Liberals and Progressives, help me out with a counter point to this response when.... (illegal, activist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, he has made it much more difficult, which is itself an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right. Impeding a persons ability to buy/own a gun is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
In order to sell a gun to a neighbor who wishes to buy it from you, Obama's "order" says you must register as a "dealer" and obtain a license, a process that takes about a year and costs a lot of money. So, these things do have the effect of "infringing" on the 2nd Amendment right, because most people are not likely going to go through the trouble, or spend the money. Problem solved: no gun transfer; 2nd Amendment "infringed."
Which is the exact same argument Libs use to oppose voter registration - cost and convenience.
Executive orders go by a couple of other administrative tool names in addition so it would be IMO quite the task to figure the total number if we don't identify all the ways they are called and implemented.
There was a couple of articles about this in the news months ago. If I can find some will try to add them to this discussion.
By issuing his directives as "memoranda" rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions.
But has done more than anyone else in history now.
Issuing regulations is important to the way our system works. The world is complex. Law deals with complexity by being vague. Congress passes laws expecting them to be interpreted through subsequent regulation.
For example, Congress might say "Make air and water clean." The EPA would then issue regulations to comply with that directive. But of course the language of the EPA regulations is not in the original law nor was it meant to be. Congress can't know ahead of time exactly what environmental issues will come up, and where, and how they will need to be dealt with. Law gives a direction to follow. The details are fleshed out in subsequent regulation.
All three branches of government have powers. The executive branch has the power to issue executive orders including regulation. The fact that a particular executive order related to a hot-button issue miffs this or that person is irrelevant. The only question is whether or not the executive order complies with law, and the courts will decide that.
Great point. The only issue is that many point to the courts and say they are wrong as well as the President for overreach.
Issuing regulations is important to the way our system works. The world is complex. Law deals with complexity by being vague. Congress passes laws expecting them to be interpreted through subsequent regulation.
For example, Congress might say "Make air and water clean." The EPA would then issue regulations to comply with that directive. But of course the language of the EPA regulations is not in the original law nor was it meant to be. Congress can't know ahead of time exactly what environmental issues will come up, and where, and how they will need to be dealt with. Law gives a direction to follow. The details are fleshed out in subsequent regulation.
All three branches of government have powers. The executive branch has the power to issue executive orders including regulation. The fact that a particular executive order related to a hot-button issue miffs this or that person is irrelevant. The only question is whether or not the executive order complies with law, and the courts will decide that.
Nope.....better hit the books again. When Congress passes something like an EPA regulation it consists of page after page after page after page after page. If not, with each new president they could simply willy nilly change whatever law they wanted to change by putting in new people.
The courts will sometimes interpret if what was written was Constitutional or not.
However, he has made it much more difficult, which is itself an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right. Impeding a persons ability to buy/own a gun is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Nothing was done to make it much more difficult. This is nothing more than the run on ammunition awhile back. It will pass and nothing will be different.
Quote:
In order to sell a gun to a neighbor who wishes to buy it from you, Obama's "order" says you must register as a "dealer" and obtain a license, a process that takes about a year and costs a lot of money. So, these things do have the effect of "infringing" on the 2nd Amendment right, because most people are not likely going to go through the trouble, or spend the money. Problem solved: no gun transfer; 2nd Amendment "infringed."
It isn't going to happen. I'll guarantee you hundreds if not thousands of guns exchanged owners today. This is comparable to passing a law that says you can't fart on a windy day.
However, he has made it much more difficult, which is itself an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right. Impeding a persons ability to buy/own a gun is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
In order to sell a gun to a neighbor who wishes to buy it from you, Obama's "order" says you must register as a "dealer" and obtain a license, a process that takes about a year and costs a lot of money. So, these things do have the effect of "infringing" on the 2nd Amendment right, because most people are not likely going to go through the trouble, or spend the money. Problem solved: no gun transfer; 2nd Amendment "infringed."
And the other side of this is that most people that already know each other will just do it anyway. I'd also say a good portion of gun owners won't even know about this stupid lil change King Obama penciled out. Just like the AW ban where many didn't register their deer gun because they've never had to previously.
And the other side of this is that most people that already know each other will just do it anyway. I'd also say a good portion of gun owners won't even know about this stupid lil change King Obama penciled out. Just like the AW ban where many didn't register their deer gun because they've never had to previously.
The license being talked about is an FFL. The memorandum/order clearly states that if you are in the firearms business you'll need the license. If you're not in the business of selling firearms then not only will you not need a license, you can't have one as outlined by the rules linked above (starting on page 6).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
