Skip to comments.Alert: most likely EO on Firearms
Posted on 12/19/2012 4:39:31 AM PST by Solson
Alert; possible executive order information
I wanted to share with everyone here what I heard today from a very well placed source inside the firearms industry- word is the Obama administration had the ATF a couple months ago do a study to see the feasibility of making all semi auto assault rifles NFA items- meaning they would be handled in the same way as an SBR in terms of procuring one; it is assumed there would be an amnesty period for current owners to register the assault rifles they already have then any transfer down the line would be the same procedure as a suppressor or SBR
The gut feeling is that if Obama doesn't get from congress an assault rifle ban he likes he will do what Bill Clinton did with the Street Sweeper and use his executive powers to make semi auto AR's, AK's, FAL's, G3's, Galils, etc. NFA weapons
I personally think this is a very likely scenario in case a ban gets deadlocked in the house or senate
Just an FYI - if I hear anything more on this topic or anything else related to a potential future ban I will drop in and give everyone a data dump
Be safe and try and keep your sanity
Obama will do this and let the courts sort it out. It doesn't help that the GOP, now defunct, hasn't fought any other Obama executive orders.
someone please give me the acronyms.
EO? FBR? LVO?
I know what the NFA is.
I hate acronyms.
It’s up to the people now.
If I were that bunch, I’d outlaw everything larger than a pea shooter.
He and they have to disarm before they come for our money, land and stuff they want to “redistribute.” The people they want to disarm most completely are White.
Try this one:
EO = executive order, FBR = full battle rifle
SBR. = short barreled rifle.
EO’s only apply to US Citizens.....
The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited
First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:
Take the Amendments opening clauses, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside...
Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause removed, and it then reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...
Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, and under the jurisdiction thereof, is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude. I contend that the inclusion of persons naturalized was somewhat obfuscatory.
Please note that when the explanatory words (, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as citizens thereof.
The words, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.
(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. Born in the United States and born under the jurisdiction thereof are not one and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendments prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United States based merely on the location of the persons birth in the United States).
read the rest of the story at link provided
Can you provide a one sentence conclusion of the point you are making?
By law, how are executive orders challenged?
Once this predicted edict is made, would any governmental body be able to immediately challenge its Constitutionality/legality, or would a citizen need to be arrested in violation of the order to have standing to challenge its validity?
This would certainly trigger Civil War Two.
It means Obama cannot legally write ant EO because he fails to qualify as POTUS.
Own guns? Become a birther.
I do believe that Obama is not eligible to be president. However, I really think that ship has sailed — no one with political power ever had ther guts to make an issue of it. The GOP walked away from that issue right from the start. After Obama’s election and re-election, I just don’t see the point.
Turkey: Armenian and Greek Christians.
Russia: "Kulaks" and other "class enemies."
Germany: The Jews
China: The "landlords."
First they have to build the raging hate-on against greedy old violent whites, then they can disarm us, then they can exterminate us.
-It means Obama cannot legally write ant EO because he fails to qualify as POTUS.
Own guns? Become a birther.-
Good luck with that approach.