Obama to announce new executive action on guns

Destined to strike fear into gun toting citizens.
I personally agree with any new legislation that curbs deaths.
Background checks as a pre-requisite are so ridiculously logical and NEEDED.
I find it hard for anyone to disagree with such actions.
Any thoughts?

President Barack Obama is expected to announce in the coming days a new executive action with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales, people familiar with White House planning said. Described as "imminent," the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.

edition.cnn.com...

Yawn ,sucks to be in 3 states other than that its a Chihuahua barking at me right now.
I'm waiting for them to come after me from this ...
theunboundedspirit.com...

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Whatever you feel about the 2nd amendment and the gun debate this is still king Obama issuing commands to his serfs. Maybe we should let our elected representatives vote instead of executive orders

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Yawn ,sucks to be in 3 states other than that its a Chihuahua barking at me right now.
I'm waiting for them to come after me from this ...
theunboundedspirit.com...

Reminds of the hilarious Oppositional Defiant Disorder classification.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Although you haven't said much in your post, I glean that you support this given your reference to "toting", a term that couldn't be misconstrued as supportive of the Bill of Rights.

a reply to: JDmOKI
You can surely see that he is determined....

And, just as any law which the SCOTUS deems unconstitional will be invalidated, so can executive orders.

Executive orders, like other rules issued by the federal government, are subject to judicial review. A significant example of the Supreme Court striking down a president's executive order came about in 1952. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the court held struck down Executive Order 10340, issued by President Harry Truman, which ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize control of a majority of the nation's steel mills in anticipation of a steelworker strike during the Korean War. The court held that President Truman lacked the constitutional or statutory power to seize private property.

jurist.org...

So, before going and putting a cart in front of a horse and assuming we know the content of the order, be assured that it will be ruled upon by the Court. Because that is their job.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

This is a legacy move to show that he did something about gun violence without actually doing anything

a reply to: greencmp
Fair enough.
I edited my initial post, just for you.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I'm kinda confused about it because I'm a gun owner and had to go through a background check. How long exactly does it take to see that someone doesn't have a criminal record?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Yawn ,sucks to be in 3 states other than that its a Chihuahua barking at me right now.
I'm waiting for them to come after me from this ...
theunboundedspirit.com...

And that isn't a joke.

a reply to: Phage

You are focusing on technicalities...
What is your opinion on the concept of 'expanded' background checks?

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor
I would first have to know what that means. I don't generally form opinions on things I know nothing about.

You are focusing on technicalities...

You mean that unconstitutional laws or executive orders are subject to judicial review? You mean that the POTUS is probably aware of that? That sort of technicality?

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I'm kinda confused about it because I'm a gun owner and had to go through a background check. How long exactly does it take to see that someone doesn't have a criminal record?

They could use the same process that they use when they screen immigrants.

They ask if you are a terrorist.

They could simply just ask if you are a criminal.

Because, just asking appears to keep out terrorists.

a reply to: DBCowboy

They could use the same process that they use when they screen immigrants.
They ask if you are a terrorist.

No. It's more involved than that.

a reply to: Phage
Well... I'm wondering if you read the article I linked.
Within that article it linked to this... edition.cnn.com...
That's what he is submitting.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I had to give two forms of identifications and a picture ID. I also had to wait three days so they can check my records. I also had to fill out a sheet with a bunch of strange questions and a few references

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I'm wondering if you read the article I linked.

I did. There is no explanation of what that means. There actually seems to be nothing but speculation about the content of the order.

being British I dont understand the gun culture you have there. But, I have to admit , the govt. there seem to have a serious agenda. Something is up. I honestly believe they are not trying to take your guns for the reasons they are stating. If you trust your govt. then there is no problem, but they are not to be trusted, what govt is?. This has been proven many times with the current admin. Gun free is great, but in the US it is totally different from here. Your culture is more aggressive than other countries and although I believe guns are not good, I also believe the US govt are deceptive (as are most govts.)

Just be careful what you agree to. I love americans as I know most are just good people trying to support their families. But you are different to most other countries....be careful. Thats all I have to say.


Happy new year anyway. I hope you all have a great 2016.

a reply to: Phage

Logic, reason, facts, verifiable truth...it's what's for dinner!

(or should be...)