Biden Thinks Executive Orders Can Effect Gun Control

Joe Biden today:

"There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet," Biden said, adding that Obama is conferring with Attorney General Eric Holder on potential action.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | SAMSA Releases New Prescription Drug Abuse Data >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Men toting assault rifles paraded around (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:03:33 AM EST
    a Portland neighborhood today. Two gun rights jack@sses, assault rifles slung over their shoulders, went for a walk around the Sellwood neighborhood today. This, of course, caused many people to call 911 and one school to go into lockdown.

    Oh, yeah, it was perfectly legal. They both have concealed carry permits. Sure, people were scared and felt threatened. But, hey, nothing trumps the rights of gun owners. After determining that both men had CC permits police told them that they were causing a lot of 911 calls, but the two men didn't care.

    Today wasn't the first time they have pulled this kind of stunt. And their claim that they are educating people about gun rights? What a load of cr@p. They were out there intimidating people.

    Concealed carry (none / 0) (#15)
    by rdandrea on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    and open carry are two different things.  What does Oregon have in the way of open carry laws?

    Casey can correct me if I'm mistaken (none / 0) (#16)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    But I'm pretty sure Oregon has both open and concealed carry, with permits -- except in Portland and Beaverton, which outlaw it.

    Of course, Howard Schultz has made it clear that he's A-OK with you walking into any Starbuck's openly carrying your gun.


    Correction: (none / 0) (#17)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    I think Portland may allow concealed carry, but NOT open carry. In which case, those two rifle-toting buffoons were breaking the law, right?

    Well, they were interviewed by the police (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    but not arrested, so, I guess not illegal.

    Small quibble with the many articles on this event, they weren't carrying assault rifles.


    I was not aware that Multnomah County (none / 0) (#20)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    had changed it laws to allow open carry. Wonder when that happened...

    Oregon is a traditional open carry state. (none / 0) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    Cities can restrict open carry, and Portland does. However, if someone has a concealed carry permit, they can legally open carry also.

    These two have concealed carry permits.


    Now that's what I don't understand (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    If you have a CC permit, then you can automatically open carry. Essentially, one permit required for either option. But it is stunning to me that just about three weeks after the Clackamas Mall shooting, these two crackpots thought it was a good idea to act in such a provocative way. Well, maybe "stunning" is the wrong word...

    It is allowed because the gun lobby (none / 0) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:09:10 PM EST
    won that fight in the state legislature. If the state law did not mandate an exception to the open carry ban for CC permit holders Portland would not allow open carry for anyone.

    Strange as it sounds... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    I prefer that to two jackasses with a 9mm in the waistband that I can't see from a distance...at least you know to stay the f*ck away from those clowns, two dudes with concealed weapons you have no idea they're packing heat.

    Biden is correct (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    Obama can use currently existing gun laws to create executive orders that would strengthen enforcement. The National Firearms Act of 1934 gives the president the ability to oversee gun dealers. Both George HW Bush and Bill Clinton used those powers to issue executive orders that banned imports of certain kinds of assault weapons. Obama already issued a regulation that tries to prevent sales of semiautomatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Gun stores in border states have to notify the  federal government if an individual buys two or more of a high caliber semiautomatic rifles, but only specific models. That could be expanded to include all states and a more comprehensive list of guns.

    Obama could also issue executive orders that would increase information sharing between different law enforcement agencies on gun purchases and a buyer's history of mental illness. That would help eliminate some of the disparities between states.

    The question remains, is preventing law abiding citizens from having certain weapons an effective strategy to reduce crime, or does that simply give criminals a greater advantage?

    "Obama already issued a regulation... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:11:57 PM EST
    ... that tries to prevent sales of semiautomatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels."

    Heh.  All Obama really had to do was tell the BATF to stop selling them the guns.


    Holy fast and (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:17:34 AM EST
    furious, batman.

    Lest we forget (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:32:13 AM EST
    Operation Wide Receiver.

    According to an article in a legal newspaper (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    Well... (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:25:06 PM EST
    Here's what I asked my local rep today:  If this president thinks he can eviscerate gun rights via an executive order, what's to stop a future pro life president from deciding that he can do the same thing on abortion?

    Kind of begs the question, doesn't it (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:24:37 PM EST
    to refer to all discussion of reasonable regulation -- which the Supreme Court has allowed with respect to all sorts of Constitutionally-protected rights, including the "right to choose" -- as "eviscerat[ing] gun rights"?  In fact, a better argument could be made that the core of a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion has been "eviscerated" by hostile legislation, than that any existing or proposed regulation of "gun rights" would "eviscerate" the core of that right, which (according to the Supreme Court) is the right of law-abiding citizens to self-defense in their homes.

    "Eviscerate"??? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:50:42 PM EST
    Who said anything about "eviscerating" gun rights?

    Might want to hold your fire and hear what action the WH is thinking about before ramping up the hyperbole.

    BTW - A "pro-life" President has already issued executive orders designed to curtail abortion rights - Reagan and Bush.

    Obama did too.


    I am having some trouble imagining (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:17:51 PM EST
    what Biden is thinking of, assuming he is actually thinking.  The President cannot just issue Executive Orders on any and all subjects, as if they were a substitute for legislation or even for formal agency regulations.  Each form of rule-making has its own sphere.  

    On NPR this morning (Thurs) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    one interviewee offered 3 examples of things that she claimed the President could do in this area via Executive Order.  I didn't catch all of them, but my reaction was that at least two were more properly the subject of regulations (and thus governed by the Admin Procedure Act's notice-and-comment rules). One had to to with a particular import policy, and sounded like yeah, maybe the President can do that unilaterally. Overall, not very convincing (to me, as a lawyer), even as a person basically sympathetic to tight regulation of firearms sales and possession.

    I must (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:21:09 PM EST
    say that when I read that statement by Biden, it sounds like so much gobbledygook.

    If there are executive actions that Obama can take, why in the world haven't they decided what "that is" yet?

    And if they haven't decided what actions they will take, couldn't they let us in on what actions they could take... or at least what actions they would like to take?

    Biden is certainly out in front these days.
    Is he Obama's Cheney?

    He is the equivalent of (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    of Cheney on crime issues, always has been. Cheney was an extremist on defense issues, Biden has always been an extremist on crime policy. He was the architect of many of our worst crime bills. I've detailed his record many times.

    As the author of two major federal crime laws that extend the availability of the death penalty to sixty additional crimes, I support capital punishment as a crime-fighting technique.

    2006: Statement Supporting border fences

    Biden: Well, that fence was -- the reason I voted for the fence was that was the only alternative that was there. And I voted for the fence related to drugs. A fence will stop 20 kilos of cocaine coming through that fence. It will not stop someone climbing over it or around it. And so -- but this bill has a much more reasonable provision in it. It has much -- a shorter fence. It does have the Border Patrol requirements. And it is designed not just to deal with illegals, it's designed with a serious drug trafficking problem we have."

    Statement Opposing gay marriage:

    "I can't believe the American people can't see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We've all voted-not, where I've voted, and others have said, look, marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that. Nobody's violated that law, there's been no challenge to that law. Why do we need a constitutional amendment?"

    More on his record:

    For decades Biden has been at the forefront of the war on drugs, supporting new prohibitions against methamphetamine, Ecstasy, steroids used by athletes, and other new drugs as they became popular. Biden wrote the legislation that created the position of a national "Drug Czar", and his Anti-Drug Proliferation Act provides 20-year prison sentences for club owners, concert promoters, and people who throw parties in their home, if "drug use" takes place in such settings.

    He wholeheartedly supported the actions of federal agents in the Waco standoff, and visibly sneered at witnesses in Senate hearings who questioned agents' acts. He was a key proponent of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, which banned some kinds of semiautomatic rifles, with a sunset provision that allowed these weapons to become legal again ten years later. The law also allocated substantial funds for construction of new prisons, established boot camps for delinquent minors, and brought the death penalty for crimes related to drug dealing, civil-rights related murders, murder of a Federal officer, and acts classified as terrorism.

    In 2004, I said I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. No, I didn't keep my word (Palin and Romney were worse. But he's been in Congress since Nixon was President -- how sad for us that's he is still around.

    I would almost... (none / 0) (#7)
    by unitron on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:38:51 AM EST
    ...have gone for a 3rd Bush/Cheney term before letting Palin in the White House as part of a tour group, much less second in line.



    Why? Because they're still (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:20:40 AM EST
    dancing around the NRA.  Because they know that sometimes, they can get away with making the kind of noise the public wants to hear ("we care!") without actually doing anything of any significance.

    As for the executive action thing, I'm not generally a big fan of the president - any president - doing end runs around the legislative branch; there's a tendency to think it's okay as long as the power is being wielded in service of things we agree with, but we all know that that's a knife that cuts both ways: sometimes it's a power in service to things we are ardently opposed to.

    Joe Biden may have been around forever, and be well-acquainted with how sausage is made in the Congress, but for me, he's just cover for Obama eventually deciding that he can't do a damn thing.  Too bad, so sad, we tried, but golly gee, we just can't.  

    I'm just so utterly sick of the endless bullsh!t, and the energy that goes into scamming the public instead of serving them.  And I'm equally tired of being held hostage by gun "enthusiasts" and their 2nd Amendment rights; the 2nd Amendment isn't a license to treat those who don't own guns like 2nd class citizens.


    Executive Orders (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:32:11 AM EST

    One thing the executive order could do is to crack down on unlicensed dealers that buy in bulk and distribute without background checks.  The only problem is there may not be many such folk out there.


    rights (none / 0) (#11)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:21:04 AM EST
    Mentally Ill Man Not In Mood To Gun Down Strangers, But Glad To Know That Option There If Needed


    Gotta love the Onion (none / 0) (#12)
    by sj on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    There are some seriously good writers there.  They highlight the absurd in way that is hard to beat.