Obama: “I’m working on gun control under the radar”

Jim and Sarah Brady

 

by Jack Minor

 While the Obama administration said it is committed to gun rights, a gun control advocate has spilled the beans, saying Obama is using stealth to work on firearms restrictions.

 The Washington Post did a story on Steve Croley, the White House gun control czar. Croley is considered to be an expert on regulation and tort law. His approach to gun control appears to be a regulatory one.

 According to the article, Jim and Sarah Brady visited Capital Hill on March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan; to push for a ban on “large magazines.”

 The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and “fill us in that it was very much on his agenda.”

 She went on to say Obama told her, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

 The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.

 The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House’s options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. “Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “

 Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Association of Gun rights and Colorado’s Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, says he is not surprised to hear the President is trying to unilaterally enact gun control regulations. “It’s clear that President Obama and Sarah Brady have been using the ATF to enact what they can’t get through Congress: a ban on the importation of self defense shotguns, new reporting requirements for multiple rifle sales, and the attempt to smuggle firearms across the border to Mexican gang members are just a few examples.”  

Dudley Brown


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback  •  Posted by Jack Minor in Evans Gazette category

 
  • Rich says:

    What a suprise from the most open addmistration ever?

  • Phil says:

    So is it “Steve Croley or Crowley”?

  • Flyer says:

    So, if I read this correctly, the Obama checklist for getting laws passed is:

    1. Explore ways to bypass Congress
    2. Go through a few processes, but under the radar
    3. Assign someone you trust implicitly to empty the shredder, so nobody finds out that the constitution is among the contents
    4. Just make up whatever law you want cause theres nobody above you that can do anything about it.
    5. Hire a realtor, cause you are about to be in the market for a new home.

  • The Magic M says:

    Flyer, you forgot one:

    6. Tell some random outside people about your secret “under the radar” plans to make 100% sure your super-secret plans will be revealed in propaganda papers such as the Greely Gazette by dishonest propaganda writers such as Jack Minor.

  • Bam says:

    Obama’s goal is to ban and confiscate as many guns as possible. He wants to go the way of Great Britain. The difference is U.S. gun owners will not turn in their guns. Obama would be opening Pandora’s Box, having a rebellion like never before.

  • DanS says:

    Dudley BROWN is head of RMGO. Dudley Moore is an actor.

    For a supposedly former Constitutional instructor, Obama has no concept of what
    the Bill of Rights actually mean.

    Flyer, Obama has a home in Chicago, and campaign donors are illegally making the payments
    on it. Here’s hoping he returns home soon.

  • Marty Mart says:

    Is there anyone left in America with the ability to find his way home at night who doesn’t see through this liberal lying socialist/communist freedom hating disaster, other than Lawrence O’Donnel and Chris Mathews?

  • The Magic M says:

    Geez, do you guys even *read* the articles linked in this opinion piece or do you just like others doing the thinking for you?

  • Obummer says:

    Impeach the crook.

  • Molan Labe says:

    They’ve already pulled “Pandora’s” box from the shelf, it’s sitting on the table in front of them. They are waiting to see which one of them draws the short straw before all hell breaks loose. Molan Labe.

  • TMLutas says:

    I don’t know why you second amendment types are so shocked. Obama’s infringing on the rest of the Constitution, so what made you think you might be immune.

    The problem with Obama’s initiatives is much wider than guns.

  • cjperretta says:

    1. This is exactly the same strategy as using the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions because congress did not act to the administration’s satisfaction.

    2. It’s Capitol Hill, not Capital Hill

  • constitution first says:

    How many times will the Radical Community Organizer & George Soros sock-puppet Barrack Hussein Øbama be allowed to “bypass Congress” before we impeach him? Are we The Sheeple going to wait until we are disarmed and drugged before we do something, anything? This is madness. This is unconstitutional.

  • B says:

    Magic: that dishonest propaganda seems to be coming from the gun-nuts and Obama haters at Washington Post and HuffPo as well. Thanks for playing!

  • sarah says:

    MagicM says, “Tell some random outside people about your secret “under the radar” plans to make 100% sure your super-secret plans will be revealed in propaganda papers such as the Greely Gazette by dishonest propaganda writers such as Jack Minor.”

    Please explain how an actual quote from Sarah Brady makes your comment anything other than incredibly lame?
    1. Explain how Sarah Brady is “random”/ Do you even know who she is?
    2. How is a quote from Sarah Brady after a visit with Obama “dishonest propaganda”? Are you saying Jack Minor made it up?

    Your quip shows you to be uniformed and lazy. Go smoke some more of that Magic M stuff, get back on your carpet ride and stop interrupting the adult conversation with your paranoid outbursts.

  • Joe says:

    Let us all remember ( or learn for the first time) that Executive Orders are lawful instructions the President gives to the Executive Branch to carry out existing law. They can create no new law or operate beyond the delegated power of the President or beyond the constitutional laws passed by Congress.

    The Executive cannot enact rules or regulations on its own, these must be backed by statutes that have been passed by Congress and are constitutional.

  • alanstorm says:

    Magic M, answer your own question – do you read the linked articles? The title of the HuffPo piece is “Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Control” and the article describes, well, that Obama is looking for ways around congress on gun control.

    Do you have a point, or simply can’t control yourself?

  • Zander_SIG says:

    Hey OBAMA, read this – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    As ratified by the States:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

  • E Tan E Epi Tas says:

    “Gun Control Czar”? I wasn’t a fan of these ‘czars and czarinas’ when they first came out with them WAY back in previous administrations!! Sounds a bit to Stalinist to me. Here we go with the next dramatic chapter of this failed administration. What happened to his ‘open administration’ with full disclosure? I think everyone with their head on straight saw that one for what it was. Waiting for 2012 and praying for a decent opponent in the race that has as yet reared their ugly head!!!

  • The Badger says:

    “WASHINGTON — Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.”

    Umm, yes Magic M, I read the articles…in case you missed it, that’s a direct quote from the Huffington Post that was cited (but of course, to liberals the Huffington Post is just an arm of the Republican Party because it trends just to the right of The Daily Kos)

    “On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.”

    Again, Magic M, a direct quote from the Washington Post article. Looks like you were TOO LAZY TO FLIP TO PAGE 3 OF THE ARTICLE, where the blog post quotes it almost word for word. But then I expect laziness from liberals, a quality they seem to possess in abundance.

  • Bud says:

    “Transparent Goverment”…Yeah right….

  • Cormac says:

    @TMLutas:

    What you’re detecting isn’t surprise so much as a lament…we feel as though we’ve seen things like this coming, but many of use were hoping it would just pan out as so much paranoia (you know, the kind we’re always accused of).

    I have been trying to avoid pessimism for the better part of the last 3 or 4 years (since I woke up and smelled the congnitive disconnect), but recent events have pretty-well cemented a negative attitude that I’m not even sure I want to give up on.

    At this point, it’s becoming nausiatingly obvious that caution and anger are more appropriate than faith, hope and optimism…at least where our rights are concerned.

  • DirtCrashr says:

    Capital now runs Capitol Hill (and Government Motors, and Government Electric, and Government Sachs), it’s a Chicago thing. Now they want to be the only owners of Government Guns.

  • Paul says:

    We’ve had two wars amongst us. Each time a better country. I hope for the third. ( Yeah, I know, but what do we live for, a new Hyundai and a larger flat screen every year? Our children are already sold into a new type of serfdom via fedgov debt. Enough. Let’s get it on. Let’s not get on the train willingly.

  • JS says:

    Interesting that Brady is worried about magazines.
    Seeing as how he was shot with a revolver.

  • Sorry, Joe, but as an infamous Clintonista once said “Stroke of the pen, law of the land…pretty cool, huh” An EO is law. It is literally a decree from on high designed with the express purpose of bypassing a slow approval process in times of crisis…and of course abused since then by corrupt politicians. There is no established method to end, reverse or repeal an EO, nor even a specific method of fighting it in court. None of that means an EO would stand(though all but one have), but you better bring lots of lawyers and money…

  • SDN says:

    People need to realize that impeachment is off the table as long as 1/3 + 1 in the Senate won’t confirm it. That precedent goes all the way back to Lincoln in the first Civil War.

  • bobby b says:

    “For a supposedly former Constitutional instructor, Obama has no concept of what
    the Bill of Rights actually mean.”

    There was a period of time during which law schools and law firms were just frantic to get some blacks into the pipeline. It had been widely announced that the integration numbers were dismal for the profession that made such a big deal out of protecting our rights, and much heat was being taken for it.

    This took on the feel of college football recruiting season, with viable candidates being escorted through the firms and the schools looking like visiting royalty. They were wined and dined for weeks at a time, and were given offers of full scholarships at the schools and “special” deals at the firms. Lots of huge legal consumers were making it known that they’d not be doing business with firms crass enough to have no black lawyers whatsoever, and so the elite firms, plus everyone else, fell all over themselves trying to get some number on the board so they could keep existing business.

    Once hired by the firms, these Chosen Ones did very little actual lawyer work. Instead, they were given to the recruiting departments so they could help bring in more blacks. Once admitted to the schools, it got kind of tricky; there was a reason that blacks were underrepresented at law schools, and it had nothing to do directly with skin color – a very high proportion of them were just totally unprepared for the course of study. So, some schools let them flunk out, and others found ways to get them through.

    Obama reminds me of some of those guys. When they say he “taught Con Law”, I get an image of him taking attendance each day for the full prof who was actually teaching the class.

    It’s obvious he despises the Constitution. It preserves all sorts of individual rights and powers, and his version of heaven lies in a much different direction. He would not do well teaching anyone about Con Law.

  • MadeAnOutlawByExecutiveOrder says:

    I suspect the first round of federal officers who come knocking on doors demanding peoples firearms will only succeed in collecting the bullets. They’ll need to send in a second wave to get the actual guns.

  • Majestinius says:

    Hi, I’m a poly sci student and I have a report due on 2nd ammendment rights. What are acceptable restrictions to it, are there acceptable restrictions? I want to use this as a sort of poll to gauge what people would typically like to see happen. Thanks so much for your help

  • Rick says:

    Corrupt politicians really do not matter to me. Values and principles stand far above their detatched method of governing. A corrupt, unchecked government is nothing more than a dictatorship. This is what we have today in the U.S.A. We all need to start thinking about revolution and nothing less… I good time. If they start it, we are going to finish it. We are already organizing. FREEDOM WILL PREVAIL. Then there is Jesus to back us up if we fail. The government doesn’t have a chance. When we rewrite the new constitution there needs to be advanced checks & balances far beyond the feeble Bill of Rights. Do not be afraid of some break-up or ‘regionalization’ of the U.S.A. as we know it. All of our ways and opinions will not match up. Only one common goal need remain… TOTAL FREEDOM from corrupt government! There it is people.

  • Wiskey Tango Foxtrot says:

    Sorry “The Magic M”… your point is lost on the majority of those who read these posts. Apparently most are too anxious to refute a point you were not making to take the time to understand the point you were making… typical… and sad.

  • bill says:

    This is a lie to get people angry with the administration. YOu may not like Obama (which is fine) But there isnt one single thing that Obama has done to restrict guns/increase gun control. In fact, he signed a bill to allow guns in national parks AND he and the democrats allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. But we can pretend there is a conspiracy to disarm America because it fits the narrative, although the legislation presented clearly does not support that theory……….

  • Muzzle Flash says:

    Ha! Like this is a surprise? No one is stoopid enough to think that Americans would turn in their guns, especially now. After two and a half years of blatant economic destruction, the biggest wealth distribution scheme ever devised (bailouts, etc), blatant preferential treatment of unions, multiple instances of total incompetence and various schemes to impress the world at the expense of Americans, We The People are quite suspicious.

    They’ve been trying to get Americans’ guns for years.A detectable slight of the legislative hand could trigger an “all hell breaks loose” event. Think “Obamacare reaction times 10,000″.

    Propaganda piece or not, this is why it flies so well. Americans are protective of their rights because they’ve seen the rest of the world stripped of theirs and raped at will by their crooked governments. Nothing rapes and pillages like an unrestrained government. Its is the nature of government to pull the teeth of those who threaten it with limits. The American people are bearing their teeth. Its a warning: Come nearer and you’ll bleed.

  • So what is it you imagine his point was, then? That such info would not be leaked? Because the article is clearly on topic with what is claimed to be Obumble’s intent. We did in fact read the articles…and listen to what The One said before he was elected…and read what he said while stinking up Illinois… With that in mind, if you think Partisan B doesn’t go and brag to Fellow Travelers when their wishes are entertained by Partisan A you need to go look through a little political history. All of these people are basically stupid and regularly show their hands. So if not one of those then feel free to “enlighten” the class…

  • D Rhodes says:

    Why are some of you so eager to believe such BS? And so unwilling to learn who’s behind the BS?

  • richard says:

    Look aso further than what these rats have done down in AZ. Gunning down a man, protecting his home from intruders because somehow they can devote that much firepower toward homes which are merely suspected of being part of a chain. Then, of course,none of the homes so invaded were found to be in any part illegal. A judge harpy in Indiana just concluded Americans have no right to resist such lethal entries. Both places are democrat strongholds. The sheriff in AZ is Clarance Dupnik. A judge must have signed off on these fruitless search warrants. Who do you think that judge owes their appointment? Just asking. Do you suppose they’ll want to twist the issue into a gun control issue? And just why is it that Brady, among millions of Americans is held up in such regard? Why is Brady, and no other voices, made the icon of so called truth?

  • dan says:

    the real definition of the 2 nd coming to a neiborhood near you…all dictators go down in flames

  • Greg says:

    Let’s see. The FBI crime stats came out yesterday. Violent crime is down 5 1/2 percent except in the Northeast were it’s up 4%. Northeast states are powerhouses of gun control. Maryland is not grouped with them in order to keep it from blowing up.

    40 states have CCW permit systems and crime is down in those states. No wonder Obama has to push this behind closed doors. Only the most die hard gun grabbers who refuse to even look at the data would support it.

  • D. Mockercy says:

    You think this administration might find a way to create jobs instead of using all their creativity to shred the constitution.

  • Libercontrarian says:

    You guys are missing the obvious outcome of this scenario – an executive order which results in…

    Nothing.

    Obama will try to EO firearms out of business, but in true weak-kneed Leftist fashion, he won’t actually attempt to confiscate firearms, because that would result in adversity… and we know that every liberal tries to avoid adversity wherever it rears its ugly head.

    So it will be illegal to do all sorts of things with your firearms, like transfer them to others, to buy new ones, to transport them in a vehicle, etc. Nobody will obey the laws. Nobody will get punished under the laws until they’re getting hosed for being late on their taxes, etc. It will be all about making everything illegal and deciding WHEN to punish people based on secret motives, and at the mercy of whomever the local arbiter of federal power is. Various organizations and people will sue the government, who will magically find against the challenges, and when states threaten to ignore the new federal statutes, they’ll be threatened with having their funding pulled.

    Welcome to your future, America.

  • Deborah Leigh says:

    Obama seems bent on riots in the street. The folks that turn out will not care one wit about his executive order.

    The Bradys don’t seem to understand that all it takes is one well placed round. Jim was lucky. Smaller magazines won’t stop attacks. The bad guy will just bring more guns. You can’ t legislate good behavior, but folks like the Bradys and Obama are bent on trying.

  • Ron W says:

    Only your enemy wants you disarmed!

  • John K. says:

    “Sorry “The Magic M”… your point is lost on the majority of those who read these posts. Apparently most are too anxious to refute a point you were not making to take the time to understand the point you were making… typical… and sad”.

    Which is what exactly, Sherlock?

    Another gem among several:

    “This is a lie to get people angry with the administration. YOu may not like Obama (which is fine) But there isnt one single thing that Obama has done to restrict guns/increase gun control. In fact, he signed a bill to allow guns in national parks AND he and the democrats allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. But we can pretend there is a conspiracy to disarm America because it fits the narrative, although the legislation presented clearly does not support that theory……….”

    BS. Best go read the Constitution- national “parks” are NOT Federal lands- they belong to the States.
    Oreo-man gave up nothing signing the bill, it was attached as a rider to one (credit card bit) he wanted.
    I hate to break this to you, but the so called “assault waepons ban” expired in 2004, under Bush 2- care to try again?
    And by the by, the O-man DID sign an E.O./ restricting imports of U.S. made surplus M-1 Garands and Carbines, did he not? I’ll wait while you answer that.
    As to the “Magic M”- the number 13; code for druggies for the marijuana plant, no???

    Grins,

    John K

  • A. Benway says:

    The Law is whatever the judge (or now-days a cop) says it is. Whether or not an Nth EO is law is undetermined. That said, many people might say that the quest for political power implies an unwillingness to share power, and that this suggests that the executive branch and the regime in particular as well as the interests they serve might be loath to see guns in the hands of people who are not properly servile and obedient.

  • scott says:

    Did any of you actually *read* the Washington Post article? It doesn’t say any of what was attributed to it. No mention of this “under the radar” crap etc.

    But don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.

    —–

    From this post:

    According to the article, Jim and Sarah Brady visited Capital Hill on March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan; to push for a ban on “large magazines.”

    The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and “fill us in that it was very much on his agenda.”

    She went on to say Obama told her, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

  • @ Scott

    Try reading the WAPO article again, this time reading the whole article. It is right there at the bottom of page three at the end of the article.

  • Dave says:

    I don’t care what any president wants.
    I don’t care what congress votes for.
    I don’t care what any judge says.
    I don’t care what the supremes vote on.
    I don’t care if we end up in some global government whose tyrannical leader invokes the death penalty for gun ownership.
    I shall NEVER relinquish the tools that I need to avoid living under tyranny or becoming a victim of genocide by any government.

  • Vic says:

    This article gives new meaning for what’s happening right now with Eric Holder and Obama. Those documents better be forced to be submitted. Appears to me that Holder and Obama both had a hand in F & F and should be imprisoned.

  • Military Veteran says:

    What Obama said last year about under the radar is the smoking gun. This article is the proof!!

Please leave a reply...



You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>