Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox: Obama to impose gun control through federal agencies he controls
Fox News Live (no link) | 1/28/13

Posted on 01/28/2013 11:16:53 AM PST by pabianice

Per Fox, Obama knows he will not get gun control through Congress so he is preparing to order federal agencies to require private citizens to obey his gun control measures as a prerequisite for the public to do business with the government.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 113th; 2ndamendment; agenda; backoffbarry; banglist; bho44; bhobanglist; bhofascism; bloodoftyrants; criminalpresident; democrats; dictator; govtabuse; guncontrol; jackbootswilldie; kingobama; liberalfascism; nazistate; obama; policestate; rapeofliberty; secondamendment; tyranny; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda' cool!"
1 posted on 01/28/2013 11:16:57 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Got a link for that or at least a reference to which show you saw it on?


2 posted on 01/28/2013 11:18:57 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Oh...kinda like:

Own a gun?? = NO Obamacare

Not an Obamacare “member?? = GO TO JAIL

Felony arrest for NOT having Obamacare = NO GUNS ANYMORE FOR YOU!!


3 posted on 01/28/2013 11:19:57 AM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

This is actually an executive order. I am sure he thinks he can circumvent the Constitution.

Please. someone stop him!


4 posted on 01/28/2013 11:22:28 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dforest

He is welcome to try to stop me from exercising my rights.


5 posted on 01/28/2013 11:25:35 AM PST by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dforest

Even the traitor John Roberts understood this much...Obamacare also claims to cut off money from whichever states refuse to expand Medicaid under the “law” and that is not constitutional under the seperation of powers. Even the libs agreed. You can’t threaten coercively and punitively in order to exercise a power you don’t have.

I would think this would be similar. Either federal agencies have the power under the constitution to threaten and coerce people into obeying Obama’s gun rules by threatening them in some other area of normal interaction, or they don’t.


6 posted on 01/28/2013 11:29:20 AM PST by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear..."(Glenn Beck))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

This is called being a Dick-tator.


7 posted on 01/28/2013 11:29:43 AM PST by mikelets456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

So we just stop doing business with the “Government.”

FUBO


8 posted on 01/28/2013 11:37:11 AM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Since I will not comply with any gun control measures, does this mean the IRS will not be doing any more business with me?


9 posted on 01/28/2013 11:55:20 AM PST by ThE_RiPpEr.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
So we just stop doing business with the “Government.”

1. Not doing business with the Government will be a felony.

2. If you want to do business with the Government, you will give up your weapons.

10 posted on 01/28/2013 12:00:06 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Barry is going further than that. Sat our next door neighbor was at the Gwinnett County gunshow with a friend. The friend was in the process of buying a gun through a private sale when a Fed came up and told him he had to get a background check. The friend told the Fed that the law does not require a background check for private sales and basically to get lost. One thing led to another and a gwinnett county cop was called over. He told the Fed to take a hike.

But the point is the ATF is sending agents out to try to coerce the public into complying with things that are not required by law.


11 posted on 01/28/2013 12:00:37 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

“Obamenace”


12 posted on 01/28/2013 12:05:10 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

ATF goons are regularly at gun shows. I’ve seen more than my fair share of them. They’re bullies. They’ve sown plenty of misinformation.


13 posted on 01/28/2013 12:07:43 PM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Molon Labe!


14 posted on 01/28/2013 12:08:40 PM PST by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

“ATF goons are regularly at gun shows”

Yes last year my fiancee’ was waiting to pull into the Gwinnett Gun show parking lot when he spied a black Suburban with cameras mounted on each side going down the rows of parked cars taking pics of everyone’s license plates. He left immediately.


15 posted on 01/28/2013 12:15:39 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends



Molon Labe

United We Stand and We Shall Stand United!

Please Support Free Republic Today

16 posted on 01/28/2013 12:19:10 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Buddy of mine is a city cop and says they do that to trap straw buyers and illegal sales. They’ll find a car associated to a known felon and take the booking photo inside to find the person in the exhibition hall. If they find him/her, they’ll follow them around until they try to make a purchase or even just pick up a weapon. Then, instead of charging that felon with illegal activity, they’ll shut down the dealer’s booth for “aiding and abetting.”

I’ve seen it happen a few times, but I never understood what was going on until after I heard about that tactic.


17 posted on 01/28/2013 12:21:25 PM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

There is a legal concept called “unconstitutional conditions.” The Supreme Court cases on this have involved the use of highways, telegraph companies and permitting of property use. These have been cases where the state has imposed permit conditions that required the surrender of a constitutionally protected right

“In Southern Pacific Co. V. Denton, 146 U.S. 202, 207, 13 S. Ct. 44, there was under consideration a Texas statute requiring a foreign corporation desiring to do business in the state to agree that it would not remove any suit from a court of the state into the Circuit Court of the United States. This court held the statute invalid, saying:

‘But that statute, requiring the corporation, as a condition precedent to obtaining a permit to do business within the state, to surrender a right and privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States, was unconstitutional and void, and could give no validity or effect to any agreement or action of the Corporation in obedience to its provisions.’

See also: Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1, 34-48, 30 S. Ct. 190; Frost v. Railroad Commission of State of California, 271 U.S. 583 (1926,); Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 56 (30 S. Ct. 232); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105, 114 (38 S. Ct. 438, 1 A. L. R. 1278).’

There is also the concept of “essential nexus.”

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, No. 93-518 (1994), Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the Court, further developed the rationale of Nolan in examining the proportionate balance of the regulatory conditions imposed upon use with the severity of the danger or injury the regulations were intended to ameliorate or eliminate:

... “Under the well-settled doctrine of ‘unconstitutional conditions’, the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right-here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use-in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972); Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968).”


18 posted on 01/28/2013 12:38:12 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Whenever a Fed tries coercion like that, the incident needs to be recorded by a dozen Iphone holders. If the govag tries to arrest them, he won’t get them all & it will go viral el muy quicko. Shot heard round the world sort of thing.

The “anti-eavesdropping laws” need to be researched & clarified. By the way, that local cop did exactly the right thing. What was the Fed going to say, “Hey, back off or I’ll arrest you”?


19 posted on 01/28/2013 12:40:19 PM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Well that and they are collecting a database of names and addresses in case they decide to start confiscating.


20 posted on 01/28/2013 1:01:28 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Per Fox, Obama knows he will not get gun control through Congress so he is preparing to order federal agencies to require private citizens to obey his gun control measures as a prerequisite for the public to do business with the government.

Who in their right mind would want to do business with this crony government ?

21 posted on 01/28/2013 1:02:44 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

bookmark


22 posted on 01/28/2013 1:22:40 PM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Sen. John F. Kennedy’s statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960): “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

Sen. Hubert Humphrey’s statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960): “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm


23 posted on 01/28/2013 2:15:52 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

They’ve got mine in multiple agency databases. I’m not secretive about my weaponry, and I am trained and willing to use it against criminals or agents of any agency who infringe on my God-given right to defend myself, my family, and my property.


24 posted on 01/28/2013 4:34:02 PM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

he is going to have a real challenge find business partners under that scenario.


25 posted on 01/28/2013 4:48:12 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Moronic nonsense, only too typical of our ignorant and benighted excuse for a president, and will be declared unconstitutional and invalidated at the first legal test.


26 posted on 01/28/2013 9:53:48 PM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

So can we expect “speech control” next?


27 posted on 01/29/2013 6:09:35 AM PST by rfreedom4u (I have a copy of the Constitution! And I'm not afraid to use it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson