Though much of the right has been unhappy with Vice President Biden's task force on gun violence, an unscripted comment Biden made last week caused conservatives to ring the alarm even more aggressively.
Talking to reporters about possible policy changes, Biden said, "The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet, but we're compiling it all ... as well as legislative action, we believe, is required."
The use of possible "executive orders" was not well received -- the right, without having seen the still-unwritten orders, accused President Obama of taking dictatorial actions on guns without congressional approval. ABC's Jonathan Karl raised the issue at this morning's White House press conference, asking, "[G]iven how difficult it will be, some would say impossible, to get any gun control measure passed through this Congress, what are you willing or able to do using the powers of your presidency to act without Congress?"
The president said we can expect more information once the VP's task force has crafted specific recommendations, but Obama added, "I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president. And where you get a step that has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it."
This, I suspect, will cause even more heart palpitations, so let's quickly note two simple facts. One, there are plenty of legal steps a president can take -- in this and other areas -- without actions from Congress. It's perfectly normal under existing law and not evidence of a dictatorship.
Two, there's ample precedent for president using executive power to act on guns -- including in Republican administrations.
Eric Boehlert highlighted over the weekend this story from 1989.
The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles. Imports of the weapons have been suspended since spring.
The permanent ban affects all but 7 of the 50 models included in the spring suspension. It does not affect the far larger number of virtually identical weapons manufactured domestically, nor does it affect foreign-made semiautomatic weapons already in the United States.
The fact that Bush/Quayle administration issued an executive order on guns, within its legal authority, did not mean the then-president had seized authoritarian power in a bloodless coup. The NRA didn't like it, but Bush had the authority and he used it.
So can we stop pretending perfectly legal executive orders are evidence of creeping tyranny?
Leave a Comment:
But don't you understand, Steve, that all the rules change when a Democrat is president?
Go, Mr. President.
Do it!!
It's time for Executive action, instead of NRA action.
. Asking for a ban on military assault weapons and large capacity magazines IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK. It requires such a small sacrifice from gun owners who can always set up ranges where these weapons can be rented on site for play etc.
Requiring more regulations to keep military weapons and large capacity magazines out of the hands of crazies IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK if it could result in smaller death tolls of innocents like small children.
IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TOO ASK. Until congress can come to terms of dealing with it then the president should do it through Executive order until Congress can get around to it. IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK. Gun and ammo dealers' greed can just stand down...they won't go broke.
Actually...this President is EXACTLY the reason that the Second amendment CAN NOT be"tinkered with" by Executive order. He can try...but the Supremes will walk on his crank for YET ANOTHER in a long line of Dictatorial over reaches.
The hysterical bilge from those on the right never stops.
The head in the sand, willing to bend over on a moment's notice for this failure by the left sometimes leaves me slack jawed.
Arrogant, fact-free posturing by the right is standard policy for them. They are worthless.
right now- 3:30 pm, Monday,- there is a live hearing on "guns" on C_SPAN. Has been running a good part of the day, Mayor Bloomburg testified earlier. Sponsored by Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
Lots of good ideas.
How was Mayor Bloomberg called to the stand today? "Will the blathering idiot from New York please take the stand"?
Another classic example of projection by those on the right.
Was he stopped and frisked for possession of a big gulp first?
Did his armed guards see to it that no one else in the area was armed?
Were any trespass citations issued
Did he re-iterate his opposition to well basically all the President's policies
I really don't have to project for that guy...His policies teend to announce his nuttiness FAR before he enters a room. Wonder how many New Yorkers have been arrested for possessing more than 16 ounces of a controlled substance? (soda)
fwiw my understanding is possession is not a crime....just the sale and distribution...
Its not easy to find a politician I disagree with on EVERYTHING but this may be awful close
A good start would be with the Law's that affect the ATF from doing there Job. Start with the Firearm's Dealer's whose record keeping is shoddy and doesn't account for Lost, Stolen or Total inventory. Here's a question, How or why is someone's 2nd Amendment Right to purchase infringed upon, whereas a Dealer is asked to provide info within 5 day's when a Buyer has bought Multiple Semi-Auto' rifles that have removable Magazine's? Is this Reasonable?
WOW! The ATF IS the agency with "the shoddy paperwork". First they lose weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels...then Hussein has to use Executive Privilege to hide his as well as Holders involvement in the death of the Border agent RESULTING FROM their mismanagement.
Scott, First off, I am a Firearm's owner, Here is a small part of the Many Factor's involved 1st, The Dirty Dealer's, And how they are Protected, Google Badger Gun's and, Read into the TIAHRT Amendment, This is what is wrong. 45 min from Chicago
To read the entire Wiped Clean investigation,
go to jsonline.com/wipedclean
This fiasco seems comparable to a drug bust gone bad, not some massive conspiracy
It would appear that the ATF is as fractured and screwed up with politics and the cronie system taking the lead instead of competent leadership and an agency with a clear mission.And while perhaps there are Dealers out there whose paperwork is outr of date or incomplete...HOW do you have an agency that is just as incompetent and seemingly adrift with the EXACT same paperwork flaws and missing weapons be the prosecuting agency when they are as bad if not WORSE than the Company they are going after? That agency is in massive disarray and seems to be more of a political appointment than a competent efficient judicial arm. I could see having an independent arm that is not beholden to Political winds stepping in to that roll. I am for Gun dealers following the Laws, but I also see no problem with when ownership changes, their violations do not stay with the new owners.as far as Banana clips and the such..there is no difference in 10 round vs. larger clips in the tragedies that occur in places like Conn.Multiple weapons or multiple clips hold the same danger. I do believe that were the laws on the books when it comes to securing weapons would be the best way to prevent such tragedies as much as any other laws that could be put in place.
It's amazing that the Supreme Court has interpretted the Second Amendment to mean that individuals (apart from an organized militia) have the right to use any and all types of guns and ammunition. Why isn't anyone giving attention to the words "well-regulated" in this conversation? Regulating gun rights is not an infringement of anyone's Second Amendment rights... in fact, that's what the Second Amendment calls for!
We get it, 'Gun Control' is a bad word. Nobody is trying to take away the rights of the 2nd Amendment in the literal sense.
But in the world of mentally unstable, lawmakers should find a way to make our society a safer place. If restrictions placed on guns are what it takes, or stricter background checks, we should open the floor to debate.
The U.S. has averaged more than 18 gun deaths every day since the Newtown School shooting. Some thing should be done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
You want to slow down the abuse of guns in the US? Cut Welfare and quit providing the money and the time for the criminals in the mean streets of urban America to ply their trades, instead of spending time looking for work to provide shelter for themselves. What is the "score" in Chicago up to already? I know the Killing fields of Chicago accounted for almost 550 murders last year and are off to a fast start this year. Instead..this Failure-in-Chief prefers to go after law abiding Citizens. Had the Mother in Conn. had her guns in locked cases (as law requires) and NOT accessible to this son she knew to be mentally ill...Hussein would have to find another reason to trample the second Amendment.
SCOTT, IS that a Reasonable question that I ask in my Previous Post? Don't call me a 2nd Amendment Stampeder, The Place that I mentioned is what give's Legit places the bad rap. How can someone defend the bad Places like this? For the life of me Why in the heck can't All Law Enforcement work together? WE know MENTAL HEALTH is an issue, But, with Privacy law's in Place, How is that incorporated? I'LL say it, Some sacrifices will be made, But There has to be a sacrifice made in regards to the Privacy issue of Patient's with Mental Health.
We don't really need to trample on the 2nd Amendment, just on the Gun Cult.
The slippery slope argument carries more weight than you might think, European policies don't exactly mirror our FIRST amendment either, under the hate speech laws in most European countries half the folks carrying signs in Times Square would be in prison.
I would be curious to see what they propose. I hope they strengthen back ground checks to include mental illness.
But in light of what happened at Sandy Hook, I think it's more important than ever for gun owners to tell other gun owners to keep their firearms locked up and safe. There are now locks that will only open with a designated person's finger print or a secret combination.
Thank you for a moment of clarity in the insanity which is the stampede to go after the second Amendment.
I have my doubts that Boehner will even bring a single gun control policy up for the vote. Given all that, it's as important than ever for gun owners to rethink their own safety procedures. I know I have.
I hope no one thinks this is spamilicious, but after Sandy Hook, I bought myself one of these. If you own a gun, keep it safe from people who shouldn't be touching your firearms!
http://www.gunvault.com/gun-safes.html/
Alva: You waited till after Sandy Hook to buy a gun safe? And go ahead and admit to all Maddowbloggers that you keep at least one loaded gun handy for "intruders", because after all the ridiculous strawman you have spewed out there is no way you have all your guns locked up, or you repeatedly lied.
There ARE other ways to "safe" your weapons and still have them accessible and at the ready in time of need with biometrics and such.
The specious argument which supports the availability and sales of weapons of war/assault guns and body armor is based in the US Constitution put forth by the NRA and other gun nuts needs to be called into question. This is the epitome of marketing and a propaganda campaign. An expose on the NRA and so-called gun advocates is long over due!
Our country can no longer endure the purchase of our health and safety by gun and amo manufacturers. We alll need to support measures to expose the NRA for the harlots of the gun and amo manufacturers.
Restrictions on assault type weapons and the type of body armor worn by the perpetrator of the Century 16 massacre are long over due. Our lives and the lives of our children are at stake!
The NRA is some pop up organization that sent lunatics to yell at health care town halls, it has millions of ACTUAL people who pay real money and in varying degrees agree with its positions.
Let's see....we shouldn't let guns get into the hands of certain people (criminals, mentally challenged, etc), but a background check is an infringement. (If a background check weren't an infringement, then maybe the NRA would be onboard with closing the 'Goober-and-Gomer-Gun-Show-Gala-Flea-Market-and-Emporium'....but they're against it). If I want to sell my car, then the buyer and I have to go to the local DMV (or in some states, the local accredited agency), and make sure that the car is registered, and the taxes from the sale are paid. But again, in the world of the tin-foil hat crowd, that's how the gubment tracks who gots the guns fer when they's affixin' to come 'n' take 'em away.
As far as the government 'losing' guns to gun runners from Mexico...you're kidding right? All anyone has to do is show up at the aforementioned 'Emporium' and buy a gun. I doubt Goober or Gomer are going to know, or care, about ID, or be able to identify a false ID if it were presented. Let's face it, that's why 'Fast and Furious' got started....we knew that illegal immigrants were coming to this country to buy guns. And they weren't stopping at their local WalMart or Target (ironic name much?) to buy them. Goober and Gomer were only too happy to sell them as many guns as they wanted......just like the NRA wanted it to be.
Every single shooting in this country is directly attributable to the NRA. No deviations, no diversions....directly the fault of the NRA.
Everything changed after 9/11.
Arguing about cutting welfare and calling the President "Hussein" does absolutely nothing for the cause. Anybody with the brain of a 5 year old can surmise the connotations of such laguage. It's not helping.
Some in the gun enthusiast community are calling for rallies at State Capital buildings as an avenue to help with this issue. A great idea if you are a law abiding gun owner, and want to respectfully and lawfully let your opinion be heard. But, with language such as the one displayed, you are going to lose a lot of supporters that may feel the same way as you do on the gun issue. There are tons of Latinos, African Americans, Asians, and Women that are law abiding gun owners as well. They could be an asset to your cause, don't you think? Quit the Tea Party think, and try instead to help the issue by respectfully using all assets. I doubt you'll get many minorities to attend these rallies if this kind of rethoric continues and is perceived.
I believe in an even keel solution. I often find that the left tries to go for the jagular and favors mostly radical changes. That is not going to work and only serves to encite more radical opposition to a good solution.
The NRA would be in a better position to support and ensure the rights of gun owners if it stuck with gun ownership and safety alone. Instead, it appears it has become a super pac of sorts for the right and far right. They have no business diluting their representative power by getting involved in other aspects of right wing politics. Thus, there are lots of centered minded gun owners that feel disenfranchised because they don't feel welcomed in organizations such as the NRA.
I will say this much; no matter what is banned, you will not be banning anything from criminals. They will always be able to get whatever they want. The police as much as they try, almost always arrive after the fact, not before. Not everyone has the means or privilege to live in safe neighborhoods. Some of the loudest voices for banning this or that, are wealthy people that either live in well guarded communities or have security details.
Remember that time the Bush/Quayle administration used an executive order to outlaw the import of assault rifles to the US ...
… and then the US became a dictatorship and Bush repealed the bill of rights and took away everyone’s guns and proclaimed that he was the king of America.
Whatever your views on gun control are, can we please knock it off with the whole "Obama is being a dictator for considering executive action" spiel?
Does anyone else see the words "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment?