First, to the gun ban thing. Chris Byrne demolished this in a thoroughly satisfying manner. If you are worried about Executive Orders and that sort of thing, you should go RTWT, but these are the money grafs:
Yes, Obama want's more gun control (though not to the extent that some seem to think), but in order to do so, he needs to deal with CONGRESS.Also this:
Obama wants a lot more things, a lot more than he wants gun control; and he isn't going to waste any political capitol whatsoever on a subject he doesn't really care about that much.
What Obama really wants is to raise taxes, cut the military, increase social spending etc... He's not stupid, he knows that he's going to need congress to do it.
What Obama absolutely does NOT want, is to see Obamacare repealed (for which he's going to need to have at least the senate stay under democratic control); and that trying to shove gun control down our throats would just about guarantee all the vulnerable Democratic senators would lose their seats.
There are maybe a dozen truly committed, truly anti-gun senators, and maybe two dozen in the house... plus another dozen completely safe seats in the senate and maybe 50 or 60 in the house. No-one else is going to put their seat on the line over an issue that they either don't care about all that much, or that they don't see any major advantage in supporting.
Now, there's some important language I quote above:Let's talk about everyone's favorite proposal, classifying semi-automatic weapons as Class III. This would make around two thirds of all currently owned firearms illegal unless they were registered. It would also (under the terms of the Hughes Amendment) outlaw the sale of semi-automatic firearms manufactured after 1986. Essentially, most firearms in common use would be regulated to the point where they would be effectively banned. Dianne Feinstein's dream, right?
"The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."As this applies to acts of congress, it also applies to the executive branch and its agencies.
The substance and authority of the government exists solely in the constitution; therefore no agency of it may act outside of its authority.
Because great power and discretion are given to the president (and by extension the executive branch) in foreign affairs, executive orders can ignore the constitution outside the borders of the country and when acting on non-citizens; but they cannot ignore the constitution inside our borders, or when dealing with American citizens.
Well, there's this teeny-weenie problem. Heller v. D.C. lays this out starkly:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.Emphasis mine. So Obama is going to issue an Executive Order that essentially bans almost all firearms in common use in explicit defiance of a recent Supreme Court ruling? Really?
But suppose that he did. Then what? Well, you'd have a lawsuit filed in 20 seconds asking for an injunction on enforcement, based on this very paragraph. It's hard to see a court not issuing a stay of enforcement. Whether it is expedited to the SCOTUS is quite beside be point, because the order would never happen. Consider:
1. The case is expedited, which means that the current court that ruled on McDonald which said that this paragraph applied to all 50 states and U.S. Territories. Obama will lose in this court.
2. The case is not expedited, in which case nothing changes in the short term. After a couple years it gets heard (maybe; the SCOTUS may simply refuse to take the case, leaving the Executive Order gut shot), or Obama is out of office and the order gets revoked (which makes it moot).
In other words, nothing is going to happen for a long, long time. Probably ever.
Everybody, please just relax. This isn't where the action is. The question is: where is the action? I think that Chris has it right:
What Obama really wants is to raise taxes, cut the military, increase social spending etc... He's not stupid, he knows that he's going to need congress to do it.Consider: Slow Joe Biden is leading up this whole Gun Control initiative. Strike One. Obama said he wants results by end of this month, or better yet January 15. That's a week from now. Strike Two.
And the fiscal crisis will come back in full force in 45 days or so. Does anyone really think that Obama will strong arm 150 Democrats in Congress to ram through an unpopular Gun Control bill a couple weeks before he's going to engage in hand to hand combat with Republicans on the budget? This is what he's going to burn his political capital on? This is where he may risk repudiation by his own party a month after his Inauguration? Strike Three.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
This is all misdirection, to keep his opponents off balance. Obama isn't trying to keep the NRA off balance and overwhelmed to get gun control passed, he's trying to keep the Congressional Republicans off balance so he can get his spending priorities entrenched.
Like I said, I expect that people will be unhappy with this contrarian sort of post. People are passionate on this subject (and quite frankly, I'm happy that they're passionate about this because it makes gun control pretty much impossible these days). But Obama is really good at thinking three steps ahead of the GOP. Stop and ask yourself what you'd do if you were him.
Gun Control ain't it. Chris is right that it would never pass, or stand if it were. I'd go further and say that it's not useful to him if it did. As a distraction? Sure - that's useful. Keep your eye on the shell covering the pea.