Biden "Obama to bypass Bill of Rights, doesn't care"

[CaptHawkeye]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/joe ... -1.1237010

WASHINGTON — Vice President Biden sparked a pro-firearm backlash Wednesday by vowing that his boss will use executive action — bypassing Congress — to put some gun control measures into effect quickly.

“The President is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken,” Biden told reporters in Washington. “We haven’t decided what that is yet.”

President Obama tapped Biden to head a task force that will present, at month’s end, a blueprint for reducing gun violence. Speaking to the press before meeting with shooting victims and gun reform groups, Biden stressed that Obama will present to Capitol Hill lawmakers a package of bills, based on the task force’s recommendations.

But, setting the tone a day before his group sits down with leaders from the National Rifle Association and Wal-Mart — America’s top seller of firearms — Biden made it clear that the Obama administration would not be stymied by pro-gun Republicans in Congress.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/joe ... z2HaM6o5bP

How glorious is it that our newly elected Great Leader can just chose to bypass Congress on issues related to the Bill of Rights? Throw the NDAA in with this kind of shit and voila, the President now has the power to trample all over your most basic Civil Rights. But that's ok because no one "likes" Congress. After 200 years Americans still hate bureaucracy more than they appreciate having their rights I guess.

I regret supporting Obama for another election now. This is not an admission that I should have voted for Romney either. I'm just sick and tired of having to chose between Plutocratic or Autocratic leaders.

[SirNitram]

In this thread, the OP proves he doesn't know a lick of the case law about the 2nd Amendment, and beleives a yellow rag run by Rubert Murdoch.

Idiot, there's no signs of violation of any of the Bill Of Rights in this.. Not even the only one you ACTUALLY value. the 2nd. D.C. v. Heller ruling in 2008 made it clear it is NOT unlimited. A total ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but that's not being discussed.

In short: You're an easily led rube drinking the Kool-Aid. Go back to your cave.

[Nathan F]

I'm honestly just more worried about the mindset of "We're going to pass a law, any law!" I don't think there is any grand conspiracy to bypass Congress on issues of a constitutional nature. Unfortunately, whatever comes out of this exploratory committee will most likely be legislation that looks good to the casual reader and makes great sound bites, does little to solve any actual problems, much like the original AWB.

[Lonestar]

In this thread, the OP proves he doesn't know a lick of the case law about the 2nd Amendment, and beleives a yellow rag run by Rubert Murdoch.

Idiot, there's no signs of violation of any of the Bill Of Rights in this.. Not even the only one you ACTUALLY value. the 2nd. D.C. v. Heller ruling in 2008 made it clear it is NOT unlimited. A total ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but that's not being discussed.

In short: You're an easily led rube drinking the Kool-Aid. Go back to your cave.

Given that the last AWB came out of legislative action, the precedent seems to be that the POTUS can't institute a AWB by executive order.

Of course, he could order NICS to stop doing background checks, which would grind all firearms purchases through FFLs to a halt. Didn't stop him from letting Holder try to do a backdoor registry as well.


By the way, it's well known that Biden said this not just repeated by "yellow rags run by Murdoch".

[Terralthra]

"Obama is going to take executive action," is not the same as "Obama is going to destroy the 2nd Amendment."

And, you know, the NDAA was passed by Congress with overwhelming majorities in both houses, right?

[Lonestar]

"Obama is going to take executive action," is not the same as "Obama is going to destroy the 2nd Amendment."

Which isn't what OP said either.

But chipping away at it "just because" isn't really acceptable to me either. If the Obama Administration was really serious about gun violence in the country they'd be talking about, in no particular order

Single payer healthcare(with mental healthcare included)
Ending the war on drugs
Jobs
Like of social mobility in the country
Lack of social safety net

But the only thing being brandied about is "how can we ban the things". And not even the types of firearms most likely to be used in gun violence, but the "scary black rifles".

But admitting that our urban areas are war zones because of failed social and judicial policies doesn't fit into the narrative of some liberal urbanites who view inanimate objects as the problem, and soccer moms who have been conditioned that "drugs are bad, mmkay" and so are scary black rifles.

And, you know, the NDAA was passed by Congress with overwhelming majorities in both houses, right?

What does that have to do with the price of beer?

The implication with the Biden statement is that the Administration knows they wouldn't be able to get the kind of legislation they want, so they're just gonna do it because they can.

[Lonestar]

Hell, I would be okay with a national Shall-issue license.

The license would consist of a background check using NICS and the 4473 form as the framework, and if you want the carry portion of the license you have to go to a carry class. License would be at a national level, so California or NY wouldn't be able to say "No! You can't have guns or carry here!".

I'd tweak existing rules so that States are required to share everything on the 4473 form with NICS, so we don't have someone like the VA Tech shooter getting ahold of firearms when he legally shouldn't be able to. If something happens after the initial issue of the license that changes the answer to one of those questions on the 4473 form ("Are you a stalker y/n") you have to turn in the license in a timely manner, or appeal the decision(again, in a timely manner).

So if you bought a gun from someone, the seller could just call 1-888-ATF-GUNS or something, type in the license number, and get a simple y/n on whether the sale is legal.


But again, we aren't hearing this. Feinstein wants a registry and everyone is talking about specific bans and ignoring the actual causes of gun violence.

[Lonestar]

Anyway, a update:

Biden will propose tightening Background Checks and Mag ban


Which is probably the most they can hope for. I would be in favor of requiring States to report to NICS relevant 4473 info.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's right, folks, guns = freedom. And anyone that disagrees is a damned fool.

[CaptHawkeye]

Hey Ziggy, smug sarcasm like that would only work if I was a member of the gun-nut crowd. I'm obviously not, but it makes me more easy to dismiss if you just pretend I am right?

No one ever said that, but in less than 1 post the thread already degenerated into groupthink machine of people more invested in semantics than understanding their civil rights are being trampled on right in front of their faces. So what if Congress is complicit? They shouldn't be. You have an obligation to stop them from being the President's accomplice.

And jesus Nit, you'd think it might mean something to you that a guy who formerly supported Obama is now opposed to him. Nope, just call me a cool aid drinking conspiracy nutter. Never liked those people myself either. I only used Daily News because it was the first Google result after I read the same exact quote this morning on Reuters. I fucking despise Murdoch as much as you do, but this is something the VP actually fucking said. So yes, lump me in with right-wing plutocratic wackos if it makes you feel better. Motherfucker.

I'm honestly just more worried about the mindset of "We're going to pass a law, any law!" I don't think there is any grand conspiracy to bypass Congress on issues of a constitutional nature. Unfortunately, whatever comes out of this exploratory committee will most likely be legislation that looks good to the casual reader and makes great sound bites, does little to solve any actual problems, much like the original AWB.

That's the real issue i've got with left-wingers at this point. They're not actually interested in solving the problems that contribute to gun violence in the country and are more invested in attacking proxy causes. Sure poor gun control contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre, it wasn't the main reason though. And it certainly isn't core enough of a problem to have the VP proudly declare the President can just ignore one third of the government. They're literally fulfilling the NRA's hysterical slippery slope propaganda. How sad is it that guys like Cuomo and Biden are making THEM look reasonable?

Like Lonestar said, better licensing and registration would be a better way to control gun violence then unenforceable bans. But no let's just keep feeding people simplistic zero-result answers.

[Terralthra]

"Obama is going to take executive action," is not the same as "Obama is going to destroy the 2nd Amendment."

Which isn't what OP said either.

Dude, read the fucking thread title. The OP wrote "bypass bill of rights" and then quoted an article saying Biden said Obama was going to take executive action. If the OP wasn't trying to link Biden's statements to the title of the thread, maybe s/he should've titled the thread something else.

The OP was a bleating idiot. Don't join her/him.

And, you know, the NDAA was passed by Congress with overwhelming majorities in both houses, right?

What does that have to do with the price of beer?

I don't actually know, maybe you should try scrolling up to where the OP talks about how the NDAA is a sign that our "Glorious Leader" can "bypass Congress"?

[CaptHawkeye]

Because HE CAN. Your god damn Vice President just SAID HE WILL DO THAT.

[Terralthra]

No, the VP said he will "take executive action." The President can take all sorts of executive actions which do not bypass the bill of rights. Don't be a fucking moron.

[CaptHawkeye]

I guess the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights anymore? Do tell.

[Terralthra]

I guess the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights anymore? Do tell.

The 2nd Amendment is not blanket and all-encompassing. The Supreme Court has issued many decisions listing various restrictions on firearms as perfectly consistent with the 2nd Amendment. There are a variety of actions President Obama could take to restrict certain firearm sales that are not bypassing the 2nd Amendment. Once again, don't be a fucking moron.

[CaptHawkeye]

Do those actions include the ability to ignore the input of Congress? Why is the problem with the combination of these two issues not apparent to you?

[Terralthra]

If his actions stay within the bounds of already settled Constitutional law, then no, I don't see the problem, and if they don't, the Judicial branch can and will take action. The Legislative branch's purpose is not (and has not been) to verify the Executive's actions' constitutionality. I don't know how or why you think it is or ever was.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey Ziggy, smug sarcasm like that would only work if I was a member of the gun-nut crowd. I'm obviously not, but it makes me more easy to dismiss if you just pretend I am right?

When you resort to the ridiculous levels of hyperbole you display in the OP, what right do you have to remand I take you seriously?

No one ever said that, but in less than 1 post the thread already degenerated into groupthink machine of people more invested in semantics than understanding their civil rights are being trampled on right in front of their faces. So what if Congress is complicit? They shouldn't be. You have an obligation to stop them from being the President's accomplice.

Yup, that's right, anyone that disagrees with you is just part of the "groupthink machine" and Obama is going to rip the Constitution apart with his bare hands and declare himself Cominazi Emperor.

Terraltha has already refuted the rest, so I won't bother.

[Flagg]

Hawkeye are you trolling or just mentally retarded? The Executive can do alot constitutionally, including things like... Wait for it... Appointing a head of the ATF.

[Vaporous]

I don't like or support Obama, and I'm angry about the executive power grabs of the past few administrations, but maybe we should wait to see whether or not this particular executive order is unconstitutional before we say it is. If the text comes down and the effect is "All guns practically banned forever, also fuck the Congress, Love BO", then you have a point. When he isn't asserting executive immunity from checks and balances and having people killed, though, Obama is a fairly bland center right politician, so I doubt he's going to do anything that extreme if he does anything at all. There's a pretty good chance that the order will be some vague, mostly symbolic set of instructions to some federal bureaucratic apparatus regarding registrations or something.

As a nitpick, Murdoch doesn't own the Daily News. He owns the New York Post, which is a tabloid rag. The Daily News is owned by an entirely different old white billionaire named Mortimer Zuckerman.

[Beowulf]

I guess the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights anymore? Do tell.

The 2nd Amendment is not blanket and all-encompassing. The Supreme Court has issued many decisions listing various restrictions on firearms as perfectly consistent with the 2nd Amendment. There are a variety of actions President Obama could take to restrict certain firearm sales that are not bypassing the 2nd Amendment. Once again, don't be a fucking moron.

If by many, you mean two. One of which was explicit in that military arms are protected by the 2nd amendment, and the other that stated non-military arms were protected by the 2nd amendment if they were used lawfully, such as for self defense.

[Aaron MkII]

Although I understand gun owners frustration, having dealt with the constant barrage against owners here...really, what are the chances that Obama, the guy who is widely believed on this board to cave to the GOP at every opportunity, is going to actually find a spine?

Even Feinstein's bill will fail, just because she's a fucking idiot who is basing bans on a list of stuff she saw on TV and over reached. Triggering the fear of confiscation that people like her created in the first place.

[Azazal]

Although I understand gun owners frustration, having dealt with the constant barrage against owners here...really, what are the chances that Obama, the guy who is widely believed on this board to cave to the GOP at every opportunity, is going to actually find a spine?

Even Feinstein's bill will fail, just because she's a fucking idiot who is basing bans on a list of stuff she saw on TV and over reached. Triggering the fear of confiscation that people like her created in the first place.

I do not feel much of anything will come of this, other then prompting people to panic buy yet more guns. People are already freaking out over what might be. I wonder if Feinstein knows that she is the greatest gun saleswoman ever?

[Terralthra]

The Supreme Court has issued many decisions listing various restrictions on firearms as perfectly consistent with the 2nd Amendm

If by many, you mean two. One of which was explicit in that military arms are protected by the 2nd amendment, and the other that stated non-military arms were protected by the 2nd amendment if they were used lawfully, such as for self defense.

Do I really have to run through cases for you?

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, SCOTUS ruled "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, SCOTUS ruled "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, SCOTUS ruled "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." The court also held that licensing laws are perfectly consistent with the 2nd, as long as they are not enforced "capriciously or arbitrarily".

United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8, 1st Circuit ruled "the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms — those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public."

Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 11-3942, 2nd Circuit ruled that may-issue CCW statutes are Constitutional, per Heller and Miller.

United States v. Bledsoe, 334 Fed. Appx. 771, 5th Circuit ruled that straw purchases may be criminalized.

There are, of course, many decisions before Heller from Appeals Courts, based on Miller precedent, which are now in doubt, but all the cases listed from the Appeals Courts are after and based on Heller, and to which the SCOTUS declined to grant certiorari.

[Col. Crackpot]

I do not feel much of anything will come of this, other then prompting people to panic buy yet more guns. People are already freaking out over what might be. I wonder if Feinstein knows that she is the greatest gun saleswoman ever?

She has to know, for her not to know would require a level of stupidity that would prevent one from attaining the successes she has enjoyed in her political career. The question to ask is does she care or is this just a calculated red meat toss to the party base to shore up her power.