Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Gun Politics

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 57842
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:25 pm

WaPo
Obama moves to further regulate gun sales with executive actions that circumvent Congress
...
The package includes 10 provisions, White House officials said. One key provision would require more gun sellers — especially those who do business on the Internet and at gun shows — to be licensed and would force them to conduct background checks on potential buyers. Obama would devote $500 million more in federal funding to treating mental illness — a move that could need congressional approval — and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller be reported to federal authorities.

At the president’s direction, the FBI will begin hiring more than 230 additional examiners and other personnel to help process background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Also, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new center to investigate illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network.
...
Limiting the scope of the background checks measure — the administration is clarifying what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms — may have bolstered the measure’s legal defensibility at the expense of having a far-reaching impact. This does not constitute new regulation, which would be subject to public comment and congressional review, but its application depends entirely on how aggressively federal authorities press the matter.

And though most of the actions the president outlined can take place unilaterally, lawmakers could raise the prospect of blocking the implementation of some of his plans through the funding process.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 7890
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Jaymann » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:26 pm

Why do gun lobbyists love terrorists?
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
Exodor
Posts: 16375
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Exodor » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:28 pm

Jaymann wrote:Why do gun lobbyists love terrorists?
Because they're good customers.

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 7890
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Jaymann » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:46 pm

Exodor wrote:
Jaymann wrote:Why do gun lobbyists love terrorists?
Because they're good customers.
:violence-ripper: :text-happynewyear:
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18405
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Pyperkub » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:58 pm

To be fair, the Do Not Fly list *is* a rather poor and opaque list to be using to restrict constitutional rights, and is probably unconstitutional in and of itself (preventing freedom of assembly, etc.).

However, it is in place and is the Government's tool of record until such time as the Do Not Fly list is successfully challenged in court, IMHO.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45179
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:17 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:WaPo
Obama moves to further regulate gun sales with executive actions that circumvent Congress
...
The package includes 10 provisions, White House officials said. One key provision would require more gun sellers — especially those who do business on the Internet and at gun shows — to be licensed and would force them to conduct background checks on potential buyers.
Makes sense. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standards as B&M stores?

Obama would devote $500 million more in federal funding to treating mental illness — a move that could need congressional approval —
Much needed funding, regardless of how it fits into the gun issue.
and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller be reported to federal authorities.
Makes sense. Otherwise "losing" product would be an easy way to sell it untraced.

At the president’s direction, the FBI will begin hiring more than 230 additional examiners and other personnel to help process background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
If they're understaffed, do it. But if they're that understaffed that's a serious problem.
Also, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new center to investigate illegal gun trafficking online
As long they don't try some more of that Fast and Furious gunwalking bullshit, seems like a good idea.

and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network.
Ok.
And though most of the actions the president outlined can take place unilaterally, lawmakers could raise the prospect of blocking the implementation of some of his plans through the funding process.
Yeah, that's what they do.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14025
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Enough » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:16 pm

So is this the long-prophesied taking of all the guns by Obummer that triggered historically high gun sales? This is what they were afraid of?
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

User avatar
wonderpug
Posts: 9408
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:38 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Gun Politics

Post by wonderpug » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:26 pm

Enough wrote:So is this the long-prophesied taking of all the guns by Obummer that triggered historically high gun sales? This is what they were afraid of?
I think gun nuts are afraid of legislation like a national NY SAFE Act, or the old assault weapon ban. They'll buy up high capacity magazines, or AR-15s, or whatever else they think might be banned so they can grandfather them past the legislation (or to just have and hide from the government if they become banned). Some are also afraid of 'lists'. Things like the mandatory registration of assault weapons in the NY SAFE Act are thought of as a first step for "the government is gonna come and take my guns", and also feature prominently in the imaginations of apocalyptic gun nuts who are prepared for the US government to turn on us and try to enslave us.

As one of those rare weirdos who slants left wing for just about every single thing on the list except for gun control, the stuff Isgrimnur quoted above doesn't bother me much. The changes to HIPAA frighten me, though.

I'm very much in favor of protection of privacy and wish our laws were as stringent as those in the EU. I get that this new legislation is well-meaning, but it makes me anxious to see an executive order put a big ol' asterisk next to the privacy rule of HIPAA that says "*but some of your private medical history will be reported to the FBI".

I also worry that this change might be a deterrent to some for seeking mental help. How many potential mass shooters sought out mental help and ended up taking a better path in life, and how many of those people would have avoided getting help if they knew their diagnosis would be reported to the FBI?

I really hope the legislation is worded in a way that addresses this stuff, but so far I've just seen vague things like HHS.gov saying "the new modification is carefully and narrowly tailored to preserve the patient-provider relationship and ensure that individuals are not discouraged from seeking voluntary treatment."

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45179
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:09 am

wonderpug wrote: I really hope the legislation is worded in a way that addresses this stuff, but so far I've just seen vague things like HHS.gov saying "the new modification is carefully and narrowly tailored to preserve the patient-provider relationship and ensure that individuals are not discouraged from seeking voluntary treatment."
My understanding from a very brief overview is that it only applies to very few "covered entities" (that is, organizations that meet to be HIPAA compliant) for specific cases. Things like involuntary institutionalization or court-ordered evaluations/institutionalization.

I agree that it might discourage some people from seeking out mental health treatment but only because they don't understand the nuances of the law. Much like it already does.

FWIW, there are a lot of individuals who pay cash for treatment because they don't want it showing up in their insurance records.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 3031
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Gun Politics

Post by em2nought » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:04 am

NRA is offering half off lifetime memberships. Includes $2500 yearly theft insurance in case a democrat steals your guns(one way or the other). :mrgreen: http://www.shootingusa.com/LATEST_UPDAT ... rship.html
webuildthewall.us

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26871
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Rip » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:48 am

Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.

User avatar
raydude
Posts: 2715
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: Gun Politics

Post by raydude » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:31 am

Rip wrote:Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.
Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket. Wouldn't want you to forget the 'good ol days' would we? :ninja:

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26871
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Rip » Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:00 am

raydude wrote:
Rip wrote:Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.
Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket. Wouldn't want you to forget the 'good ol days' would we? :ninja:
You won't see my costs skyrocket. I stay away from the Federal Officers of Medicine as much as possible.

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22886
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by RunningMn9 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:20 am

While none of the actions bother me per se, I am not at all comfortable with implementing them via Executive Order. The Legislative process isn't just a handy convenience to pass the legislation that you want, to be discarded for other means when it doesn't.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22886
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by RunningMn9 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:21 am

raydude wrote:Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket.
In case?

Costs were skyrocketing for almost a decade before Obamacare was passed.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 36732
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Gun Politics

Post by hepcat » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:29 am

Rip wrote:
raydude wrote:
Rip wrote:Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.
Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket. Wouldn't want you to forget the 'good ol days' would we? :ninja:
You won't see my costs skyrocket. I stay away from the Federal Officers of Medicine as much as possible.
You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31509
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Politics

Post by El Guapo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:47 am

RunningMn9 wrote:While none of the actions bother me per se, I am not at all comfortable with implementing them via Executive Order. The Legislative process isn't just a handy convenience to pass the legislation that you want, to be discarded for other means when it doesn't.
I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power. The most significant-sounding measure - expanding the scope of entities who have to do background checks - seems to be based entirely on just adopting a broader interpretation of a phrase ("engaged in the business" of gun sales) within an existing statute, and interpreting phrases in statutes is at the core of what the executive branch does. Most of the rest is just moving resources around and changing priorities.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 57842
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:54 am

From activist judges to Congress removing their own insider trading restrictions to executive orders, every branch is pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with.

If they can try the argument that an Amish hate crime is a federal case because the scissors were a product of interstate commerce, the idea that people that sell guns at gun shows are "engaged in the business" of gun sales isn't that much of a stretch.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 36732
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Gun Politics

Post by hepcat » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:02 am

I don't even see it as a stretch. If you sell a gun at a gun show, you're "in the business" to some extent. And thus you should be held to the same registration and background standards.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22886
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by RunningMn9 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:47 am

hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.
Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22886
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by RunningMn9 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:48 am

El Guapo wrote:I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power.
He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31509
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Politics

Post by El Guapo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:56 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power.
He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.
There is undoubtedly a broader dynamic like you describe, but each use of executive power still needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It doesn't really make sense to condemn a use of executive power easily within a traditional view of executive power just because other instances of executive power are questionable.

Jeff V
Posts: 30705
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Jeff V » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:57 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power.
He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.
By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 36732
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Gun Politics

Post by hepcat » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:04 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.
Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.
"Overlook" is a nice way of putting it. :wink:
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 57842
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:09 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.
They don't like that Congress isn't doing anything.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22886
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by RunningMn9 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:13 pm

Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.
Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31509
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Politics

Post by El Guapo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:27 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.
Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.
First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33103
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Kraken » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:10 pm

That's all well and good, but the real question is How will this affect Massachusetts?

MA has some of the toughest gun laws in the US and among the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, second only to HI. HI has the advantage of isolation, whereas MA is surrounded by states with loose standards (I'm looking at you, NH). Boston's mayor says that 70% of gun crimes in the city (wherein resides most of MA's population) are committed with firearms bought out-of-state. So, to the extent that broadened enforcement makes it less convenient to drive to NH or RI for easy guns, the new rules are likely to have a positive effect.

And here I was ready to dismiss them as showmanship.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26871
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Rip » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:17 pm

hepcat wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:
hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.
Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.
"Overlook" is a nice way of putting it. :wink:
Overlook is my middle name.

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 7890
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Jaymann » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:23 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:
hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.
Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.
"Overlook" is a nice way of putting it. :wink:
Overlook is my middle name.
Wasn't that the hotel in The Shining?
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 36732
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Gun Politics

Post by hepcat » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:39 pm

Ergo, it stands to reason, Rip was the hotel from The Shining.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45179
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:44 pm

El Guapo wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:
Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.
Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.
First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.
Honestly I don't see this as the end-around that RM is making it out to be. Much of these measures are enforcement related, directly under the executive. The mental health funding provision is still subject to congressional approval.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31509
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Politics

Post by El Guapo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:48 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:
Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.
Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.
First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.
Honestly I don't see this as the end-around that RM is making it out to be. Much of these measures are enforcement related, directly under the executive. The mental health funding provision is still subject to congressional approval.
Yeah, my point is mainly that his general grievance is sound, it's just that it's not all that applicable here.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45179
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:54 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Yeah, my point is mainly that his general grievance is sound, it's just that it's not all that applicable here.
Exactly. Going to war by executive action? Yes, that's overreach. Wiretaps or drone wetwork without congress? Yep. (not pointing to any particular executive here, just examples)

Tasking the DEA to enforce existing laws through new, legal methods? Not so much.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 38541
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:02 pm

Well, Arizona fixed it:
House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31509
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Politics

Post by El Guapo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:05 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Well, Arizona fixed it:
House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.
Before this were they spending a lot of resources enforcing unconstitutional laws and orders?

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45179
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:09 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Well, Arizona fixed it:
House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.
Let the celebrations begin!

12:10 p.m. MST January 6, 2016

Tucson police say they are in a standoff with a man outside a department substation who claims to be armed with guns and explosives.

The incident has shut down several roads around the substation on Miracle Mile and Flowing Wells. The Interstate 10 ramps are also closed in that area.

Police say the man parked his recreational vehicle on Wednesday morning in the parking lot of the substation and claimed he had guns and explosives.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22886
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by RunningMn9 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:55 pm

El Guapo wrote:First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.
I can't speak to the legalness of what he's doing. That's far less important to me. For a long while I've felt that the Executive Branch has abused the EO power of the office.

And no - I wouldn't argue that the People(tm) voted for legislators that wouldn't take action, and a President that would take this action, because this was their preferred way of handling it.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 7890
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Jaymann » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:16 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:Well, Arizona fixed it:
House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.
So who exactly will be making these determinations? Can another front on gay marriage be far behind?
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31509
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Politics

Post by El Guapo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:18 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.
I can't speak to the legalness of what he's doing. That's far less important to me. For a long while I've felt that the Executive Branch has abused the EO power of the office.

And no - I wouldn't argue that the People(tm) voted for legislators that wouldn't take action, and a President that would take this action, because this was their preferred way of handling it.
Isn't the legality of the orders a highly relevant part of the question of whether he is abusing his power in this case?

Post Reply