Obama’s New Executive Orders on Guns

Dear Fellow Survivalist;

GettyImages-503451562-676x450Greetings. As everyone knows, Obama started the year out by announcing his new unilateral gun control measures. Since he couldn’t get Congress to do what he wanted, he decided to see how far he could push things on his own, claiming that Congress wasn’t doing their job. If he understood the Constitution like he says he does, he’d know that Congress is doing their job. They are representing the people and the people don’t want gun control.

But Obama is Obama and the only opinion he can hear is his own; that and those who agree with him. That’s how he can say that the majority of the people want gun control, when researchers say that only 2 percent of the population is concerned about it.

At first glance, Obama’s executive orders look more like a paper tiger than anything else. To a large part, he’s restated things that are already law. Of course, he went to great lengths to make them sound new, lying about the “gun show loophole” and how convicted felons walk into gun shows and buy guns to commit their next crime with. Facts apparently don’t matter in Democrat talking points, only rhetoric that backs up your ideology.

The big problem with Obama’s executive actions is that he had no right to do them. The Constitution doesn’t allow the president to legislate by executive order, but Obama has made it a regular part of his presidency. His “pen and phone” philosophy of governing means that anytime Congress doesn’t do what he wants, he creates another executive order or commands the pertinent department of government to create a regulation. He is operating totally outside the limits that the law places on him, and getting away with it.

These gun control executive orders break the law in another way as well. The Constitution clearly gives the power of the purse to the House of Representatives. Yet Obama is giving money to two government agencies to further his agenda. He doesn’t have the authority to do that.

Unfortunately, impeachment is not an option, simply because Republicans don’t hold a super-majority in the Senate. The Democrat senators will never agree with impeachment and without a 60% majority, it can’t happen.

But do the paper tiger aspects of Obama’s new executive orders mean that we don’t have to concern ourselves with them? I wouldn’t go that far. Like any law or regulation, a lot depends on how they are implemented and enforced. There’s enough leeway in the language, that those orders could be interpreted in some very dangerous ways, and if that’s possible, then it’s likely to happen.

One of Obama’s main stated goals was to close the “gun show loophole.” First of all, there is no such thing. The vast majority of sellers at gun shows are businesses, which means they all have federal firearms licenses (FFL) and perform background checks. However, the liberal talking point is that gun shows are a hotbed of illegal activity, populated by angry white men and criminals, all looking to perform illegal acts with their guns.

The only gun sales that happen without background checks at gun shows are private sales. Some gun owners show up at the shows with guns that they want to sell or trade. Usually, they try to get one of the seller to buy their guns. But, being businesses, they won’t offer as much as the individual wants. So, if they sell the gun, it probably ends up being a private sale. Those are not regulated by law and no background check is required.

This is one of those places where Obama’s wording may cause problems. His executive order states that anyone who sells guns regularly is required to have a FFL, almost the same thing the law already says. The difference is that the law requires people who sell firearms to make a living to have the FFL. This subtle difference could be the loophole that Obama wants to create.

When asked by a reporter how many guns a person had to sell in order to be required to have a FFL, he responded that there was no lower limit. In other words, according to his own wording, he could be planning on going after people who sell one firearm privately, stating that they are a “regular seller” and therefore required to have a FFL and perform background checks. This could lead to imprisoning people for selling guns to family members.

By the way, this won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The law already states that it is illegal to sell a gun privately if you think that the buyer is going to use it for criminal activities. But criminals don’t buy their guns at gun shows anyway, they buy them on the street, so closing that “loophole” won’t make a difference.

Here’s another place where Obama’s actions could be dangerous. He’s codified what he had already said about people on Social Security losing their Second Amendment rights if they aren’t capable of handling their own finances. Since when does not being able to write a check indicate that one doesn’t have the judgment to properly use a gun?

Once again, the wording is sufficiently ambiguous as to cause problems. Obama has equated the inability to take care of one’s own finances to being mentally unstable. That opens the door to taking guns away from anyone who is mentally unstable. In actuality, the law already allows for this, with proper judicial review. But he’s making it so that all that’s required is a statement by a mental health professional.

That’s the same thing the Veteran’s Administration has been doing. They are paying bonuses to doctors, every time they certify that it is unsafe for a veteran to have a firearm, due to PTSD or other problems. So, the people who should have the greatest rights to have firearms, our veterans who fought for our rights, are being denied those very rights by Obama’s administration. Now they want to do the same with the elderly.

But I don’t think that it’s going to stop with the elderly. While it is clear that those who commit mass murders are mentally unbalanced, I seriously doubt that Obama is going to go after them. He needs them to continue his push towards gun confiscation. Instead, he’ll go after conservatives.

Did you know that “climate change denial” is now considered a mental illness? How about disagreeing with overbearing governmental control, did you know that was a mental illness? Well, according to our nation’s psychiatrists it is. So, between those two, pretty much every conservative is mentally ill. Will Obama’s new laws and his 50,000 new mental health workers come after us? Only time will tell.

The only thing we can be sure of, right now, is that the measures the president has taken are not to our benefit. If he was truly concerned with public safety, he wouldn’t have released criminals onto our streets. He wouldn’t be releasing known terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, so that they could get back into the fight. Instead, he would secure our southern border and he’d stem the flow of Muslims into the country, without being properly vetted. For that matter, he’d direct the justice department to uphold current gun laws. But he hasn’t. He doesn’t care about our safety; all he cares about is his agenda and his legacy. I guess when your legacy is being the worst president ever, you’ve got to protect it.

Just one more reason why you and I need to keep our powder dry and our survival equipment close at hand.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.