White House Leaks Obama Intents For “Executive Action” Firearm Restrictions…

As we review the current media report for President Obama’s intentions, regarding executive office restrictions on firearms, we must remember the second term distinction between “executive orders” and “executive action“.

♦ Executive orders are those dictatorial fiats from the White House that contain an origin, at least as regarded by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), founded in law.

♦ “Executive actions” are the term-two preferences of President Obama and constitute dictatorial fiats that are not constitutionally based, not legal, not supported by the OLC, and will not eventually hold up under legal challenge.  The key word is “eventually”.

Image: Barack Obama, Jeh Johnsonloretta lynch AG nominee 2.1

The Obama “executive actions” are political decisions intentionally constructed and designed to advance an ideology while creating legal conflict.  They successfully advance ‘change’ until they are overruled by state and federal courts.

An example of an “executive action” was the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, amnesty program Obama rolled out in November of 2014.   DAPA was an Executive Action, not an Executive Order.

Executive Actions open barn doors.  They are never designed/intended to pass legal challenge.  They create mostly irreversible consequences.

To the best of our knowledge the entire MSM and professional punditry have yet to recognize the strategic and intentional use of executive action – and explain it to everyone.

Obama Jesus Pose

REUTERS – President Barack Obama, frustrated by Congress’ inaction on gun control, will meet with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday to discuss ways of reducing gun violence unilaterally through measures that do not require congressional approval.

Obama, in his weekly recorded address, said on Friday he has received “too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids, to sit around and do nothing.”

He has repeatedly urged Congress to tighten gun laws. His calls grew louder following the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, and again after mass shootings in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and San Bernardino, California in recent months.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” Obama said in the address. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.”

The Washington Post, citing several individuals briefed on the matter, said Obama and Lynch would finalize executive actions, which do not require congressional approval, that he will unveil next week.

Frustrated by Congress, Obama has vowed to use “whatever power this office holds” to put in place gun control measures.

“We know that we can’t stop every act of violence,” Obama said. “But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something – anything – to protect our kids from gun violence?”

Obama’s address came as a Texas law allowing licensed firearms owners to carry handguns openly in public places took effect.  (read more)


This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Big Stupid Government, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Election 2016, Obama Research/Discovery, Potus Gun Ban, propaganda, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to White House Leaks Obama Intents For “Executive Action” Firearm Restrictions…

  1. kinthenorthwest says:

    Obama is acting like a dictator rather than a president…Way way more than 2/3s of America do NOT want anymore gun control. Sad part is the Republicans will NOT do a damn thing.
    Ok guys should I hit up the gun shop for my gun…I have my CW permit, but was waiting for some shooting training. Very much thinking of getting the gun I’ve been looking at tommorrow before its too late.
    I predict a run on guns for the next week or two.

    Liked by 21 people

    • Kaiser Roll says:

      Obama is the greatest seller of firearms ever, it is to our forefather’s credit that excise tax revenue can only be used for conservation purposes.

      The marginal restrictions that the Regime is discussing aren’t much compared with the import bans under the last three presidents, none of which were ever explicit approved by Congress. (Though the GOPe in Congress has done nothing to defund).

      It is a part of the polarization of American politics (thanks to Hart-Cellar-Kennedy), that each side now believes its own propaganda. In the past whenever the Democrats have pushed gun control, they paid for it at the polls. They also never claimed to be for full on confiscation, but now Hillary is talking about the “Australian style”. If she doesn’t back away from this, she will lose in a landslide. A lot of Pennsylvania and Ohio gun owners are union Dems, who have bought the lies that the Ds aren’t for confiscation. But openly touting it will flip them.

      A candidacy based on BlackLiesMatter, gun confiscation, tax increases, mass immigration from Muslim countries, will fail. And that is what Hillary Clinton is doing.

      Liked by 12 people

    • auscitizenmom says:

      I bought one a couple of weeks ago. Better do it.

      Liked by 6 people

      • lastConservinIllinois? says:

        I bought one Wednesday and should’ve brought home Thursday after 24 hr wait period but background check is taking longer than typical so still don’t have at home.

        Liked by 4 people

    • screwauger says:

      I received a gift cert for Cabela’s from family for my Christmas gift. We all went on 12/26 to buy me a gun. There had to be three hundred folks in and around the firearms section and we were there six hours. Most of the stock was sold out and nearly everyone there were purchasing handguns. I got mine. 17 shot capacity semi auto 9mm. Just in case the SHTF

      Liked by 11 people

      • lastConservinIllinois? says:

        Nice gift!

        I stopped by Cabelas on my way home from work Wednesday, there had to be 30 custmers in the firearm dept and most were waiting for a sales clerk.
        I saw 3 sales clerks working.

        So I drove over to Gander.

        Liked by 3 people

    • wyntre says:

      Yes. Get the right gun and plenty of ammo.

      Liked by 4 people

    • screwauger says:

      While filling out the computerized federal form for purchasing a firearm, the Cabela’s staff member stands behind you. I had a very comical older gent. He had given me plenty of instructions on how NOT to screw up the form to avoid being rejected for silly things. When I got to the two different screens about my race and was I of hispanic origins, he stopped me. He placed a hand on my shoulder and in all seriousness stated, “this is the part where we are required to tell you that president Obama IS NOT racially profiling you.” It was rich, cold anger with a splash of humor!!

      Liked by 8 people

    • Dixie says:

      I hate what he’s doing to the gun dealers. Shades of coal.

      Liked by 5 people

    • ctdar says:

      As most know I live in CT, the hypocrisy of Newtown is after the school shooting according to gun salesmen of the various shops I have been in, the biggest increase in permit applications came from Newtown and the immediate surrounding towns.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Bull Durham says:

      This Executive Order will add 10 points to Donald’s lead in the polls, and will assure his victory everywhere.

      It is a tactical blunder that reinforces the Dems shallow support by anti-gun wimps and Second Amendment sellouts. It gains them no votes with the vast majority who are lining up to buy more guns, to get trained to shoot and to get conceal carry and carry open laws everywhere.

      Bring it on. I increased my financial support of the NRA.

      Donald will strike this EO on day one, along with all the other EOs the Fraud has signed.

      Liked by 6 people

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        We had good neighbors with little kids amble down to watch our home-grown fireworks show. Our neighborly chat ended up on the topic of their Christmas gift: revolvers, his and hers.

        These are normal, suburban people, not a loner in a cabin living off the grid.

        This helps my wife perceive two things: being a responsible gun owner is normal, and we really cannot take this for granted cuz there is a powerful minority who politically are died-in-the-wool intent on having the law of the land be: no civilian guns.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. southernbythegraceofGod says:

    Where is a freight train when you need one…… ?

    Liked by 9 people

  3. hocuspocus13 says:

    Let’s begin gun control with Obama’s body guards…🔫

    Liked by 14 people

  4. ScruffyLeon says:

    Texans leading the way for keeping the Right to Bear Arms.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    The final “transformation” of the “OLD” US into the “NEW” US required that the 1 amendment be nullified and to achieve that the and prevent civil war the 2nd amendment ‘MUST” be eliminated and “ALL” the guns confiscated! Only then will the the merger of the COPe and the RNC be completed and we will have a system almost identical to that of China which is what they want.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. mcfyre2012 says:

    “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence,” Obama said. “But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something – anything – to protect our kids from gun violence?”

    Progressive idealism…In other words, results don’t matter. It’s only the appearance of caring that matters.

    Liked by 11 people

  7. Renee Blythe says:

    He has a more serious agenda.

    Liked by 6 people

    • TrumpFanGirl says:

      Like cancelling the election and continue his dictatorship?

      Liked by 2 people

      • smiley says:

        how best to do that?
        civil war/martial law ?
        from the bizarre grin on his face, he almost looks like he’d welcome the chance.
        could this be part of VJ’s “final agenda”, or whatever she calls it ?
        they know they will get a hefty pushback from this.
        why bother even having a “Congress” anymore ?


  8. beaujest says:

    Go home to Kenya !

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Totally Domestic says:

    I am having a hard time keeping my anger cold!

    Liked by 7 people

  10. bob e says:

    how do you stop the EO in it’s infancy ??


  11. Arkindole says:

    As I understand this the crap relates to private sales and not those conducted with an FFL. Anyone doing an FFL won’t be affected. Maybe somewhere between 20-35% of sales are apart from FFLs. They also want to distinguish between those with a C&R license for real purposes, collecting, and those that peddle wares with it. For instance, the liberals/progressives envision selling a crate or two of soviet bloc (semi’s) instead of collecting.

    It. Would. Never. Work. That. Way.

    This is just crap plain and simple, just another way of creeping up on EU style law.

    If shithead goes any further with EAs, you better be ready.

    If anyone wants to get concerned, look at CA right now, today, not at this Obama smokescreen bullshit, where they can now perform unannounced confiscations of guns for bogus intents. This takes SWATing to a whole new level.

    Someone is going to call a neighbor, and there are going to be a lot of mag dumps before the sound stops.

    Liked by 5 people

  12. kinthenorthwest says:

    Snippet from an article…Maybe they could just add in Chicago too

    Democrat Senator Uses Gang Incidents to Raise Annual ‘Mass Shootings’ from 4 to 372
    On December 31 Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed there were 372 mass shootings–or more than one mass shooting a day–during calendar year 2015. On the other hand, Mother Jones editor Mark Follman reported four mass shootings for the whole year and USA Today reported approximately 22.

    What accounts for the jump from from four–or even 22–to 372? The jump is the result of Senator Chris Murphy’s (D-CT) complete rejection of the FBI criteria for a mass shooting. That criteria is four fatalities in one shooting incident. Instead of using this, Murphy has adopted the criteria of Shooting Tracker, a website which labels any shooting or series of shootings a “mass shooting” if there are four or more injuries.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. seabrznsun says:

    With the inception of the required electronic health records the government now has access to privileged health information of anyone who “admits” to the required question the physician must ask about presence of guns in the home. California will obviously be looking at any information about depression in those medical records. No doubt the psychiatric records will get extra special scrutiny.

    Liked by 6 people

    • kafir says:

      The government also forced electronic prescriptions on doctors. 90% of your medical conditions can be gleaned from just data mining prescription information. They don’t or won’t even need access to the full record. It will be a long and difficult process for the gun owner to prove his or her innocence and get his rights back, if ever

      Liked by 5 people

    • KBR says:

      Let’s see, “have you ever taken Prozac or any similar medication?” Will be the big question.

      I know they have been really pushing these pills for every tiniest bit of normal sadness for years. Had a tiff with your spouse? Here’s your Rx. Your hamster died? Here’s your Rx.
      You feel sad because you accidentally ran over a little squirrel on the way to your checkup? Here’s your Rx. Anniversary of your gramma’s death? Here’s your Rx.

      So now that they’ve given every person in the USA one of those Rx at one time or another, now they can get your guns. All they have to do is check your Rx records.
      So glad I said “No, don’t want it, don’t need it, won’t fill it, ’cause I’m just not THAT sad!”

      Liked by 3 people

      • amjean says:

        I am going to see a new doctor and his office emailed
        me 20 pages of forms to fill out – a few pages were all
        about mental health. “Have you ever been depressed”;
        “ever feel sad”, etc. etc. etc. They also asked almost
        the same questions in another part of the questionnaire.
        I, being paranoid, thought it was a trap!

        Whatever you do, do not ever answer “yes” to any of
        these type of questions. I did not fall in their trap; at
        some point the answers to these questions could be used
        against you; in particular, to take away your guns.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Mike Farley says:

        My younger brother recently got a DUI. The probation paperwork warns him to stay away from firearms for the length of his probation. He’s given two options for dealing with any firearms he owns. Turn them in unloaded and in a locked container to our local sheriff. Or give them to a family member that owns a gun safe, but there’s a catch to that particular solution. He can’t live with the family member , or have access to the room that contains the safe. He’s also not allowed to be in the company of anyone that possesses a firearm on their person. My older brother works for our sheriffs department, so I asked him if he considered the probation extreme for a first time DUI offender. He didn’t give me an adequate answer, he just said, ” they’re casting a net to see what turns up”.

        Liked by 2 people

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      Something to consider: your life is your life. You are allowed to share what you want with whom. There is no person anywhere who can force you to reveal your past secrets or current hopes and aspirations.

      You are a free person. You get to do that when you want, with whom you want. Spouse, pastor, parent, best friend, suicide hotline operator, physician, counselor, stranger on the plane, diary, trusted teacher, neighbor, or whomever else.

      If you have mental health problems or difficulties – depression, smoking, obsessive-compulsive disorder, procrastination, whatever – you should figure out some way of getting skilled help. –For most anything, you can self-pay, and in many circumstances you can avoid medication.

      You have to decide whether your privacy is worth it to you. Also, if you self-pay $45 to $80/session for a good counselor, this makes you comparison-shop, and makes you really put effort into the endeavor. In contrast, if you only have $15 copay and have a whole bunch of sessions, you may just string along not really putting out the huge effort to achieve some progress.

      Find a counselor who will do self-pay, and so you do not have to submit claims to insurance, and you can have some control over what your diagnosis might be.

      Why self-pay? To get third-party / insurance coverage, you have to play by their rules. Their rules are they pay only for proper treatment for a recognized, documented medical problem. They won’t pay for unclarified needs in counseling – a counselor may not have a firm idea of a diangnosis, but they often WILL code you as “depressed” so they can get reimbursed. That is the game.

      There are “v codes.” These are additional topics that a professional might address or might impact health care. You can look up the mental health v codes and find one you like, if your counselor insists on setting down something that is in the diagnostic code set. You can look up mental disorder v codes on the net. They are in wikipedia.

      But v codes are usually not reimbursable – they are not recognized medical disorders.

      The counselor does not have to put down a medical disorder code, or a v code. Ethically, they ought to have a problem noted, but it does not have to be a formally recognized disorder. It can be more real-world, like interpersonal difficulties, relationship difficulties, or disappointment in professional achievement.

      Think about it, This keeps you safe from someone using a diagnosis to compromise your rights.

      There are other avenues: self-help – there are many good books out there, and support groups. Also, you can hire a “life coach” to provide that outsider point of view, help you define problems, and work a good plan.

      At the same time, any gun owner should create a plan to have someone else hold firearms in case you happen to end up in a state where you are not safe with them.

      For example, head injuries or stroke are never anticipated, but can happen to anyone. A head injury can leave you more impulsive, So, hypothetically, if you were rehabbing from a head injury, you might have a family member get some or all firearms to their place, for the time-being.

      We covered this in my CCL class, and hopefully they bring the topic up in most ccl classes.

      If a friend or family member had a romantic break-up, and had any indication of suicidality or hopelessness, you could offer this help.

      Liked by 2 people

      • lindenleelady says:

        Great advice… Contingencies. Flying under the radar.

        Also, re: self-pay… My doc is an osteopath, and I LOVE HER. She was not on the Medicare plan I wanted to choose, so I asked her what she would charge me to come to see her (maybe 2X/year) and self-pay. It was $80 for a normal office visit. Then, she was added to my plan, and the office visit was charged at $200. the diff is her cost of processing the Medicare paperwork, etc. I would gladly pay her out of pocket, and she would be happy not to have to deal with Medicare. Same for the lab testing, the cash price is about 40% of the insured price.

        Good solution, and maybe available in many other medical professionals. Just a thought.


  14. John Galt says:

    This is another Rinocrat fail opportunity. Watch them do nothing, say nothing.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. kafir says:

    The lame duck Congress will pass a national version of the SAFE Act. It will ban semiautomatic rifles and pistols with more than a certain capacity, such as 5 or ten rounds. They will make a grandfather provision so most current owners will accept it. And Jeb, Hill or Rubio will sign it. But it will be illegal to SELL or in any way TRANSFER these firearms, even upon the current owners death. Bingo, automatic confiscation by the state, just like in NY.

    That’s why they claim to need “universal background checks” which is really code for national registration, or a database of gun owners. How else would a law regulating private sales be enforced? Its already illegal to transfer a firearm in any way to a felon. I wouldn’t sell to a stranger without having him go down to the local pawn shop and pay $20 for a NICS check. But I’m a law abiding citizen. I don’t need another law telling me to obey the law.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Arkindole says:

      Before anything remotely resembling NY’s SAFE act passes congress there will be an open civil war.
      Or, it will go 4GW and you’ll just start seeing heads explode unexpectedly while talking at microphones in front of cameras.
      Then, the urban enclaves go under siege.
      The Prince King knows that, and he wants that.
      We are very very close to Rule 308.


    • holly100 says:

      The SAFE Act wasn’t enough. Now they are going after the ammo.

      “It’s readily evident that the two lawmakers know next to nothing about the subject of firearms and ammunition. Manufacturers don’t even package ammunition with such a random number of cartridges in many cases. This is one of the most absurd bills being introduced in the entire country. However, because anti-gun legislators in New York have a history of defying logic, we will treat this legislation as another serious attempt to infringe on your constitutional right to self-defense.”



    • MarkyMark says:

      Background checks GUT the Second Amendment! How? Because you are, in effect, seeking permission from an anonymous gov’t bureaucrat to buy a gun. Well, if you have to seek permission to do something, then it’s axiomatic that you do not have the RIGHT to do that something.

      Secondly, the prohibiting convicted but not freed felons goes against what the Founders thought about keeping and bearing arms. Their thought was that, if you would not trust someone to carry their gun in public, then that someone should not be FREE in the first place! That is to say that, if someone is mentally ill, then they should be institutionalized; ah, but that’s not PC! If someone is, by virtue of their criminal background (e.g. serial killer), is not fit to carry a gun in public, he should not be FREE in the first place!

      By submitting to these rules and regulations (put in place by anti-gun gun grabbers), you are enabling them. You are giving legitimacy to their policies and what they aim to accomplish-take away our guns. Also, you are enabling the gov’t to track our guns, which will enable them to confiscate them in the future. You should NOT enable the system!

      Those are my thoughts…

      Liked by 2 people

  16. drdeb says:

    He really is doing everything he can do in order to start a revolution by We The People. Do you suppose his purpose is as sinister as to declare martial law, cancel the 2016 election and declare himself ruler?

    Liked by 5 people

  17. furtiveadmirer says:

    When you are an imposter, every signature is a forgery.

    An interesting dilemma for historical precedence of “executive” orders & “executive” actions…
    Barack Hussein Obama cannot pass e-verify.
    (Ask Trump to punch it in. He uses it.)

    All about Bari Malik Shabazz, illegitimate son of Malcolm X SHABBAZZ, the imposter usurper squatting In the White House.
    Some judge has to order him, whoever he is, to repay the taxpayers for treble damages at least 1/2 trillion dollars.

    Especially beginning @28 minutes.
    Streamed live on Dec 23, 2015
    Discussion with Martha Trowbridge, Researcher, Writer, Radio Host, on the investigations and identity of President Barack Obama.


    Liked by 4 people

  18. Crassus says:

    Where are the conservatives in Congress? Where is the Tea Party?

    Answers: Sitting on their fat asses and not doing a damn thing.

    Liked by 5 people

  19. Millwright says:

    As noted, the beauty of these pending “executive orders” are; 1) there’s a trace of legality, 2) they take the “moral high ground” forcing objectors into lengthy legal remedies and pursuing legislative remedies uphill . But the “hidden agenda” here is getting a vast trove of weapons currently “off the books”, back on. Firearms last a long, long time . Old guns are as effective/efficient today as when they were made. And this is the “grey market” – legal arms owned by legal owners with sales records pre-dating NCIS and FFL records lost in BATFE dustbins – this government seeks to identify.

    Also look for movement to control ammunition sales by amounts at the very least. I also expect activity in component sales, ( i.e. primers, cases, powders, bullets ) as well. Serious shooters are usually serious reloaders crafting their own ammunition for enjoyment, cost, and performance. I wouldn’t be surprised if Eos in this area also included such things as presses and tooling as well.

    But the real “elephant in the room” is how easy it is to “roll your own” these days. $1500 buys a dedicated 3-axis CNC mill to craft fully functional AR receivers from 80% blanks. The after market supplies a vast trove of parts and pieces to complete your AR, all completely legal; and “off the books” ! The net, (and just about any bookshop) is rife with DIY instructions to build your own rifles, pistols and shotguns with readily available/affordable tools and equipment on the street by anyone with modest manual skills and an aptitude to learn. Even better is pistol – caliber short guns are far easier to craft as “open bolt” designs that fire full auto only.

    Considering our present president has earned the sobriquet as “America’s Best Gun Salesman”, it just might be he’s once again on track to exceed himself in that regard.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. famouswolf says:

    So, guys, I had a timely event last year. An elderly aunt passed away, and I became one of ten beneficiaries. It was a 25k windfall.
    So I got my wife a sapphire ring, I got us a new rosewood dining room set, and guess what I did with the rest? We laid half of it away, the table and ring were about 8k together.
    That left me 4k to play with. Anybody wanna guess what I got? Huh, huh?

    Liked by 5 people

  21. geoffb5 says:

    What I seem to recall is that he would be said in the press to be taking executive action on something and what really happened was that a cabinet level official would be the one actually issuing the signed order. Jeh Johnson being the one I remember.

    What I worry about more is a proclamation based on some little known, forgotten, law that Congress passed many years before. As per Wiki.

    “In the United States, the President’s proclamation does not have the force of law, unless authorized by Congress. If Congress were to pass an act, which would take effect upon the happening of a contingent event, and subsequently the President proclaimed that the event happened, then the proclamation would have the force of law.”

    As for what he might do on guns I expect that he will declare some very low limit on the private sales of guns per year, 1 to 5, and by that knock most sellers out of the gun shows and get more names into the “illegally held onto” federal gun owner database which everyone knows they have but always deny exists.


  22. Scott Spencer says:

    Commander Zero Hates the American gun owner & the constitutional rights we garner.
    He intends to fight us with the full might of the federal government.

    Rather than fight ISIS or the MBH..
    He would rather fight Americans & our Law Enforcement agencys…

    What America needs is not more ridiculous gun laws but laws banning Commander Zero…

    Liked by 3 people

  23. I have yet to see any program designed to remove guns from gangs and illegals.

    In fact, Obama seems to support commercial advertisements for gangs and guns, aka rap videos, albums and whatever else of that criminal culture being perpetrated upon American youth.

    Obama just wants to remove guns from law abiding citizens. FAIL!

    THANK YOU SUNDANCE FOR EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND EXECUTIVE ACTIONS aka dictator degrees. I had no idea of the difference and probably many others don’t either. You certainly lead the way for others to get on this distinction as well. A very important article.

    Liked by 2 people

    • correction: “dictator degrees” should read dictator DECREES


    • flyanddive says:

      The Democrats are trying actively to increase gun violence, they are not actually gun grabbing, YET. What the left wants is Christians to finally snap, resort to violence, and then the government can come in clamp down. This is the final major step in bringing in Shariah law.

      Liked by 2 people

  24. Heck, let’s just call them EVIL ACTIONS. Obama’s Evil Actions.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. stringy theory says:

    I think this is just more hot air from oblamus. There is little he can really won’t be stopped by a court that still has sense. It’s just a matter of time until this petty dictator is done and then President Trump can wipe away every one of his executive orders on day 1.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Can someone cite Constitutional authority for Executive Orders, Executive Actions, and Executive Agreements??

    The president isn’t leader of the Country – or even the leader of the federal government – he’s the head of the Executive branch. The People are the leaders of the Country; and the federal branches are not subservient to either of the other two.

    The president’s ‘edicts’ wouldn’t be a problem at all – the president has authority to set policy for the executive branch – if Congress hadn’t illegally ceded much of its legislative authority to the Executive branch.

    The Executive branch is illegally wielding the power of all 3 federal government branches – writing laws, executing them (or not as the case may be), and judging those who don’t follow their unconstitutional regulations.

    Restoring the Constitution’s division of powers between the federal government branches is a crucial step in fixing what’s wrong with our Republic.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Mike Farley says:

    I must have screwed up my first post, I’ll try again. Obama isn’t the only gun hater chipping away at the 2nd Amendment. My younger brother got a DUI, his first, about six months ago. In the probation papers he signed is a demand that he do one of three things with any firearms he owns. Turn them over to law enforcement unloaded and in a locked container. Or completely disassembled in a gun case or original packaging. He also has the option of giving them to a family member that has a gun safe. But he isn’t allowed to live with the family member where the firearms are stored, and he’s not allowed to have access to the room containing the gun safe. He’s also not supposed to be in the company of anyone that has a firearm on their person. There was also paperwork demanding to know the names of all people residing in his home, and at least three bills with his name and listed address. If he can’t provide the bills there’s an option for the head of household to provide a notarized letter stating that he lives at that address. My older brother works for the sheriffs department, so I asked him at Christmas dinner whether he thought the probation was a little draconian for a first time DUI offender. He really didn’t give me what I’d consider an adequate answer, he just said, ” they’re casting a net Mike, remember that a good portion of our justice system is antigun”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • wolfmoon1776 says:

      Bet you got caught in the spam trap. Happens a lot around here. I just wait it out.

      Yeah, this whole thing stinks. A lot of what you report here smells illegal, and a good gun attorney could probably beat it back. You might want to send a nicely typed summary to the NRAILA so they have some ammo. A dozen or so cases like this, and they can push back. Non-violent misdemeanors are NOT covered by stuff. If they’re making anti-gun rules part of deal-cutting, that’s a nice little scandal brewing for our side, and probably unconstitutional as can be.

      You seem like somebody who knows guns and law – see my post below. I think this whole EA package is presented in a distractive fashion to sneak in some way nastier stuff than the background checks. The WaPo article has the real goods near the end.


    • BigMamaTEA says:

      We see you Mike Farley, sometimes WordPress is a little wonky. Especially when the threads are busy.

      Also, I believe what your older brother said, sounds like the Fed is going “fishing” to see what they can catch. They, the Fed, are looking for anyway that they think works, to give them an opening.

      Oh, and tell your dumbazz younger brother (yep, got one too!) to stop doing dumbazz things. No booze behind the wheel!!! {have both in my family cop-brother and dubazz brother!)


  28. Rollerball says:

    Remember folks , you have already been listed as a potential domestic ‘ Xtremist ‘. And NO you no longer have a Right to Remain silent either. You talk of Rights ..? Pay with cash ? Homeschool.?
    Own a Don’t Tread on Me Flag ? Read the Bible …. ? OMG do you support the Second Amendment .??? – WE ARE ALL ON THE LIST , just like our best role model George Washington.

    New American ; August 7, 2013 ; ” Feds Instruct Law Enforcement to Cover Up Investigations of Innocent Americans”

    Liked by 2 people

  29. wolfmoon1776 says:

    I’m gonna ask that whoever can get a hold of the exact wording of these EAs get them online as soon as they are leaked or available in some other fashion. I think the money here is NOT the background checks. That is the “look squirrel” distraction, to keep the lefty base pushing polls and the NRA distracted. The real meat is in the stuff at the end of the Washington Post article on this stuff.


    Here is the money quote:

    “The administration has been weighing other proposals, including requiring federally licensed gun dealers to report any lost and stolen guns to the National Crime Information Center; providing guidance on restricting dangerous individuals from carrying guns within a specified distance of a school; clarifying that convicted abusers are prohibited from having guns regardless of their marital status; and instructing federal law enforcement to identify and arrest criminals who attempt to buy illegal guns.”

    So – what is a “dangerous individual”? (I’ll bet it ain’t Muslims – that’s for sure!) Is this a new legal classification without due process? It would appear to be somebody who CAN and DOES legally own guns, but is now branded as “dangerous” by executive order. Note that it’s also “guidance” – kinda like what ISIS gives. Just sayin’. Obama is outsourcing his anti-gun to local jurisdictions to take the heat on what is probably illegal prior restraint, and leave DOJ with “clean hands” (yeah, right).

    And we know this guy is not talking about Muslims or gang bangers. Let’s see – what is he talking about? Gay immigration-scamming Muslim crazy useful idiots, maybe? Who bought weapons for jihadists who killed people in an office? And who happen to have plotted (but not acted) against a school? Yeah, but let’s ignore all the Barry-friendly gay immigration-scammer Muslim stuff and the reality of jihadists attacking people at work and say CRAZY near a SCHOOL.


    Obama wants to declare certain people dangerous without force of law.

    I think this ties in with banning access to guns during non-violent misdemeanor probation. They are pushing small stuff that is very likely illegal. They’re pushing prior restraint, unconstitutionally enacted, against people who won’t get a lot of social backing – non-violent criminals and people who have been treated for mental illness – the vast majority of which are nonviolent – and at rates enviable by many ethnic minorities. And yet Obama wants to sanitize convicted drug criminals who were mostly gangsters.

    Let’s see what Trump says about Obama’s EAs. Hope he’s not going to let the illegal stuff stand without comment.


    • BigMamaTEA says:

      wolfmoon, they are available at white.gov I think they have a page for “Presidential Actions” or something like that. Why don’t you keep up and post that. (That’s where the “so-called-press” get them)

      Liked by 1 person

      • wolfmoon1776 says:

        Hey, mama! Good idea. I never download anything from a Democrat White House (don’t like them cooties they give out, and metadata collectors they have working for them), but I found a lot of good analysis, including the NRAILA and this link, high up in Google:


        My impression is that the school stuff is being used as an excuse for more Roseburg type federal micromanagement – not so much to advance any unconstitutional stuff. The proposals that went forward around schools are high on direct federal involvement and mind control by directing the conversation at the school level, out of sight of the media. They’re working AGAINST the idea of armed guards, and FOR more gun-free zones and “shelter in place” thinking. Just the usual Obama stuff. The only stuff that got under my tin foil hat was the call for more “crisis intervention teams”. Yeah. We know what that means. Narrative pimps.

        The absence of grossly unconstitutional stuff fits in with the actual mental health stuff that was rolled out. Based on the details of that part, it appears that Obama and Jarrett pushed for constitutional overreach, but were pushed back by both the legal and medical people. The final product was reduced to little more than openly asserting that the horrible HIPAA anti-privacy legislation is in fact horrible, and allows medical people to divulge private information to the very people – the government – who privacy is supposed to protect us from. That said, he’s only using the plumbing already installed by Congress. So what he’s doing is just creating a mechanism that medical entities which involuntarily institutionalize people can use to report that information to the feds, when the legal people don’t do it in a timely fashion, or at all. This is probably something Trump would do anyway, when fixing the broken DOJ/FBI. So no biggie.

        All in all, my assessment of his gun control actions is a big nothingburger with tiny bits of stinky but constitutional condiments. I am beginning to think it was all a big political push to help the Democrat side in the elections, to shore up their base against Trump – something for Hillary – and the exact timing was coordinated to distract from this smoking gun Hillary email that he knew was coming for a LOOONG time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s