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.
I think the possibilities of Obama using this tactic are very real.
Well when Obama does indeed decide to use an EO to restrict buying any semi-auto into law more restrictive than even in Australia or excessively expensive for a tax stamp who you gonna call?
he will probably in less than 48 hours expose a plan to tax the living daylights out of any and all defined assault weapons, and by their definitions that includes tube fed .22lr lever actions.
Wait and see, prove me wrong for both our sake.
He doesn’t have the authority to circumvent the constitution with an EO. I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries and I wouldn’t be surprised if Boehner lets it slide.
He doesn't care about the law. At all. And no one is stopping him.
That will be a hard road for Obama to hoe since Congress explicitly defined NFA weapons as either 1) guns capable of fully automatic fire, or 2) long guns with barrel length less than 16 inches. Pistols and revolvers are explicitly exempted from the NFA.
Executive Orders can be challenged in court just like anything else. For instance, the birth control mandate currently before the courts was an Executive Order.
Your right, no one is stopping him and no one with any power to stop him is raising their voice against his lawlessness.
And in his second term he will have more flexibility.
And his his third term.....
But he owns the judges.
Class 3 weapons are clearly defined in the NFA, and there’s simply no way you could make a semi-auto rifle or pistol fit into those classifications.
It’s not one of those cases where it has that “the secretary shall determine” nonsense. So there’s no way Obama could change those definitions without additional legislation.
I call shenanigans on this story. They can’t be THAT stupid.
My Remington Nylon 66 must be an assault rifle.
1. It IS a semi-automatic RIFLE
2. It HAS a HIGH CAPACITY, 14 round magazine.
3. The caliber is ALMOST the same as the EVIL M-16. (.22 vs .223 - Hey what difference could 3 thousands of an inch make?)
4. Finally it is a evil BLACK weapon! (Is that a racist statement?)
Register my @$$!
Is the birth control mandate still in place? Yes.
Larry Vickers is a smart guy and connected to the industry. I can see Obama asking for just a reclassification of the NFA to include semi-automatic. “That’s All” he will say. And the sheeple will go along with it.
They are far from stupid, its the lack of opposition that emboldens them so. Think about that, they have successfully marginalized every person or group that could be a threat to them.
We either need a nuke or a billion voodoo dolls to defeat Obama now.
So why we’re semi-auto “street sweepers” put under this? Clinton did it. Then Obama can clearly do it.
The implementation of which would not have prevented any of the recent attacks using these weapons.
To do that, they will have to take the next, logical (from their point of view) step (which would be easy if registration is in place) - confiscation.
Look for it to land up in the courts.
I've enjoyed your books. I respect your writing. But you are wrong.
CWII will be over in the short period of time it takes the government to round up you, me, and maybe a half-dozen other people in each state. I look at the vast majority of my fellow citizens. The "give-a-damn" isn't there.
I am very depressed over this. I weep for our country.
People will just simply hide their guns.
Well the sales in guns have proven you wrong. CW II will happen, mark my words.
No it won’t... We’ll stand there with a boo boo lip and hand them over to the Gestapo...
Buying guns and using them on fellow Americans is completely different.
But, you see, that is TOTALLY pointless.
If the only thing anyone ever does is hide their gun, then what was the point of buying it?
At some point, We The People need to USE the guns -- and when gun confiscation is the looming threat, I think HIDING the gun is not much better than handing it to the BATF.
It moronic "the 14th Amendment doesn't exist, I'm a resident of the United States, not a United States Citizen so I don't have to pay taxes" Bravo Sierra. Don't worry about not understanding his rantings, worry if you start to think he make senses.
EO- Executive Order
SBR- Short Barrelled Rifle. Specific marking requirements and licensing. Less than for full NFA
NFA- National Firearms Act. 1934. Requires registration and paying a $200 tax. Closed to new firearms in May of ‘86 by the Lautenberg Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act that further modified the Gun Control Act of ‘68. None of which are Constitutionally legal but have been upheld by activist courts just the same under the Commerce Clause.
Former .mil types get used to acronyms and tend to keep using them for life. ;-)
I pray you are correct in the assessment of our fellow Americans. I fear that you will merely be one of the above-mentioned half-dozen in your state.
They do this, it's time to put them to use.
Finally, someone who gets it!! Either way you look at it theres lots of win in your comment.
If you mean I wont comply then youre in good company. If you mean tatoo a s/n on it and register that along w/ anything else in your home w/ a s/n then thats good too! I call it Going Canadian. LOL!!!!
All I am doing is making a prediction, do not doubt me.
This may make some uncomfortable.
But this is our Lexington and Concord.
Like in 1775, the stand will be taken for the same reason.
The end of the Second Amendment means the compact known as the Constitution is broken, thus there is no longer a reason for the governed to give their consent to those who would rule over us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.