As usual, President Obama used V.P. Biden to float the trial balloon on new gun control laws. The veep laid the cards on the table today:
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.As it happens, I had breakfast this morning with US Representative Marsha Blackburn (R.-7th Tenn.) along with about 40 business leaders of Williamson County. I asked her generally about the upcoming Democrat gun control measures, to which she replied with a statement that she would not support any measure that decreased our Constitutional rights. Frankly, I think this was a pretty weak answer, but I also have to say that without a specific bill before the House, it would be hard for her to take a very firm stand on this or any other topic.
I did ask specifically about Dec. Dianne Feinstein's (D.-Calif.) reintroduction of a reinforced "assault weapons" ban in the Senate, where it will pass easily and be sent to the House. My question was this: "Is that bill going to die in the House?"
Her answer: "Yes."
That does seem pretty clear. We will see.
But according to VP Biden, the president is characteristically uncommitted to any legislative initiative: "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken." The diktat is not the last resort of the Democrats, it is often the first.
It was a presidential aide to Clinton, Paul Begala, who put the controversy into perspective, back in July 1998.
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool,” he said, boasting how the Clinton machine was able to simply dictate what it wanted to have happen.
It came as Clinton glibly announced he would issue a barrage of executive orders to push his agenda forward without input from Congress.Today, Drudge got straight to the point:
HT: American Digest
Will Obama get away with another round of diktat? Of course:
1. He has a completely politicized Department of Justice headed by a positively obsequious attorney general who is at least as far to the Left as his boss.
3. Some Republicans in Congress will squawk. They will be attacked as wanting school children to die. After a few days they will shut up when it dawns on them legislation coming before them is just eyewash. The orders will have done the slash and burn on the Second Amendment.
If there is one thing we should have learned by now, it is that the exclamation, "He can't do that!" is a contentless assertion when it comes to this administration. Obama controls the executive, the Senate and effectively the media. As I wrote the day after the election,
What every Republican from Speaker John Boehner down doesn't get is that this election ("close" as it's being called, but it was not close) really shows that the Republican Party does not matter any more. For the next four years, no one will care what Boehner has to say about any issue.There is only one recourse that has a glimmer of hope now - someone will have to file in carefully-selected federal court and get a ruling as quickly as possible with the aim of getting the Supreme Court to rule on the orders before Obama starts appointing new justices. Because once he does that, the lights go out.
Will there be a rebellion?
Update: Jacob Sullum at reason explains in detail the insanity of banning "assault" rifles and expecting the homicide rate to be nudged even a little.
"Of 769 homicides in New York State in 2011," the Times notes, "only five were committed with rifles of any kind."Even if all five of those homicides were committed by "assault" rifles of the kind NY Gov. Cuomo wants to ban there even more stringently than they already are, and even if there was 100 percent compliance, it potentially will reduce homicides there by 0.0065 percent.
But that is quite beside the point because reducing gun violence is not what the Dems are trying to do.