering on its promise to deliver “common sense” gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.

    The action was one of a series of steps that President Barack Obama had called for in January 2013 in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings to curb gun violence, but the rule was not published until today.

    While the 1993 Brady law prohibits gun ownership by individuals who have been involuntarily committed, found incompetent to stand trial or otherwise deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, federal health care privacy rules prohibited doctors and other providers from sharing information without the consent of their patients.

    Under the rule, which takes effect next month, for the first time health providers can disclose the information to the background check system without legal repercussion.

    Also, in California, family members can report their loved ones they are fearful about and a “gun violence restraining order” may be issued if it is deemed warranted.

    Dana (86e864)

  68. milhouse, an interesting point re: recidivism. Logically, this should lead one to support N-strikes and you’re out laws, where N is 3 to whatever, depending upon your tolerance for the violence perpetrated by the repeat offenders. It wouldn’t affect the majority of those trapped in the American Gulag, since they won’t repeat, but it would deal with those who have developed a taste for preying on their neighbors. It would also be consistent with restoring full rights to those who have served their sentence, at least for the first few times. Or maybe you can just adjust your expectations, like John Mortimer’s Rumpole of the Old Bailey, and learn to appreciate the humor of having your house broken into, getting car jacked, or simply having your savings cleaned out by the next generation of professional criminal.

    And if we exercised a little more discrimination in those entrusted to serve as the public’s prosecutors, say dispensing with the likes of the Papagnis and Fitzgeralds, we might find the Gulag shrinking rather than growing.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  69. Obama shed no tears for Paris victims however.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  70. Put me in charge and every law which deprives a person of life, liberty or property will be subject to strict scrutiny for vagueness or overbreadth; must be necessary to fulfill a compelling societal interest; and must be the least restrictive means. Same as the First Amendment rest now. Further, every penalty, not just the death penalty, would be subject to a test of proportionality on a case by case basis.

    Laws that look sensible and useful at first glance can do a lot of harm to good people when applied in a Procrustean manner. Sure it’s a good idea to keep firebugs from starting forest fires and to lock them up for a long time when they do. And then the Hammond case comes along.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Ropelight, what has the Alien Enemies Act got to do with anything? All it says is that the president can intern or deport citizens of countries we’re at war with. I don’t understand in what context you bring it up. What is it in response to? It certainly doesn’t authorise the government to infringe either the first or the second amendments. It couldn’t do that, even if it tried, which it doesn’t.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  72. Put me in charge and I’ll enforce the Bill of Rights especially the 10th amendment.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    I’ll hang Nidal Hasan, shoot every damn bastard terrorist in GITMO, lock up Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett, Cheryl Mills, Huma Amadin, Lois Lerner, Janet Napolitano, Bowe Burgdahl, Nancy Pilosi, Debbi Wossy-Schultz and every other damn traitor and terrorist I can find.

    ropelight (923c8f)

  73. Unfortunately Milhouse, that’s how leftist fascists work. Drip, drip, drip. Just one small almost unperceivable drip at a time until POOF! gun ownership is gone. Leftist never try and accomplish their goal in one swoop. It’s always the steady drip that wears away the resistance.

    That’s ridiculous. These measures are not a slippery slope to anything; there is no path from them to anywhere. They are simply tiny adjustments in existing arrangements, that don’t affect anybody. He’s moving the furniture around and claiming to have achieved something. And the reason is because he can’t do anything more. That’s what all his meetings have been about; trying to figure out if there’s some way he can do something that will actually take a gun away from someone, somewhere. And the answer was no, there isn’t.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  74. When idiot interpretations of the US Constitution prohibit a school boy from saying Merry Christmas but an Islamic terrorist is allowed to preach bloodthirsty jihad then it’s time to take notice of a few of the penumbras surrounding Constitutional authority.

    No court has ever held that schoolboys can’t say “merry Xmas”, on their own time and of their own accord. And there is no doubt whatsoever that Islamists are entitled to preach bloodthirsty jihad, so long as they don’t do it in a way that is designed to whip up the audience’s emotions to the point where they’re likely to immediately go out and commit a crime, without taking time to reflect on it.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  75. Spoken like a true conservative, ropelight. I’m also all for letting people do anything I want to do.

    nk (dbc370)

  76. Dana, there’s a huge stretch from what you quoted to the conclusion you drew from it. Suspending HIPAA to allow doctors to report genuinely dangerous patients is a common sense change that everyone should support. It was crazy that HIPAA ever prohibited this. Of course doctors can abuse this by making false reports, but so could anyone. They can also have patients committed, and again this is open to abuse; nothing has changed in that regard. Whatever measures eiter exist or need to be enacted to protect people from being falsely committed can apply equally to being falsely put on the no-guns list.

    I also don’t see what’s new about families’ ability to get an order on a member whom they’re worried about. Surely they could always do that, and it has always been subject to abuse. Safeguards are and have always been needed on this, but adding gun ownership to the restrictions such people are already subject to seems only reasonable.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  77. Under the rule, which takes effect next month, for the first time health providers can disclose the information to the background check system without legal repercussion.
    Dana (86e864) — 1/5/2016 @ 10:45 am

    Interesting. I know none of the details.

    No rational person wants child abusers to get away with it,
    no rational nurse or doctor wants to get sued for raising an unwarranted suspicion,
    so laws are put in place mandating that certain professionals must report if any suspicion is raised, free from consequence if they are wrong, but lots of consequence if they do not report.

    Of course, there remains the problem of how something is investigated, with what kind of due process and attitude.

    I imagine this gun thing is intended to be applied in a similar light, but authored with an anti-gun bias, perhaps.

    Laws that look sensible and useful at first glance can do a lot of harm to good people when applied in a Procrustean manner.</em
    apropos, it seems.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  78. Put me in charge and every law which deprives a person of life, liberty or property will be subject to strict scrutiny for vagueness or overbreadth; must be necessary to fulfill a compelling societal interest; and must be the least restrictive means. Same as the First Amendment rest now. Further, every penalty, not just the death penalty, would be subject to a test of proportionality on a case by case basis.

    Laws that look sensible and useful at first glance can do a lot of harm to good people when applied in a Procrustean manner. Sure it’s a good idea to keep firebugs from starting forest fires and to lock them up for a long time when they do. And then the Hammond case comes along.

    Hear hear. It worries me that lately I seem to agree with almost everything nk writes.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  79. Milhouse, The Alien Enemies Act provides the legal authority for a US President to identify individuals as threats to the peace and stability of Americans, to restrain their activities, and to remove them if deemed prudent.

    Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

    Milhouse, your peculiar tendency to parse words and to nit-pick issues to death notwithstanding, it’s my contention that a State of War exists between Islamic terrorists and the US. They declared war on us in much the same way the Japanese declared war on us a Pearl Harbor.

    The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. It’s a document that specifies the federal government’s responsibility to protect the US and its people. Unfortunately, we have an enemy of the American people occupying the White House or we’d be fighting back against the terrorists instead of importing thousands of them into our country. We need a War Leader who will stop the insanity currently pandemic in our nation’s capital and use the strengths we possess to kill our enemies wholesale.

    ropelight (923c8f)

  80. Ropelight, the Alien Enemies act authorises one thing and one thing only: the internment or deportation of citizens of a country we’re at war with. It does not authorise any restriction on their speech. It may not be enforced in a manner that infringes on the first amendment by punishing certain speech that the government disapproves of. Above all, it does not apply to anyone but citizens of a foreign nation or government with which a state of war exists. It does not apply to US citizens or resident non-enemy aliens who merely exercise their first amendment right to express an opinion in favor of the enemy.

    Yes, we are at war with Islamist terrorists. They are not a nation or government, so they have no citizens, and there is nobody subject to deportation or internment. The terrorists themselves are not “alien enemies”, but enemy combatants; they’re not subject to internment or deportation, but to being killed or taken prisoner.

    Above all, even if none of the above were true, Congress has no power to infringe either the first or the second amendments. If the Act you cite really did authorise the measure you propose then it would be void.

    Really what you’re proposing is no different than the infamous law upheld by Schenk, and your claim that “the constitution is not a suicide pact” is exactly as dishonest and disgusting as HOlmes’s line about “falsely shouting fire in a theater”. There is no justification for imprisoning someone merely for opposing the draft, and there is equally no justification for disarming someone merely for advocating Islamism.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  81. “We need a War Leader who will stop the insanity currently pandemic in our nation’s capital and use the strengths we possess to kill our enemies wholesale.”

    – ropelight

    And which part of the Constitution specifies the job description for “War Leader,” constitutionalist? Hopefully there’s a clause somewhere in there explaining the difference between a “declared war” and a “Ropelight-Grade State of War.”

    I’m gonna go get my copy, hold on a sec.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  82. Hoagie, here is a list of the actual measures 0bama has announced. Ignoring the political gobbledegook and looking only at the operative clauses, do you have any objection to any of them? I don’t, apart from the extra spending. None of these seem offensive to the second amendment.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  83. That’s ridiculous. These measures are not a slippery slope to anything; there is no path from them to anywhere.

    What the heck is wrong with you? (Well, actually, I sort of know what’s causing your symptoms).

    Forget the court system or the US Constitution, or this legalese or that legalese. Focus on the idiocy of the way that human nature — due to political correctness run amok (which is almost 100% influenced by the left and liberal emotions) — allowed someone like Nidal Hasan to spew anti-US, pro-Islamic bilge until it was too late.

    The slippery slope incubated by political correctness, or, in effect, the nonsense of liberal biases going off the deep end, is on display in various nooks and crannies throughout America, corrupting the judiciary and no less than the US military too.

    Mark (ef02a3)

  84. shed no tears for Paris victims however.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c) — 1/5/2016 @ 10:49 am

    Nor the 440 murder victims in Chicago, a city that should be pacified if the most stringent gun laws employed in the U.S. actually worked.

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  85. Forget the US constitution

    Of course. That’s what it comes down to. And you dare accuse me of leftist tendencies.

    allowed someone like Nidal Hasan to spew anti-US, pro-Islamic bilge until it was too late.

    1. The US constitution (that you despis) says we had to allow that.
    2. What the **** does this have to do with any of the so-called “anti-gun” measures 0bama announced?

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  86. The only anti-gun measure relevant to Nidal Hassan is the one that prevented soldiers from being armed on base. That’s one that needs to be repealed ASAP, but it’s got nothing to do with 0bama.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  87. Chicago, Chicago, that murderin’ town…
    Chicago, Chicago, governed by a clown

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  88. Milhouse, the Act clearly authorizes the President to determine …the manner and degree of the restraint to which (enemy aliens) shall be subject… which certainly can be interpreted to include restraints on recruitment methods.

    Liviticus has succumbed to Milhouse’s Syndrome by Proxy. If you don’t know what a War Leader is think of a quarterback, or the captain of a ship.

    ropelight (923c8f)

  89. Milhouse, the Act clearly authorizes the President to determine …the manner and degree of the restraint to which (enemy aliens) shall be subject… which certainly can be interpreted to include restraints on recruitment methods.

    1. No act can override the constitution.
    1. No, it can’t be interpreted that way. For one thing it only applies to enemy aliens, which the targets of your proposal are not. Second, “manner and degree of restraint” means whether they’re put in a camp, or have to wear a tracker, or just have to check in every so often. It doesn’t and can’t affect their right to express their opinions, including enemy propaganda.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  90. Ride, Captain, ride
    Upon your sinking ship
    Be amazed at the ease
    The lies pass thru your lips

    Ride, Captain, ride
    Upon your sinking ship,
    On your way to a world
    That others think is sh*t

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)

  91. We know the tears are the same as Clinton’s tears at a gov’t funeral.
    A mere one day after the shooting rampage in San Bernando he did the ‘Comedians in Cars Drinking Coffee’ with Seinfeld.

    seeRpea (181740)

  92. We know the tears are the same as Clinton’s tears at a gov’t funeral.

    Exactly. It’s all a show.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  93. The only anti-gun measure relevant to Nidal Hassan is the one that prevented soldiers from being armed on base. That’s one that needs to be repealed ASAP, but it’s got nothing to do with 0bama.

    Milhouse, you’re so infused with liberal biases — more than you realize or care to admit — that you can’t even figure out it was the emotions of, “shhh, please don’t offend, embarrass, humiliate or alienate that which is different, non-conforming, foreign, disadvantaged and certainly of underdog status [BUT as defined by the left]!!!”) — incubated by liberal sentiment — coursing through sections of the US military that allowed Nidal Hasan to get away with his crap until it was too late, until the day of the bloody rampage at Fort Hood.

    Mark (ef02a3)

  94. Milhouse, the Act has been in force in it’s revised version for almost 100 years (1918) and it still stands (Original version in 1798). Now if you’re so convinced it’s unconstitutional why not write a note to the Chief Justice, maybe its inadequacies had been overlooked by the legal profession. Not.

    The Act can and has been examined and interpreted many times. It’s been challenged, attacked, denied, adjudicated, and obviously upheld – it’s still on the books.

    Additionally, it’s not anonymous or miscellaneous enemy alians who are the targets of my comment at #63. It’s the terrorist recruiters: anyone actively preaching or promoting fundamentalist Islam, jihad, or terrorism in a Mosque, on the Internet, telephone, TV, or print media

    I know you’re wetting your pants to get at me, but do try to be accurate and fair if you can manage it. Down boy!

    ropelight (923c8f)

  95. milhouse, it’s not what they write, but how it’s applied,

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/gun-rights-supporter-dana-loesch-gives-obama-a-thorough-fisking/

    narciso (732bc0)

  96. “If you don’t know what a War Leader is think of a quarterback, or the captain of a ship.”

    – ropelight

    Oh, a quarterback. My bad.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  97. The Alien Enemies Act applies only during a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government and Congress hasn’t declared war on anyone since 1941.

    A declaration of war is not an authoriztion to use force – it mainly has legal consequences.

    And as Milhouse says no foreign nation or government has declared war on the United States. Even if you consider ISIS to qualify as a foreign nation or government I don’t think they went to the trouble of declaring war.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  98. The Romans, under the Republic, were governed by two consuls, and a bunch of praetors and lower officials, all of them under the supervision of the Senate and the people’s Tribunes. When there was an extreme emergency, they would appoint a War Leader, who had the combined authority of all of the foregoing, to govern by decree. They called him a … wait for it … Dictator.

    Heil Kriegsfuhrer Trump, y’all!

    nk (dbc370)

  99. Or for liberal sensibilities, a Brownie Pack leader… Amirite?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  100. The difference between communism and fascism is that communism comes from the have-nots and fascism comes from the have-a-little-and-scared-to-lose-its. The second also known as the the middle class.

    nk (dbc370)

  101. The difference between communism and fascism

    There really is no difference between the two, since both ideologies involve people who are clueless about the dynamics of corrupt and corrosive bias, about hard-nosed reality, about whether someone or something is truly good or truly bad, or, worse of all, have a knack for transposing good and bad.

    Actually, since the left is far guiltier of that particular dynamic, totalitarianism apparently is incubated by left-leaning more than right-leaning sentiment. The perfect example of that being Adolph Hitler, a vegan who loved animals and animal rights, and thought socialism (part of the name of his wonderful political organization) was a perfectly fine ideology. Or, as another example, that being the fine denizens of — wait for it (tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock) — the city of Detroit, where humane, decent, upright, civilized and sensible behavior is so-o-o-o commonplace (since 90-plus percent of its populace is faithful to the righteous cause of liberalism and liberals).

    Mark (f713e4)

  102. A declaration of war is not an authoriztion to use force – it mainly has legal consequences.

    That is not true. There are no magic words that a declaration of war must contain. AUMF is a declaration of war for all legal purposes. But the concept of alien enemies requires a country with citizens. We’re at war now, not with any country but with the network of Islamist terrorist groups that includes al Qaeda. That network has no citizens, and thus there’s nobody to intern or deport. And in any case it has nothing to do with Ropelight’s bizarre demand for censorship.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  103. Milhouse, the Act has been in force in it’s revised version for almost 100 years (1918) and it still stands (Original version in 1798). Now if you’re so convinced it’s unconstitutional why not write a note to the Chief Justice

    Ropelight, you are either thick as a post or deliberately dishonest. I did not say the act is unconstitutional; I said it would be if it allowed your proposal. What you propose is explicitly prohibited by the first amendment, and yet you cited this act in support of it. How do you not understand that no act can override the constitution?

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  104. Adolph Hitler, a vegan

    Mark lies through his teeth once again.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  105. Mark lies through his teeth once again.

    I’ve posted very authoritative sources that describe Germany’s most notorious leader as being exactly that.

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    Mark (f713e4)

  106. I’ve posted very authoritative sources that describe Germany’s most notorious leader as being exactly that.

    No, you haven’t. You’re so used to lying that you no longer even notice when you do it.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  107. D-Bag Kerfuffle Saga continueszzzzzzzz

    Colonel Haiku (467f23)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1645 secs.