Obama will release his plans to screw us over.

26 Responses to “Tomorrow”

  1. David W. says:

    I’m starting to not being able to take the whole “eventually we are going to be screwed”.

    I wish they would just get it over with so we can beat the crap out of them legally in the courts.

  2. Chris T says:

    Does anyone seriously believe House Republicans are going to pass any of this nonsense? They have zero incentive to do so, and any weapon or magazine bans would set off a internal civil war in the party and primary challenges. Boehner has been cowed by the rebellion over traces, so he isn’t going to push anything either. Fighting over the debt ceiling and the budget is going to consume all of the time and political capital for the foreseeable future.

    This is all political circus. Nothing of any significance is going anywhere in the House, and Harry Reid is more focused on immigration on the Senate.

    • David W. says:

      Its executive orders we are worried about, Obama has already shown hes willing to break federal law with his executive orders. I wouldn’t put it past him to try and ban assault weapons that way. From what I understand, the only way congress/senate can stop him is by not okaying the budget required for it. But hes probably not going to make a budget this year so how do you remove funds from something when you don’t know where the funds are coming from or how much funds it will take?

      • Harold says:

        You and Crotalus below should check out our host’s Obama’s 19 Actions; posted yesterday but due to our enemy’s actions it has already fallen to the 5th item in the 2nd page.

        In short, Obama can do a number of nasty executive actions that would hurt us. Few if any would be Executive Orders, and ones that go beyond the constraints established by the Congress would in theory not stand. I.e. he could do sweeping import bans under the “suitable for sporting purposes” authority of the GCA of ’68, as G. H. W. Bush and Clinton did, but he couldn’t ban manufacture of eeeeevil stuff here.

        Such would hurt us, and our pocketbooks, and would likely face a court challenge, but would hardly cripple us. And since the AR-15 is our indigenous assault rifle, standard issue for a half century, it wouldn’t even address their scourge upon the earth, to the extent the manufactures are not getting too many significant parts from abroad—and we can certainly do it all here (the military insists upon that, after all).

        That’s the big thing that concerns me, I don’t think he could get away with anything else that would really inconvenience us in the long term, but we’ll have to see. Look at the discussion for more.

        • UTLaw says:


          That’s a good summary and all I’d expect tomorrow, but if the AWB fails, I can see an attempt to get rid of AR’s and AK’s by ruling that their receivers are “readily restored” to full auto. It doesn’t have to be true–look at the lengths the ATF went to in order to justify their readily restored ruling on some metal Airsoft AR’s a while back.

          • Harold says:

            I certainly hope they wouldn’t try that; combined with the Hughes Amendment it would make the vast majority of these firearms instant contraband, i.e. this would be a no-grandfathered ban. It violates whatever is the criminal equivalent of reliance-based estoppel, people taking actions relying on something the ATF said (actually, the civil part would come into play for the manufacturers, I would guess (but IANAL)).

            I think it would result in a shooting war unless the Congress or the courts quickly reined in the Executive. It would certainly do incredible damage to the Democratic party.

            • aerodawg says:

              I honestly don’t think “readily restored” would stand if challenged in court. As currently utilized it’s far too vague and arbitrary.

              How many operations and of what type does it take before a weapon is considered “readily restored”? You ask the ATF and there’s no real guidelines other than what they make up on the spot.

              Couple in inconsistencies, like why would an AR receiver requiring mill work be “readily restored” but a Mini-14 that can be converted with a shoelace not be?

              Then there’s the question of how far back down the chain do you go in banning things that can be converted to something illegal? All the way back to the solid block of aluminum?

              • UTLaw says:

                All good points, aero. I have just become a lot more cynical about the court system, and I’m not so sure judges would do the right thing. I hope and pray they would, but I don’t trust them until I see them show backbone.

                Also, I mentioned AR’s and AK’s, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Mini-14’s, M1A’s, M-1 Carbines, FAL’s, etc. were similarly targeted as well.

                • Harold says:

                  Of all of these, aren’t the AKs the only ones without domestic production? Granted, DSA doesn’t make a lot of FALs (current run rate is reported to be around 8,000/year, looks like they’ve made 60,000 receivers since they started) and it’s hard to believe they wouldn’t use the worldwide ecosystem for that rifle to the max allowed by law and economics.

                  Everything else you mentioned is originally 100% domestic, although of course current supply chains might have foreign inputs.

                  Me, I’m waiting to see what are the implications of my investment in the SIG 55x family (the only 5.56 NATO rifle I ever really wanted to own). This list would not seem to include any import bans (but a lot of stuff that violates laws); we’ll see.

            • Jake says:

              I think it would result in a shooting war unless the Congress or the courts quickly reined in the Executive. It would certainly do incredible damage to the Democratic party.

              I’m not entirely certain Obama really cares what happens to the Democrat Party, anymore. He’s reached the pinnacle of his career, and his political career is essentially over. I think there’s a distinct possibility that he just wants to make his “mark” on history by obtaining one or more of the Progressive Movement’s “holy grail” objectives, and if doing so damages or even destroys the Democrat party, well, another progressive party will soon rise to fill the gap.

              And if things do devolve into a real shooting war, I have little doubt that he will happily use it as an excuse to hold on to power beyond the end of his term. Just until the crisis is over, you understand.

            • UTLaw says:


              You have a good grasp on the law, but you should never underestimate the propensity of judges to ignore the law and come up with an explanation of why those challenges don’t apply in this case.

              I’m afraid that you’re right about the result of such an order, but as Jake said, I’m afraid Obama either doesn’t see that as a possibility, or he wouldn’t care–it would be his Lincoln moment to “save the union.”

              • Harold says:

                Oh, there’s no danger of that. For one of the latest examples, I live in the benighted source of the Missouri Plan, which no doubt has more than a little to do with the judicial nullification of our crystal clear Castle Doctrine.

                (Made even weirder by another statute, don’t know about case law on it, that allows the use of lethal force while someone is breaking into your residence, but doesn’t apply afterwards.)

                And thanks for the praise; IANAL but I’ve worked with some really good ones.

      • lon reinhart says:

        An executive order coincides with the female camps springing up across our nation.perhaps the non compliant gun owners will be uneducated at one of these camps.

        • lon reinhart says:

          Looks like my words were changed from fema to female, also reeducation to uneducated.

        • Bitter says:

          Those female camps, huh? What does that even mean? Will you be forced into getting pedicures and back massages? Will you be forced to sit around and discuss the merits of tampons versus panty liners?

          I’m not sure what kind of crazy this is, but then again, maybe I’m part of the enemy since I’m a graduate of an all-female college.

  3. Crotalus says:

    This executive orders thing has always confused me. What exactly is the reach of executive orders? What are the limits? Where does the Constitution stop executive orders? Is Obama acting like a king, issuing royal edicts?

    • Patrick H says:

      Well what he can do with guns is based on the NFA and GCA. Watch this video by Dave Kopel and he explains it.

      That said, none of the gun EOs have been challenged in court according to my knowledge. The sporting purposes clause of the NFA and GCA would be a great challenge after Heller.

    • Arnie says:

      In addition to Patrick’s comment (below), an Executive Order or Presidential Directive is simply an order given by the president to his agents (Cabinet heads and their subordinates, including bureaucrats and military personnel) to carry out the laws of Congress he is constitutionally required to enforce (Article II, Sec. 3). He cannot give a direct order to any private citizen! None! Not unless Congress declares an official “Case of Rebellion or Invasion (Article I, Sec. 9, para. 2),” AND passes a “necessary and proper” law authorizing martial law to resolve the Crisis (Article II, Sec. 8, para. 19).

      Such is not the case today. We must be cautious, obviously, but I plan to resist/ignore any E. O. that is directed personally at me in the absence of any such Declaration by Congress. Even then, I shall be wary of submitting to Obama decrees [remember E. O. 9066 and Hirabayashi v US (1942) and Korematsu v US (1944), both declared illegal by Congress (Civil Liberties Act of 1988].

      It’s a risky proposition, but preserving freedom from tyranny is never cheap. Jefferson said it requires the occasional shedding of blood! I don’t want that, but I suffer a lot of things I don’t want.

      Respectfully, – Arnie

  4. jbiros says:

    I called and wrote to my reps requesting they do anything in their power to halt these executive orders.
    I reminded them that we elected them to write laws, not be bypassed by a President overstepping his authority.
    I also told them they would no longer have my support if they did not attempt to stop the executive orders.

  5. J. Dock says:

    Seen this?

    Talking points for the antis, all summed up.

  6. Harold says:

    Doesn’t anyone know, or can someone post when they do know, when Obama’s going to do his presser?

  7. Bill says:

    I can’t find anything, but I’m assuming between 11:00AM-1:00PM EST

    That seems typical.

  8. Bill says:

    CNN is reporting it will be live at 11:55