"Executive order" question..

Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by 1stSSPZ, Nov 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 1stSSPZ

    1stSSPZ New Member

    3
    0
    1
    Apr 3, 2008
    Obama (I will not call him President) has already stated he is against concealed carry and his current staff pukes are already talking up issuing executive orders to "jump start" his administration. If he signs an EO abolishing concealed carry, what sort of weight does that carry as far as State Rights goes? Can our Governor and Attorney General tell him to take a hike?
     


  2. txinvestigator

    txinvestigator TGT Addict

    13,100
    124
    63
    May 28, 2008
    Ft Worth, TX
    from Wiki;

    Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.


    That said, an EO would hold no force over the states. Texas law would not change.
     
  3. Vellcrow

    Vellcrow Active Member

    402
    0
    16
    Aug 8, 2008
    Pflugerville
    But instead of an EO, what about pushing it through as a law like the AWB? Wouldn't that effectively get rid of concealed carry nationwide?
     
  4. Jimlakeside

    Jimlakeside New Member

    48
    0
    6
    Mar 11, 2008
    Pottsboro, Texas
  5. Texan2

    Texan2 TGT Addict

    7,952
    0
    36
    Nov 8, 2008
    South of San Antonio
    there is little doubt that he will attack the 2nd ammendment. the question is to what extent. the dems learned in 1994 that the AWB cost them dearly during the following election. hopefully they will remember that.
    we have alot of other issues to address right now so hopefully he will put this one on the back burner. my fear is that he gets the old, liberal supreme court justices to retire and replaces them with some 40ish liberals who will be there for another 40 years. he has the votes in congress to do it for the next 2 years....
    dont really know that he can issue any executive order that would affect concealed carry.
    if we were to be engaged in an actual declared war, his power would increase though.

    be vigilant.....
    :patriot::texas:
     
  6. Vellcrow

    Vellcrow Active Member

    402
    0
    16
    Aug 8, 2008
    Pflugerville

    Him wanting to ban anything is more than enough.

    Take a look at Chicago and D.C....no handgun ownership there. No AKs, ARs, etc either. By not allowing handguns, much less the carrying of them, he is basically saying your life is not worth defending.


    Scary quotes from the website you linked:

    "But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constititional."

    "35. Do you support state legislation ???
    a. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns?
    Yes.
    b. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of assault weapons?
    Yes.
    c. mandatory waiting periods with background checks for weapons?
    Yes.

    "Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home."

    To address the above bold quote...WTF? My home should be my "secure storage". Obama wants to turn me into a felon if some dirtbag breaks into my home and steals an unsecure gun from there. Yeah, he will be a great ruler.
     
  7. tussery

    tussery Active Member

    703
    0
    36
    Jul 26, 2008
    Corpus Christi
    Yeah his gun control views are not common sense. They are downright stupid. Hey if he does pass a ban on concealed carry. Maybe Texas should adopt open carry.
     
  8. JKTex

    JKTex Well-Known

    2,018
    0
    36
    Mar 11, 2008
    DFW, North Texas
    I'm not sure of the intent of your post, but that quote (following "35") speaks for itself. He supports states right to legislate the following. What would you rather him say? He feels the Federal Government should govern our states?

    After that, the assertion that he proposes the felony charge for unsecured guns.......you know that's from 1999? He was no where near Washington in 1999.

    He's been elected. It makes no sense and is not productive at all to keep regurgitating campaign propaganda. The energy should be put to good use, working through your congressional leaders to make sure Washington hears your voice.

    For the record, no, I did not vote for him and I will not defend him on issues I feel differently about. But first, we have to be on a level playing field, discussing current facts, not yesterday's sound bites. :patriot:
     
  9. JKTex

    JKTex Well-Known

    2,018
    0
    36
    Mar 11, 2008
    DFW, North Texas
    Lets look at more from the Obama for Sportsman web-site. Make your own decisions about the credibility of whoever they are.

    The 7th box down citing "Senator Obama's web-site". The quote is a Washington Post article that has nothing to do with Obama. The only thing in the article pertaining to Obama is:
    "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has taught law at the University of Chicago, said the courts have done a good job of handling, and disposing of, the suits that have been filed. And, he said, gun manufacturers and dealers are not going bankrupt from those cases.
    "There is no crisis," Obama said. "Guns are plentiful. We have multiple guns for every man, woman and child in this country."

    That's it. He was quoted for extraneous information. Once again, propaganda that has no use now that the election is over, and no productive use during the campaign.

    The 6th box right above it citing "The Black COmmentator" has been taken out of context. Way out of context. It's an example only and not a discussion of gun control or his views. Read a little more:

    My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I’m still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it’s Bush’s economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I’m still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.
    In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we’re not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don’t write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don’t agree with us on every issue.


    The Chicago Trubune cite is another. Without even looking at the article, he says he supports local communities to make the right decisions. His opinion as to whether the DC ban was constitutional or not means nothing more than what he feels; his opinion which has no power or authority.

    If he said he "feels" that Red Stripe beer should be banned from import, but it he doesn't have the authority nor the notion to ban it, who cares what he thinks. You will NEVER put someone into office that matches 100% what everyone "feels" and wants.

    Groups like that (and there are 1000's) are crack cocaine for the ignorant people that do not want to think for themselves. If you've picked up the pipe, put it down.....step away from the pipe. Think for yourself and take the appropriate action.
     
  10. djspump2003

    djspump2003 Active Member

    268
    1
    16
    Oct 19, 2008
    Austin
    I am sorry that you are so uninformed as to BHO's intentions regarding the 2A rights. Here is a link about the facts regarding BHO and they aren't backed up by just words - they are backed up by records of his votes:
    NRA-ILA ::
    Perhaps he does not want to ban ALL guns, as you said. It is pretty apparent that he wants to ban MOST semi-auto loading weapons and he considers MOST hunting rounds to be armor piercing. If you do not think that is an infringement and someone that would seriously attack our 2A rights, then please tell me what would be. FactCheck.org backs up BHO because they leave out very pertinent votes that he has taken part in that were distinctly anti-gun. Also, why did he not sign the friend of the court brief in the Heller v. District of Columbia case if he was not anti-gun? I suppose ignorance is bliss until the newly instituted domestic military force breaks in your door and demands your firearms at the point of an MP5 that you cannot legally own.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page