Gun Control by Fiat?

Based on statements coming out of the White House, I think Obama’s executive orders on guns might end up being a barrage of ridiculous things completely unsupported by law. Sure, they’ll lose in court, but they’ll force us to take them to court, and that’s going to cost time and money heading into the elections. I’m thinking the strategy might be to throw as much as they can at the wall and see what sticks.

Certainly Obama has numerous ways he could screw us that are completely within his authority. A near handgun import ban would be among them, by ditching the point system and adopting something draconian. I don’t see how Obama has any executive power under the law to close any “gun show loophole” or to otherwise affect private transfers.

But that doesn’t mean he won’t force us to waste time and treasure fighting even clearly illegal moves. There’s no penalty for overreach. With guns there’s not much clearly established precedent to support civil rights suits. So what does he have to lose?

23 Responses to “Gun Control by Fiat?”

  1. “So what does he have to lose?”

    Him personally? Nothing. The penalty is paid in Dem votes at the 2016 General Election. How much does the Dem party owe him? And how much are they willing to sacrifice to go down with his Gun Control ship?

    I think the sum total of his “Executive Actions” will be to define “Buys and sells 50 guns in a 12 month period” as “Engaged in the business of dealing in firearms” and therefore requires an FFL.

    They will march about with that one in front of a big brass band like it’s the most important thing Obama has ever done, but no one will actually give a damn. And he won’t do anything else. If he could do anything else, he would have done it already.

    • Miles says:

      And if he does EO a rock solid number of gun sales, that in itself will royally torque off the ATF because they’ve consistently used the vagueness of parts of the federal gun laws for their own prosecution purposes.

      • Jeff O says:

        On top of both your comments, toss in some Irish Democracy, a little civil disobiedience aimed at the fed’s, and we might finally toss gun control into the dustbin of history. Shown the world what happens when good people don’t comply (nothing). There are enough gun owners who are sick and tired of the constant BS the MSM feeds us. Look at the ‘illegal’ transfers on the Washington (state) steps, or the complete lack of registration compliance in CT, NY, and LA (a big fat ZERO). How great would it be to see a modern sporting rifle march on every federal courthouse or state Capitol just because the president finally took one step to far over the executive order line? What’s 3% of 5 million?

    • wizardpc says:

      I don’t think it will be 50. I think it will be 2.

  2. Countertop says:

    I’m still thinking all the crazy thing a Obama has done with regard to ISIS Etc has (for him) the fringe benefit of destroying Hillary’s likelihood of winning. Crazy gun control rhetoric fits right in to that strategy. He could do it all as a set of midnight regulations that a Republican can change quickly, but your right that still requires us to use valuable political capital.

  3. Bram says:

    Do the Dems really think that gun control is a winning issue next year? They seem to be going all-in with this craziness.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Follow the money. Bloomberg is throwing his money around in a big way; and all you have to do is pay lip service to gun control.

  4. Ian Argent says:

    He’s looking towards his next “gig,” as a figure on the world stage, IMO. He doesn’t care about the Dems’ chances, at least if they get in the way of his acceptance into the world chattering-class circuit. The secondary goal is to cause the R’s to tail-chase and give them an opportunity to say something (mis)quotable, a la the Arsenic in Water midnight EO from teh waning days of the Clinton Admin.

  5. How would a total handgun import ban stand up to a WTO challenge? It would seem to be protectionist in the eyes of the WTO. Even so, I think Glock and Sig saw this coming and that’s why they’ve moved production onshore.

  6. AndyN says:

    He could have looked at the Highland Park case and realized that he won’t have to win any cases that the court refuses to hear.

    • Shawn says:

      He could use and EO to blanket ban ALL semi-auto guns. The courts would uphold it or not listen to it.

      Hell hillary when she becomes president could make an EO making the ownership of all semi-auto’s blanket illegal and subject to execution without trial. If you own a gun you turn it in by this date. Otherwise you forfeit your rights to due process and we will break down your door, handcuff you and shoot you in the back of the head and they courts STILL would uphold it.

      Shit when hillary gets elected she could add onto that saying that all guns are now illegal and will be confiscated and when some states give her the middle finger she will make and EO to use nuclear bombs on those states killing off millions the courts would STILL uphold it. And MSNBC and the huffington post will cheer. Of course by that point the military would probably remove her from power and those judges hanged but still.

      I have come to the conclusion that the judges and courts hate us and want the US government to kill every single gun owner in the country. To the courts and the democrats we are viewed how the nazi’s viewed the Jews. We should be totally exterminated. That’s 110 million people but they also believe were overpopulated so it turns into a two birds one stone kind of thing.

  7. alanstorm says:

    “There’s no penalty for overreach.”

    MAKE one.

  8. PaulT says:

    He can have the ATF address “being in the business of selling weapons” to be 1 sale or more a year. That would screw people.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      Except he can’t. There are exceptions in statutory law which was posted here before. An EO does not supplant the federal statutes.

      • Ian Argent says:

        You think he cares? He wants to Do Something.

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          And what happened when he tried with immigration? You do tend to anger a different set of justices who would otherwise be sympathetic to your cause when you override stated law.

          • Ian Argent says:

            He got what he wanted out of it, which was to be Seen To Be A Man Of Action. Same thing here. It’s not the results, it’s the attempt.

            • HappyWarrior6 says:

              Yes. I would also pair that with the practice being that the only folks allowed to make a mockery of the legal system are judges themselves!

      • Shawn says:

        Doesn’t matter if the courts won’t take it or side with obama. And since it involves guns they will ALWAYS side with the government.

  9. Jake says:

    Speaking of “gun control by fiat”, Virginia’s governor and AG are unilaterally dropping recognition of out of state permits from 30 states to just 5, effective February 1, 2016.

    Suddenly, 25 states’ carry permits “do not meet Virginia’s standards”, despite Virginia’s standards not actually changing, and many of those states having more stringent requirements than Virginia.

  10. Gunman says:

    I think it’s good for us.


  1. SayUncle » Merry Christmas from Obama - […] He wants to tighten gun laws after the holidays. And by tighten, they mean make up new rules out…