Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DonLever

President Obama Unveils New Gun Control Measures

149 posts in this topic

And the "on the ground " law enforcement opposition to the proposals begins to kick in.

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won't enforce any federal regulation "offending the constitutional rights of my citizens." He won't permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller's defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter -- posted on the department's Facebook page -- earned more than 59,000 likes and shares -- and was growing by the minute.

Over the weekend, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, said that he too will disobey any directive from the administration. He told residents in a town hall meeting that the sheriff has more power than the federal government.

"They need to go back and study that. We are a commonwealth. I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave," he said.

In Texas, a lawmaker said this week that he will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to enforce a federal gun ban.

"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," Republican Rep. Steve Toth told WOAI 1200-AM. "It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama."

Local officials don't get to make that call, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.

"A sheriff does not get to decide whether laws are constitutional," he said. "Unless a court invalidates a law, he's obligated to enforce it."

Obama's proposals Wednesday will largely cull from the work of a task force chaired by Biden.

An official familiar with the process said the president's proposal will include universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Other recommendations by Biden's panel include tougher enforcement of existing laws, legislators briefed by the vice president said Tuesday.

Support surprises sheriff

In Linn County, the support for Mueller's letter caught the sheriff's office by surprise.

"Sheriff Tim Mueller is humbled and amazed at the support people near and far have expressed to his letter. Thank you!" said a post on the department's Facebook page.

A post by Jill Leiser Crowley of Eugene expressed the opinions of many.

"Thank you for standing up for our Constitutional Rights!!!" it said. "You are doing the right thing for the people of Linn County - I can only hope other counties will follow!!!"

But Karin Hunt, another Oregonian, questioned the sheriff's stance.

"I would expect (an) officer to enforce the laws of Oregon and the U.S.A. whether he agrees with the law or not," she said. "That's taking the law into your own hands."

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Sheriff-I-won-t-enforce-Obama-s-gun-laws/-/1637132/18147606/-/j008cf/-/index.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I noted above:

Apparently some federal agencies had been hamstrung because there had been issues of whether gun violence constituted a federal public health hazard.

The NRA has been very active in opposing such a designation and funding has been denied by Congress for such studies in the past. The fewer federal studies and statistics that are out there the easier it is to claim there is no need for stricter gun control.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems pretty clear. In this debate the fewer studies and statistics that can poke holes in the NRA position, the better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as one supporter of Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller vows:

"Constitutional changes must be made properly with Congressional and judicial approval, and by a majority of the citizens of the USA, not by the order of a tyrant in Washington D.C.!!!" said Rick Carter of Pendleton. "I stand with the brave Sheriff!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the "on the ground " law enforcement opposition to the proposals begins to kick in.

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won't enforce any federal regulation "offending the constitutional rights of my citizens." He won't permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller's defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter -- posted on the department's Facebook page -- earned more than 59,000 likes and shares -- and was growing by the minute.

Over the weekend, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, said that he too will disobey any directive from the administration. He told residents in a town hall meeting that the sheriff has more power than the federal government.

"They need to go back and study that. We are a commonwealth. I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave," he said.

In Texas, a lawmaker said this week that he will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to enforce a federal gun ban.

"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," Republican Rep. Steve Toth told WOAI 1200-AM. "It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama."

Local officials don't get to make that call, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.

"A sheriff does not get to decide whether laws are constitutional," he said. "Unless a court invalidates a law, he's obligated to enforce it."

Obama's proposals Wednesday will largely cull from the work of a task force chaired by Biden.

An official familiar with the process said the president's proposal will include universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Other recommendations by Biden's panel include tougher enforcement of existing laws, legislators briefed by the vice president said Tuesday.

Support surprises sheriff

In Linn County, the support for Mueller's letter caught the sheriff's office by surprise.

"Sheriff Tim Mueller is humbled and amazed at the support people near and far have expressed to his letter. Thank you!" said a post on the department's Facebook page.

A post by Jill Leiser Crowley of Eugene expressed the opinions of many.

"Thank you for standing up for our Constitutional Rights!!!" it said. "You are doing the right thing for the people of Linn County - I can only hope other counties will follow!!!"

But Karin Hunt, another Oregonian, questioned the sheriff's stance.

"I would expect (an) officer to enforce the laws of Oregon and the U.S.A. whether he agrees with the law or not," she said. "That's taking the law into your own hands."

http://www.clickorla...cf/-/index.html

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the stupidity begins :sadno: I guess having that fully automatic weapon in your possession is far more important than the lives of children and innocent parties. I've said it before, and I'll say it again......automatic weapons have no place in the hands of Joe Q Public. And the only purpose, of armour-piercing bullets is to kill someone wearing body armour. In other words, their only purpose is to kill people. Yep, those are really required and deserve defending with so-called constitutional 'rights'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strong Second Amendment proponents and NRA would argue that since the Second Amendment guards against tyranny by their own overnemnt such ammunition is required to be able to resist the military and police who could oppress them.

Completely wack-a-doodle reasoning IMHO but it has received support at the Supreme Court of the US.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA will not face another civil war, it´s simple. with this economy and global "situation" another war between north and south will simply destroy US as a country very, very fast.

even with diferences it´s just a "gun control", you still can have your gun to protect yourself and your family. but now people have some rules/limits. if you are not a serial killer/moron/terrorits you don´t have to be worried about.

of course will be hard for many americans because if possible they would have a tank on their houses or even a nuclear bomb. but you don´t need a military rifle on your house, this weapon isn´t designed to protect yourself, it´s designed to kill people 2 miles away!

I´m not against weapons, I would like to have one (legally) if our stupid president and politics weren´t a bunch of ignorants and corrupts with "human rights" releasing bandits and killers on our streets. while good citizens cannot go outside without be afraid of being killed on the next street!

but of course, the government must check if you are sane enought to have a weapon and why you need one, how you will keep this weapon and what´s your skill with one, many people have guns but they don´t know how shoot! and when they do something goes REALLY WRONG!

it´s a weapon, soo it must have a license to have one. like cars, planes, trains and ships. you must prove you can have one with skills...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strong Second Amendment proponents and NRA would argue that since the Second Amendment guards against tyranny by their own overnemnt such ammunition is required to be able to resist the military and police who could oppress them.

Completely wack-a-doodle reasoning IMHO but it has received support at the Supreme Court of the US.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the stupidity begins :sadno: I guess having that fully automatic weapon in your possession is far more important than the lives of children and innocent parties. I've said it before, and I'll say it again......automatic weapons have no place in the hands of Joe Q Public. And the only purpose, of armour-piercing bullets is to kill someone wearing body armour. In other words, their only purpose is to kill people. Yep, those are really required and deserve defending with so-called constitutional 'rights'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so wacky about the "regime change" aspect of the 2A?

What *is* wacky is depending on paper laws to save you when you've got an authoritarian government on your hands.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so wacky about the "regime change" aspect of the 2A?

What *is* wacky is depending on paper laws to save you when you've got an authoritarian government on your hands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question then becomes, what checks and balances are there on the military and police who do have them, and the governments who pull their strings? Who's to say they can't go bad when the situation becomes dire and they fall under the control of the wrong people? What absolute foolproof PHYSICAL safeguards do we have to guarantee against this worst case scenario?

Oh what the Chinese and the North Korean citizenry could do if they had firepower that was on par with that of the police and the military.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I need do is read your post to intuit answers to those questions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President doesn't have authority of legislation.. oh no he authorised research (wonder what it'll say :lol:)! Oh no he beckoned Congress to pass gun control laws (which won't pass)!

Not sure why all the hype in the first page.. nothing happened. What isn't surprising, but still just as funny, is how Obama's fans get all tickled pink when he speaks, a reaction much like teenage girls seeing Robert Pattinson in a new Twilight trailer . :lol:

If anything, I see more state level gun control measures, as Obama is (despite his announcements which greatly excite his fans), sufficed to say, handcuffed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too good of a man to be leading a country like the US. So sad to see how many people are still making excuses for the average citizen possessing assault weapons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.